Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101

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

BAD BOY 01999

BAD BOY 01999 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploaded a photo that seems a selfie with no META that I propose for deletion. It is a reupload from previously deleted photos. The user name suggest a vandal and the use of the photo is for a user's page proposed for deletion in the Hindi Wiki. So possibly a problematic account. Pierre cb (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pierre cb, I deleted his upload. Kadı Message 12:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. Also globally locked. Taivo (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

SagoShader

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G., Blocked for 3 months. Kadı Message 12:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kadı: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate files imported by DPLA bot

Hello, For the past 5 months, my bot User:OptimusPrimeBot has continuously tagged the most recent duplicated files listed in Special:ListDuplicatedFiles with Template:Duplicate files to help administrators to delete them. I would like to thank all admins who have helped to this huge effort and who wrote me back to help me improve my bot. Yesterday I was quite happy to see that Special:ListDuplicatedFiles listed less than 5000 files for the first time in months (years?) and that my bot successfully tagged all of them in less than three days (the update rate of Special:ListDuplicatedFiles). I hoped this task was over, i.e only a few dozens of files would be be detected every three days, and we could finally reach a situation where Wikimedia Commons would not contain a lot of exact duplicate files. I am quite disappointed to see that in the past three days, User:DPLA bot has uploaded so many duplicate files (at least several thousands) that Special:ListDuplicatedFiles is again capped at 5000 files. Can we please do something about it? I understand that it is difficult for tools authored by benevol users to deal with duplicate files, as Wikimedia Commons does not forbid to upload them, but I find it quite disturbing to see a tool sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation to completely ignore this subject. vip (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I run this bot, and was unfortunately not alerted to the issue until after the problem batch had finished. DPLA but has uploaded over 3 million files to Commons from hundreds of different institutions. It sometimes uploads tens of thousands of files in a few hours. The recent issue was more of a data issue than a bot code issue. One of the project partners renumbered all of their items, resulting in different file names (since the ID is in the page name). I’m definitely aware of the duplicates and working on fixing them. I have also stopped any uploads from this partner and made sure duplicates are not uploaded going forward, so it’s not an active issue. Dominic (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Ok, thank you Dominic! Do you see a way of ensuring the problem does not occur again for another provider? I don't know if DPLA bot has its own database. For this purpose, on my Commons:Spacemedia project I'm right now computing perceptual hashes for all images of Commons. It's a long task, I've only done 20 millions files on a current total of 80 millions. vip (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, MediaWiki API warns, but doesn't disallow, uploading images with exact-match hashes of existing images. The bot was programmed to ignore warnings and proceed, because most API warnings are not a concern (the API normalizing brackets to parentheses in titles, for example). And also, duplicates can sometimes be valid, if they come from different items with their own descriptions. For now, I have turned ignore warnings back off, so duplicates should not get through, and will work on applying some logic that determines when a duplicate is valid or not. In the recent cases, you can tell they were not valid because the original upload was associated with an ID that no longer exists. (You can check the source URL for the original upload and see it is now a 404.) This means the duplicate is the same item, just with a new identifier—which means the new upload actually has the correct metadata and source information. This happens, ultimately, because of poor practices on the part of the source, not treating identifiers as stable. So, aside from making code changes, I am also looking into the best way to clean up what we have now through not just deleting the duplicate, but ensuring the metadata on the image that is left is correct. I ran a database query of all the 3 million DPLA files and checked for duplicate hashes, and found 28,000. I know this is a large number in absolute terms, and I take it seriously, but it's still a rather small rate of error. Dominic (talk)
@Dominic: The bot still uploads duplicates, see File:(Invitation to Lizzie Johnson, dated December 24, 1868) - DPLA - c47a9afba50c997905bd5222b06682c5 (page 1).jpg uploaded on November 7th for example. vip (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This one File:1940 Census Enumeration District Maps - Panama Canal Zone - Cristobal County - Mount Hope - ED 2-14 - DPLA - 1a069ded90f4397d590931db0cc001fe (page 7).jpg has been uploaded on November 9th. vip (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Another question: did you consider to upload books as complete pdf and/or djvu files instead of individual pages? vip (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 Support yep, that would certainly be much more useful (especially for wikisource use) to have "full book" files than hundreds of single page files :) Hsarrazin (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I upload files in the form that they provided. If an institution uses PDFs for their digital images, those are uploaded (and we have uploaded many PDFs, for example). If they choose to digitize book-length works in the form of individual JPGs, than that is how they are uploaded. If I turn every multi-page item into a PDF, there may be non-book false positives. Also, just anecdotally, I do get a number of comments about the book uploads—but about equal numbers requesting JPGs be converted to PDF as PDFs be converted to JPG. For users that want to use images found in a book in a Wikipedia article, a JPG is much more useful, as others have expressed elsewhere, so I am reluctant to just upload all as PDFs. Dominic (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Technically, it is much easier to extract images from a PDF than to create PDF files from images, specially for big books (300 pages or more). I created and uploaded several hundreds books of over 500 pages, so I know. For non technically savvy people, PDF files is more convient IMO. Yann (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

‎User:David C. S. 4

Since he provided new references for some changes, namely the colors of Colombia and Bolivia, I believe this could be a common ground and agreed with keeping them. However, he has also proceeded to modify Algeria ([1]) and Spain ([2]), changes that have been repeatedly been disputed in the past and led to his block (at least 9 and 6 times, respectively). This seems to suggests that he wishes to impose not only some, but all of his proposed changes, regardless of other editors opinions.
I reached to him once again and explained the situation in the file's talk page, and frankly I believe that his response is concerning, the first since the dispute started, so I will provide a translation here:
"You already have your own version of the file", file which you have tried to censor and you remove it from everywhere, because it is not to your liking... you can't be more shameless. Denounce me all you want, you have already done it a thousand times, it is part of your strategy to block any change to the status quo, which you have imposed on the file and the whole subject in general. If the topic were really judged fairly, you would undoubtedly be stripped of the monopoly you have imposed on the topic on the entire Wikimedia community.
After this, I would like to report not only the edit warring in the file, but the personal attack by calling me "shameless". Pinging @Taivo: , the last administrator that attended the issue. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
¿Hasta se vale elegir al juez para la denuncia...? increíble el cinismo. ¡Viva el lawfare! -- David C. S. 02:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. 3 months block for intimidation (3rd block). Here is no choosing administrator, because I look the requests every day. (Almost.) Taivo (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Kwamikagami

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I had completed the deletion request, per the instructions given by the template, and someone even responded to it. If that's not good enough for you, you can touch it up. Or you can change the template to give the instructions that you think should be followed. The alternative is to not request deletion and thus to litter Commons with useless redirects. Which would you prefer? And making threats against someone because they didn't do what you consider a perfect job is indeed being an asshole. If you want to work in a cooperative environment like Commons, you should attempt to be cooperative. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Which part of "No reason given. PLEASE give a reason, or this item will end up in Category:Incomplete deletion requests." resulting from this edit of yours did you not understand? I am trying to keep Category:Incomplete deletion requests and subcategories clean, and you keep making messes there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I sympathize with you cleaning things up, and apologize for my overreaction, but I really don't appreciate the threats.
I've followed those instructions before, only to be condemned because I'm not supposed to follow them, so I've taken to ignoring them. I wasn't surprised by that, because I long ago learned to expect Commons to be irrational (which is why for years I would only upload files to WP, with a 'keep local' tag), but really, I have no idea how I'm supposed to know when to follow instructions that aren't there, and when to not follow instructions that are there. If all I need to do is follow those instructions, and not receive threats for doing so, then in the future I will attempt to follow them. I think it's only here on Commons that I have problems like this. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Is something preventing you from using the automatic Nominate for deletion tool in the Tools menu on the sidebar per COM:DR#Starting requests, or manually following the instructions in the template, including the "Click here to show further instructions" portion (or Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually policy)?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor on WP-nl just told me about the tool option.[3] I didn't realize it was there. ("Unfortunately, with the new interface, that option is no longer easy to find." -- Not so much not easy to find as easy to overlook if you don't know it's there.) I did a test click just now, and that should make things much easier! I added a note to my user page to remind myself it's there, since I don't do this very often. As for the manual instructions, last time I pasted in the html from that I was told off, so I gave up on it. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 day by the reason of 2nd edit summary which provided by @Jeff G.. Kadı Message 07:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kadı: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Anogenyogan68 and Anogenyogan09

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Anogenyoganathan912, Anogenyoganathan09 and Anogenyogan5 were globally locked, so I block all others for abusing multiple accounts. Yann (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:TheVexillologistofKingwood and User:Frank Zigler

These two users seem to be the same person based on this post. Both accounts have been primarily uploading US municipal flag and municipal seal files. The accounts overlap a bit timewise and have edited some of the same files. Concerns were raised about some of TheVexillologistofKingwood's uploads at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/09#Municipal flags and attempts were made to try and sort things out at User talk:TheVexillologistofKingwood, with the last response given being this. A little over a week later, the "Frank Zigler" account was created and the uploading of files resumed. Ten days later, "TheVexillologistofKingwood" returned to upload some more files and post at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Ravenswood, West Virginia.svg. Even though this appears to be a good-faith attempt at sort of a en:WP:Clean Start, there are still issues with this user's uploads (e.g. File:Flag of Huntington, Massachusetts.svg, File:Flag of Wolf Point, Montana.svg, File:Flag of Smithers, West Virginia.svg and File:Flag of Oxford, Kansas.svg) that probably need to be looked at. Perhaps it would be wise for this user to slow down bit until any issues with previously uploaded files can be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Shopaaotautoaales

User:Shopaaotautoaales — Username indicates a promotional account. 101.128.126.230 10:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. Uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Users いろは解説 and まちこの冒険

まちこの冒険 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
いろは解説 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  are uploading photoshopped promotional photos and logos from unknown source while claiming it is their own. The images are related to a Japanese businesswomen (Ayaka Tanaka) and the brand of perfume she promotes. I warned the 2 users and flagged the images but an administrator should review the case. Pierre cb (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: I notified the users of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

User:TWGThewikiguy

TWGThewikiguy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This user has contributed copyvios to Commons over a long period of time and despite having multiple images deleted as well as being asked to not upload random images they have found online, they have once again uploaded images copied from a Norwegian online newspaper. TommyG (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Last warning sent, no more action needed now. Yann (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

promotional sock-zoo blocked

Just for the record: I've indef-blocked Led mirror (talk · contribs) and their 5, so far identified, socks Led mirror 12 (talk · contribs), Led Mirror 13 (talk · contribs), Led mirror 14 (talk · contribs), Led mirror 15 (talk · contribs) and Glamo led mirror (talk · contribs), as they advertised furniture-products from ledmirror.in, though with low intensity (2-3 uploads per account).--Túrelio (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

User Рагин1987 edit warring on Ukraine War Map

Diffs: [4], [5]. Viewsridge (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Viewsridge: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
They made a single revert, supplying a source when they were asked to do so. The opposing side, which includes you, reverted twice. You provided no reason for the second revert. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Info This Ukrainian attack unfortunately failed. Therefore it really was overhasty to mark this peninsula as freed. -- Chaddy (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Monteaguilino1 again

Hello there. I want to ask you to block users Clipton1, 181.162.23.114, 190.5.50.161, 186.11.72.213, El huaso más ladino del sur de Chile, and Tulico as obvious DUCK socks of user Monteaguilino1, recently blocked indefinitely for harassing and uploading copyvios. Bedivere (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bedivere: I created and populated Category:Sockpuppets of Monteaguilino1 for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Good work, thanks Jeff. Bedivere (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Bedivere: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I blocked El huaso más ladino del sur de Chile and Tulico indefinitely as sockpuppets, but IP-s had too few edits and too long time ago for block. One of the IP-s had even no edits at all (neither living nor dead). Taivo (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo and @Bedivere: Please see this edit.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing them unblocked, however not immediately. I think they genuinely want to contribute positively although definitely their mistakes need some sanctioning too. Bedivere (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I unblocked the user. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

User Fraanky22

Fraanky22 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploaded meaningless self promotional PDF. To be monitored by an administrator. Pierre cb (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Italyoz484, massive revert needed

This kind of editing is problematic and maps should not be used for sensitive subjects, and similar behavior can be seen for maps of Russia/Ukraine, Pinging @Italyoz484: to let him know of this. --77.243.19.244 18:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Reverted, user warned. We probably need alternative versions without the Kosovo for each of these, but years old maps shouldn't be overwritten. This user should be blocked if this happens again. Yann (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Well user actually reverted Jan and restored his maps again. It looks like it's blocking time. @Yann: , @Jeff G.: Please decide what should be done and please correct old maps. Everyone is free to upload new ones with different name. --80.187.102.102 16:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

NistelrooySMG

Hi there. Please block users VL787 and Ba7dh as DUCK socks of indeffed sockmaster NistelrooySMG. Their uploads will need reviewing as they have a history of uploading incorrectly tagged, copyrighted images. Bedivere (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Have reviewed these users' uploads. However, they still need to be blocked. Bedivere (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

DR closure review

Hello everybody, I nominated a file for deletion saying there was no clue showing the file was in US PD. The nomination was closed as keep by IronGargoyle, who kindly responded to my queries on their talk page. Honestly, I don't find the explanation provided by IronGargoyle to be sufficient for keeping the file. Just meant to have more insights from other admins to see if the file should be kept or no. Best. --Mhhossein talk 04:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a strange venue to discuss this unless you really think my conduct rises to the level of user problems. I explained my reasons for closing a months-old DR as keep and I said that I was not reopening it. That does not prevent you from renominating the file yourself. Now that we are here though, I suppose other people can chime in. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
No wrong impression should be conveyed, your conduct was totally perfect as I highlighted by mentioning you kindly responded to me. This venue can be used for the administrators to communicate with one another. --Mhhossein talk 10:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 Not done. Considering discussion, especially LM's comments, IronGargoyle clearly closed the DR correctly. Taivo (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Nicolay Sidorov

I have seen this diff in the morning, reverted, warned the user, and the response was this. I am unsure how to proceed. For the context, what the user calls "Russian territories" are Ukrainian territories. I would block indef, but I will welcome more opinions. Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, the receiving side is not much better [6] [7], so I am not going to do anything. I guess Commons would be better without them, but this is somebody else's call.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Cameros97

A user received but ignored some copyright violation warnings and uploaded four videos claiming "own works" that contain copyrighted ones that are non-free.

Files affected:

During this action, please warn or block a user and tag them all to be deleted immediately.

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 06:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC); edited: 07:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User ママとパパと帰る

ママとパパと帰る (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : This seems a sockpuppet of Users いろは解説 and まちこの冒険 mentionned above and doing more promotional uploads for Japanese businesswomen Ayaka Tanaka. Pierre cb (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pierre cb I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I deleted the only upload as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Mass file change

When some years ago I changed SVG files, making them W3C-valid and reducing the file size to a few percent or permille, I had been told that this is unwelcome: files displaying correctly need no to be reuploaded for that reasons.

Now I see that a user is treating many hundreds oF SVG files for a "slimming down" reason - not making them valid or giving them a better code, just (as I assume) for playing with the tool SVGomg, making file size smaller. Because never he updates the file description after uploading a new version, file descriptions may become erroneous. His action makes not anything really better, he does not contribute any own development, it is just tool-driven increase of his upload count.

Is this action o.k., or should it be stopped ? -- sarang♥사랑 11:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sarang: Links please. Yann (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Sarang: Who is he?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I just asked; but it depends him ​​ -- sarang♥사랑 12:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Now I see​​ that it Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_90#Massive_edits had been discussed earlier -- sarang♥사랑 13:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Useless massuploads of pure SVG-source-code edits, to increase the edit-count, is a repeating problem amoung different users. Most users use command-line based svg-optimizers, such as svgo (=SVGOmg), scour, svgcleaner. Such uploads can be done by e.g.User:SVGWorkaroundBot, with generally a smaller bug-rate than most users, however there will always be some error-rate left, why I won't run the bot on mass without special purpose. Additionally every re-upload (i) needs diskspace, (ii) tickles watchlist, (iii) needs rendering-time, and should be avoided (when there are not good reasons).
Help:SVG_guidelines#SVG_sourcecode_edits_without_visual_change tries to address this issue.
current example Special:ListFiles/Smasongarrison shows many svg-file-reductions, however some files (e.g. 1,2,3) are broken due to the reupload. (Thx to User:Glrx, for the broken examples)
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 13:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
PS: User:SVGWorkaroundBot has a much higher rate reparing a wrong rendered svg, than introducing a new bug into an svg-file. All users I know introduce bugs to some extend, but not reparing any of the existing ones.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 13:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
PPS: Smasongarrison just agreed on abiding by Help:SVG_guidelines, therefore the given example is concluded, we still can discuss the problem more in generall.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 14:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Non-consensus renaming User:Albedo

Пропоную накласти персональні обмеження на перейменування категорій для користувача. Він перейменовує категорії усупереч правилам Вікісховища, транслітерації з української на англійську та консенсусу спільноти.

I propose to impose personal restrictions on renaming categories for the user. It renames the categories contrary to the rules of the Commons, transliteration from Ukrainian to English and consensus of the community. Example bad remove: Category:Volodymyr Andriïshyn, Category:Vasyl Kremeń, Category:Oleg Shupliak and other. Микола Василечко (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Микола Василечко: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Jeff G. Please reverted remove categories Category:Shumsk Hromada, Category:Monastyryska Hromada, ‎Category:Zbarazh Hromada, Category:Ternopil Hromada, Category:Terebovlia Hromada. --Микола Василечко (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
@Микола Василечко: Sorry, given your speedy deletion requests, it is now beyond my power to reverse those page renames, a Commons Admin needs to do that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

See also user talk discussion 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. --Микола Василечко (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

User Johnkall

Johnkall (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded a photo (File:Καλλιανος.jpg) that is similarly named in Greek to one that was deleted for copyvio (File:Kallianos.jpg) in October. I demanded the deletion of this new photo and warned the user. Maybe an administrator can have a look as it seems a self-promotion from https://business.facebook.com/meteo.kallianos/photos/a.258176641000861/1327158550769326/?type=3&theater. Pierre cb (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not the same photo (different tie and angle). Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Brotherhood YT

Bitte das Bild löschen und den Benutzer sperren. Sorry for german --Itti (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Brotherhood YT (talk · contribs) blocked due to upload of an image-threat against :de-user (use: [8]). --Túrelio (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Asianchamp2

Asianchamp2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Mass copyvio upload (more than 80 files), e.g., File:Bimal2.webp - [9]; File:Nagpur Metro.png - [10]; File:BadaruddozaKhan CPIM.jpg - [11]; File:MTC Bus Shillong.jpg - [12]; File:SNT bus 2020 India.jpg - [13]; File:NepaldevBhattacharya CPIM.jpg - [14] and so on. Xunks (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Xunks: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. Why didn't you final warn them?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ulamm

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  • I beg your pardon that I did not understand that the proceeding is so complicated.
  • Most of my deletion requests were for misspelled categories. Therefore, they were not controversial.
  • I always mentioned the correctly named category used instead. This way you and everybody could/can see that my requests were/are no vandalism.
  • Creating a systematic of categories for architectural properties is a lot of work. As almost all churches should be categorized by these architectural properties, in a way that makes the geography of architecture understandable, these categories have to be by provinces and similar kinds of geographic units.
  • I beg your pardon that under this work, some typographical mistakes occurred.--Ulamm (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Ulamm: Thank you for finally responding to these concerns.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The user has gone on to renominate and retransclude in duplicate.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  • That was an attempt to fulfill your wishes.
  • If you show me, how to ask for a deletion in the correct way, I shall do so.--Ulamm (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Ulamm: I mentioned "the automatic Nominate for deletion or Nominate category for discussion tool in the Tools menu on the sidebar per COM:DR#Starting requests and COM:CFD#Starting requests" in this edit. What you just did at 18:40 and 18:41 UTC missed the use of {{Delete2}} in creation of or addition to Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Single nave churches in France.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    In this case and several other cases, I have explained my request, though using simply {{delete|((reason of the request and mention of the correct category)).--~~~~}}
    Now I am going to follow your hints.
    I don't look at your former edit before finishing this current post.--Ulamm (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    Nominating redundant files for deletion is a different thing.
    The essential deletion of a category requires a discussion. Once I (a category created by myself) was the victim of an essential deletion without discussion.
    Deleting a misspelled category after having moved all content to ist correctly spelled but equally defined counterpart, doesn't require a discussion, I think.--Ulamm (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Ulamm: Deleting a misspelled category after having moved all content to it's correctly spelled counterpart, does require a discussion per COM:CATRED, unless you created the misspelled category originally and less than 7 days have passed such that you may use {{G7}} per COM:CSD#G7.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    • In most (subjectively all) cases I noticed the misspellings at once.
    • "Single nave churches in France" is really different, I have to admit. But I had created that category myself, before I had learned hat the correct English term is "aisleless churches" (*). And two of those three buildings better were discribed as "pilaster churches".
    I should have created a redirect from "single nave churches" to "aisleless churches".
    And after I had found "pilaster churches", which had been applied as a category only locally in Provence (Now I have created such categories for other regions of France and for Spain), I should have recategorized individually, which I am continuing.--Ulamm (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
(*) "Aisleless churches" is the correct term, as used in manuals. But all WM Commons had no "Aisleless churches"-categories, before I began to create them.--Ulamm (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Elfath1421

Elfath1421 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads lot of derivatives and copyvios, after several warnings they removed more than 80 problem tags and tried to blank DRs: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] and so on. Xunks (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Laban2020

User is actively uploading copyvios pulled from the internet. Would tag files for deletion but there are too many to do so and the user is still uploading more as we speak. Please delete and warn/block the user. funplussmart (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Saurabh shukla335

User:Saurabh shukla335 (talk · contribs)

Only here for self-promotion. All files uploaded by this user are self-promotional and out of scope. One file posted by this user was reuploaded after being deleted, and is currently up for deletion again. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Marium Alberto

Just returning from a six-month-block, Marium Alberto (talk · contribs) is back at it, uploading copyright violations and disregarding principles such as de minimis. They've obviously learnt nothing. Bedivere (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bedivere: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Dear Marium Alberto,
Uploaded photo was given by myself to the press for publishing. Since its made live by them, I didnt mention copyright of mine. But logically you are right and photo should be deleted. But your statement too is very harsh. My intention here is just contributing to the community, nothing else. WP.Raj Sharma (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@WP.Raj Sharma: Marium Alberto did not write here yet.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Apology. WP.Raj Sharma (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
(internet translation)
@Jeff G. Hello. In general, when I have made a crop, and I have uploaded it manually and not with CropTool, I have made sure to upload it with all the information given in the original file. So I don't see that much of a problem in the case. Rather I have tried to contribute new files from Flickr or other existing files.
I also see harassment by the user who has mentioned me, and that is not pleasant, since it only passes behind me, and the slightest mistake made can cause any action (like the one at this moment). Marium Alberto (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Marium Alberto: Thank you for that information. Please use CropTool for cropping if you can; otherwise, please consider using {{Extracted from}} and {{Image extracted}} or dFX to preserve source links. In all cases, you must provide evidence of the provenance of each file you upload, or you open yourself, the WMF, and reusers to copyright infringement lawsuits.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Marium Alberto You don't want or like to get reported? Then act appropriately complying all policies. Also, it wasn't just me who has reported your copyright violations (see talk page). It is obvious that you are not here to contribute and continue to act disregarding advice and policies. Bedivere (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Having just slogged through Commons:Deletion requests/Files Marium Alberto, I have come to the conclusion that the reportee is incapable of producing sufficient evidence to pass a file review, and should not be allowed to upload any more files. He also added "to solve" as the reason for that DR, for instance in this edit, and neglected to notify the speedy tagger or transclude the subpage.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. They should be blocked indefinitely. It's crazy that in just a little over ten days, just finishing their six-month-block, they could manage to make so much trouble. It is a waste of time to go check and review their uploads, as I have just done. Bedivere (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G. (internet translation) For the reasons already stated by you, ignoring the situation, the application files are deleted. But I also don't see why it should not be allowed to upload files. Not all of them are mine, I just do file clippings (which may have author issues). I know it's an obvious excuse, but it can lead to problems. I also apologize to the other user (Bedivere), he did not know that he had to add it to his UT. Marium Alberto (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Marium Alberto I think it's worse when you just to get out of trouble by just saying "it's not my files." I think the expectation is higher when you are taking someone else's work and possibly violating their copyright. If you do not know enough information to upload it, do not upload it. You either do not know or do not care to provide enough information so that it is clear whether the uploads are appropriate. Edits like this just add confusion to everyone and create more work. It's not a complicated question. Either you took that picture or you didn't. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose block. Marium Alberto walks on thin ice. He has been thrice blocked, at last for 6 months, so the next block will be at least for a year. But he started to review own uploads and nominated 4 of them for deletion, so in my opinion he understands now main problem with his uploads: even Commons files can be copyrighted and must be deleted from Commons. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
They only started that DR because they refused to accept their continued behavior of uploading copyvios is wrong. The DR is completely pointless and these pictures should have been speedied regardless. Bedivere (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. After discussion, I blocked Marium Alberto for a year (fourth block). Next time indefinite. Taivo (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

7BIGDREAM

7BIGDREAM (talk · contribs)

Persistently uploading copyright violation image. — Paper9oll 00:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and deleted last remaining uploads. Taivo (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Green Justin

Green Justin (talk · contribs): Persistently uploading movie posters that violate copyright. Fehufanga (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Italyoz484

Lately, User:Italyoz484 on Commons has been very persistent in overwriting spacecraft images of astronomical objects with their own upscalings. Besides the fact they tend to edit war and are generally unresponsive to warnings or rebuttals, my issues are that I do not know exactly how these "enhancements" made, nor do I see the justification in overwriting these files, which originally show conventional processing (i.e. color-tinting and stacking) of real data. The upscaling quality is—well to be frank—rather poor in some cases like File:Nix best view.jpg (somehow a pixelated image got turned into something resembling a low-poly model?). I also find this processing of Kerberos dubious since Italyoz484 brings out an inordinate amount of detail that I'm not sure whether they were part of the original image.

I understand that low-quality images don't look very appealing, but we couldn't really do anything about it since there's no higher resolution available. I'm more concerned about the scientific accuracy and authenticity of the data and processing methods used to create these images. I'm afraid that warning Italyoz484 won't be enough—they'd still go back to overwriting images and uploading their own dubious "processings" of space imagery. Nrco0e (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

User:MAGHREB DEV

User:MAGHREB DEV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user is actively uploading dozens of out of scope advert files. Please delete the files and warn/block the user. funplussmart (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Celestialobjects

Pablo Carlos Budassi of Celestialobjects has been adding many original artworks and infographics to Commons and then adding them into astronomy pages like en:Huge-LQG, en:GN-z11, en:Mini-Neptune, and en:ASASSN-15lh. While I normally wouldn't mind these since I'm sure that he is contributing in good faith, my biggest issue with his artworks is the blatant self-promotion on Wikipedia (see discussion on this), lack of scientific accuracy and merit, as well as potential copyvios. Take these files for example: File:Fomalhaut.png, File:Powehi.png, File:Phobos moon black background.png, File:Ceres black background.png, File:Pluto black background.png, and File:Ganymede.png—all of these are (non-scientifically) retouched and highly saturated space photographs that he publishes as entirely his own. For other astronomical objects that do not have high-resolution images, he represents them with unrealistically saturated colors like in File:Gonggong.png, File:Haumea black background.png, and File:Sedna.png (it is impossible for Solar System objects' en:tholins to appear this red to the human eye). Too add more, his representation of 2010 TK7 in File:2010tk7 black background.png is misleading as he uses a photograph of 243 Ida without explanation. The photographs of Ida, Earth, and Moon (note how their phases don't match) are not credited—the description simply saying that this image is photoshopped is not a good rationale for keeping this on Commons.

More problems arise in his artworks when you consider copyright–he tends to pass off others' artworks as his own (example: File:Ginan star.png comes from ESO/M. Kornmesser and File:Asteroid belt landscape.png comes from NASA/JPL-Caltech) or cut-and-paste others' artworks into his own (example: File:Delta pavonis.png where he has rotated and shifted the hue of the planets from NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech). Even if the source images may be published in the public domain, it still wouldn't be right to pass them off as your own. Some of his artworks have been rendered in SpaceEngine, which has a license that requires crediting the program. His SpaceEngine renderings File:Hygiea (fake image).png and File:Betelgeuse star.png do not mention SpaceEngine anywhere in their descriptions. Nrco0e (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

IMO decorating articles of an encyclopedia with personal fictional artwork is always nonsense and lacking COM:EDUSE as that provides no factual information. --Achim55 (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Images with wrong license should be fixed or deleted. I also agree that many of his rendering are useless. Artists' rendering may only be useful when we can't (yet) have real pictures (exoplanets, etc.). Yann (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I've spent about 2 hours investigating and tagging this user's images for deletion. Needless to say, the majority of them are pointless retouched reuploads and there's plenty of blatantly stolen artworks. I think it's safe to say that this user should be banned and have all their images deleted off Commons and Wikipedia. Nrco0e (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
See also this user: Unmismoobjetivo (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I understand that it was very wrong of publishing many of these images not even mentioning the source. I thought these were going to be useful in cases where an article lacked any image at all, and did upload without taking the time to explain each source/license. I now see that is very wrong and totally unacceptable, of course. I will not do this again. I also understand that many of these images lack scientific rigor. The colors do not match what a human eye would see in the place and are oversaturated. I have seen the graphics uploaded by @nrco0e and I think they are very good and with colors that better reflect current knowledge. And of the objects of which real photos already exist and I understand that they do not need an illustration. As for merit, I think it's probably true that these doesn't have much of it buy may that judgement have an element of subjectivity? Anyway, I understand I should study a lot more to be able to do some illustrations or adaptations of images that have already been done by experts better than me. I don't know if you guys think I should completely give up contributing to Wikimedia? I know that the most urgent thing is never again to upload a crop of something public domain, without mentioning the source and license, and I understand that it is not necessary to make adaptations of images that already exist when the originals transmit much better the knowledge that we have of astronomical object in question. I have a lot to learn in many terms. I'm going through a somewhat difficult time in my life these days. I will try to review all my uploads as soon as possible to nominate for deletion any remaining unsourced material. I'm going to remove my social networks and other in the descriptions of all uploads. I'm sorry for being problematic. I expect your cordiality and that you understand that I have not done it in bad faith. Thank you for being kind and telling me things in a good way. Celestialobjects (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

user:Kuruva Island Resort and Spa

Kuruva Island Resort and Spa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , spam or spambot. Lemonaka (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. User is warned, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
@Lemonaka, @Taivo: I blocked the user. Regards, Kadı Message 17:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

User WP.Raj Sharma

WP.Raj Sharma (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Uploads image that seems from websites. I have proposed most images for deletion, including one for Copyvio, and warned the user. However he continues to make further uploads of the same kind. Should waned by administrators or blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Pierre cb,
This image was given to myself for website publishing. since It's on website, I didnt claim the copyright of the photo. But I understand your point of view and the image should be deleted. WP.Raj Sharma (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@WP.Raj Sharma: Who gave you these images? I'm sure @Pierre cb wants to know, too. See COM:EVID.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@WP.Raj Sharma: If you found them on a website, which one exactly?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo and Jeff G.: I just want to inform you that this user seems to be a sockpuppet of RajsharmaBond007 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  that uploaded some of the similar promotional named files that were deleted later. Pierre cb (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: Thanks, please report at COM:RFCU with evidence.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: You have to report yourself, the page is only editable by administrators. Pierre cb (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: In this edit 11:33, 13 November 2022‎‎ (UTC), HistoryofIran edited Commons:Requests for checkuser successfully without any need for permissions. There is no protection log for that page. Please be more specific.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: That is not what the link to modification says : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Commons%3ARequests+for+checkuser%2FInputbox%2FSample&editintro=Commons%3ARequests+for+checkuser%2FInputbox%2FHeader&title=Commons%3ARequests+for+checkuser%2FCase%2F&create=Demander+une+v%C3%A9rification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre cb (talk • contribs) 17:07, 30 November 2022‎ (UTC)
@Pierre cb: That only happens when you forget to append a username like "John Doe" to "Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/" to form "Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe" before clicking on the "Request a checkuser" button.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I did what you said but I do not know if I correctly filed. Pierre cb (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: The oldest account is supposed to be the master. You forgot to transclude what became Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/RajsharmaBond007 and remove {{checkuser requests to be listed}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Sorry but I just report problems, I am not an administrator and don't want to be. Pierre cb (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: That is a non sequitur. People who report problems should do so properly, whether or not they are Admins. In reference to your post of 17:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC) above, to be blunt, you did not correctly file.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia admins

I need help in finding a Spanish Wikipedia administrator who can help me with an appeal. I have no way of communication with the admin who blocked me, as I can't find their email. My talk page on the Spanish Wikipedia is blocked, so I can't ask for an appeal on there either. My only choices are the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I tried to appeal to the admin on their Commons page, but received no response. Or, if anyone can help with giving me the admin LuchoCR's email. Flagvisioner (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Flagvisioner: Please stop forum shopping. We already discussed this in September at what became Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 33#How do I ask to get unbanned on the Spanish Wikipedia?. It appears LuchoCR does not want to unblock you or communicate with you per these edits. Also, please do not use images in signatures per COM:SIGN#Images in signature policy.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. However, I would like to ask: What does "forum shopping" mean? Also, why would an admin not communicate with a person they banned who wishes to appeal? This is the first account I have ever created, and the other accounts I made were after the resolution. Flagvisioner (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Flagvisioner: Forum shopping is trying to accomplish the same thing in another forum after being denied in the first forum. Your account on eswiki was checkuser blocked 09:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC) with "account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page". Perhaps you could write to LuchoCR in Spanish on User talk:LuchoCR six months after that: 09:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC). You may also officially appeal through the Ombuds commission.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
You'll have no luck requesting unblock in another wiki, that is, here. --Bedivere (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Flagvisioner, you can email him via this link. We have nothing to do in Commons. Case is closed. Kadı Message 17:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Mettle30

This user has been uploading photos of many different places, and the files lack EXIF data. They were recently blocked for one month but have continued to upload such photos. Here are the latest examples:

Sunnya343 (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sunnya343, two of them deleted, added VRT template to the 1st one. Kadı Message 10:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@Sunnya343, blocked for 3 months. Kadı Message 10:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

User:VexilAlpaca

This user joined 14 days ago. He is attempting to reduce the file sizes of all national flags and emblems. This in my opinion is disruptive. About 80 files have been modified so far and the rate increases every day. The file changes result in:

  • Loss of all embedded comments in the SVG code.
  • Loss of line feed and tab characters. Without these it is very hard to spot errors and redundancies in the code.
  • Loss of accuracy.
  • Distortion of text and other small items that are always encoded as paths.
  • Sabotage of "perfect stars"; this leaves behind imperfect stars but retains the code bloat associated with them.

This user operates very quickly and does not appear to do visual checks on his own work. Some small items have disappeared from several flags. I am not sure if this was due to his use of SVGOMG or due to manual edits. (e.g. some of the berries disappeared on the File:Flag of the Dominican Republic.svg). The user has also replaced parts of flags with poor quality SVG parts that appear to have been generated from scanning raster images. (e.g. File:Flag of Oman.svg). I have rolled back some of the changes, but now I am seeing this use simply undo my reverts without having any discussion. I feel I am playing whack-a-mole trying to stop what I perceive as damage. MapGrid (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Can somebody do something about this user. He does not engage in conversation and he continues to sabotage file after file. This the situation is toxic. MapGrid (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked until they start communicating. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User Thewikimusicman

Thewikimusicman (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seems to be a promotional agent for a US rapper according to the name and the uploads. I have warned him but all his uploads should be deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and nuked uploads, same for previous sock WickedPrince95 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Olyngo and Richardkiwi

Incorrect statements and labeling: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] and some other. Removing official statements of Russian MoD and renaming files with offensive comments. I ask you to evaluate the behavior of the users and is correct to write such comments to the edits. Kursant504 (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing to be done here. If you plan to report someone on ANU, try to discuss the issue with them first. Obviously you didn't. Regarding the edits cited, this was correct, as file descriptions on Commons should not contain copy+paste of some texts from external websites. Whether the file should have been renamed, is discussable but still not an obvious abuse to report it straightaway. Regards --A.Savin 12:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, I don't expect another response from such a biased user who openly expresses his biased political position. Blocks users with views that he does not like without explanation and does not contact himself if users write messages to him. In light of this, it is even ridiculous to read your reproach that I did not contact the users. Kursant504 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
"...your reproach that I did not contact the users". Still: did you? --A.Savin 10:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

CuboidalBrake06

CuboidalBrake06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has resumed uploading unfree Taliban images after being blocked for it, see File:Mullah Jan2022.jpg and other uploads. These images are all coming directly from Taliban websites yet CuboidalBrake is labeling them all as "own work". Another block is needed. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Selfpromo troll

Get a load of this nonsense… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Saurabh shukla335

Saurabh shukla335 (talk · contributions · Statistics) has continued to post out-of scope selfies (the latest uploaded is nominated for deletion) following a previous block. This person only appears to be here for self-promotion and apparently did not get the message from a temporary block. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Qiure

Qiure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to be another sockpuppet of Đăng Đàn Cung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The account was created after Enevn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked. The behavior is very similar.

@Đại Việt quốc @Jeff G. 源義信 (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hamdisaif

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

Someone speaking Arabic is needed to check edits by this user. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

User:A1Cafel apparent misuse of Cat-a-lot tool

This user recently emptied Category:Meetings at the Estonian Foreign Ministry without providing any reason (e.g. see Special:Diff/712160944), and apparently nominated the category for deletion claiming that its content was moved (or at least User:Túrelio provided this reason in deletion log) while actually it was not moved. The category had existed for years and included 100s of images. It's also unclear why the category should have been moved as the subject of the claimed target category is not equivalent. I now asked about this from A1Cafel, but they just reverted the comment (Special:Diff/712863232). If there wasn't an actual problem with this category then I could restore it, but first I'd like to make ceratain that this sort of odd incident wouldn't happen again on behalf of this user. Please look into this to see if this user should have the right to use Cat-a-lot or if their edits in general are reliable. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:D8C8:BF62:5488:5AAE 12:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the purpose of setting "Meeting at the Estonian MFA". There are many meeting held everyday. If all of them are included, then the category will be flooded by hundreds (or even thousands) of files. Similarly, we don't have categories like meeting in the Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs or meeting at the US Department of State. I think moving to events at the Estonia MFA will be an alternative. Maybe we can discuss at COM:CFD. I remove your comment because I don't know who you are, and it is not a violation of policy to remove somebody's message (particularly for the anons). I hope you can log in (or registered if you don't have any accounts) to comment.--A1Cafel (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
As written to you earlier, this category held information on where these 100s of photos were taken, and now this information is just gone. To me it seems more like you try to make an argument against categorizing any images by location. If both specific location (building) where event took place and also type of event (in this case meetings) are known then why couldn't we categroize by that? To my knowledge there isn't a limitation on how specific location or how specific type of event one can use for cateorization, and generally this kind of categorization is not extraordinary. So far you didn't empty Category:Press conferences at the Estonian Foreign Ministry (different types of events at the same location). Is this category, or similary, say, Category:Music performances in the White House, also problematic then? If there will be 1000s of images in a category, and this is considered a problem, then I suppose we can try to split it into subcategories, as is the case with any category.
I'm happy to discuss in any venue, as long as my comments won't get reverted (which is why I made an entry here as this seemed like an obvious conduct issue). I suppose category and its content need to be restored in the first place so that discussion could take place at COM:CFD. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:D8C8:BF62:5488:5AAE 13:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I've restored the category and am adding the files back. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I've added 289 of the 372 files. The other 83 will be a pain, but I'll get to them later. In case I don't, they are listed here: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/69609. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
All added now. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I found three more images where they used different edit summary. Hopefully that's all now. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:5141:74B7:D1BB:1BFC 11:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "I honestly don't see the purpose of setting "Meeting at the Estonian MFA"."
Then would you delete the images? Because it's a reasonable question, "Are images of meetings thus within SCOPE?", but if they are, and if we have such images, then surely it's worth categorising them as such?
I'm also really concerned by this, "Please log in to comment" as a reply to an IP questioning your actions. I don't care what your opinion is on the merits of IP editing, but the fact is that it's permitted here on Commons and so all editors using IPs deserve to be treated just the same as logged-in editors. You certainly don't get to ignore valid questions from them on that basis. Especially not with your history of topic bans for similar behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Romanuspontifex

"Romanus Pontifex" or "the Roman Pontiff" is a clear and unambiguous reference to the Cathoic Pope. Since this is a notable, well-known person, it is a violation of the username policy for an editor to assume such a name; the user should be compelled to change their name, lest they invite confusion. Elizium23 (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

To me it comes across as a reference to the position, not necessarily to the current holder of that position. In any case, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that anyone would assume that this user is in fact Pope Francis. Marbletan (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Marbletan. I do not want to block the user. Taivo (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism, harrasment, genocide promotion

Please, do something about this aggressive russian troll ... He engages in defacement and vandalism, makes frivolous reverting of edits, harasses users, and spreads lies to get users blocked - in order to promote, support and glorify russian atrocities in Ukraine. --KAP Jasa (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This personal attack is a response to my warning for vandalism. Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
See also this topic for context: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#KAP Jasa and politically motivated vandalism. I am expecting the revert of vandalism and a block. Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 Comment I blocked KAP Jasa for 2 weeks for harrassment and vandalism. Yann (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of the move/rename flag

This user recently enacted a file rename request which, although done in good faith by a beginner, was transparently wrong. (See both file histories and said beginner’s edits — tl;dr: in order to replace an image in sereval articles, a completely new file was uploaded, then the file page was edited to match with a new description and source, and then a file renaming was requested.)

I reverted the undue file renaming and uploaded the overwriting image as a new file, and I notified both users. Richardkiwi’s answer was a reversion of my warning off his talkpage, with a grumpy, menacing edit summary. Now, I don’t feel threatned by his rudeness, but this episode suggests that Richardkiwi doesn’t know our file renaming policies or doesn’t care much about them, and therefore his ability to move/rename Commons files should be revoked.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Reply
User Tuvalkin comes very rude to my talkpage, with something like:

DON'T DO
<link> THIS - ~~~~

That I didn't see a file was uploaded new, can happen. The way User:Tuvalkin comes to my talk page is rude. I rename a lot (just like a few others) and I do know the guidelines. That I (once in a while) don't see something, or whatever, can happen. There is absolutely no need to treat me like this, like I'm some sort of beginner, and especially not like this.

Talk like that I just revert. I'm not rude, Tuvalkin is. If someone acts normal and just ask a question, I give an answer, but this kind of 'talk' I revert. I think Tuvalkin should be blocked for this. High trees, catch a lot of wind. I can't see everything, and I do a lot of good work here. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The question if my rights to rename can be revoked? I work my butt off here, Commons is my hobby. Tuvalkin just can't handle that I reverted his rude talk. That I reverted it the same way, maybe was not so smart, but we are all just people here. I did read his talk around midnight, after the lost soccer match (Netherlands-Argentina) and then there is some rude comment on my talk page. Tuvalkin should think a bit longer before he writes something like that. Of course there should be not too many mistakes, but as I said, I can't see everything and I see other file movers do things that I wouldn't do, but I'm not just gonna report them. They make mistakes, just like me. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
<example> That I look good (mostly), you can see here [27]. A file mover renamed it quicker than I could decline it. But I just send a message, and the user (his name is not important, it's an example) doesn't even reply to me). I'm not gonna run to this page to revoke his rights. He just made a mistake. <end of example> - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I said in the o.p that «this episode suggests that Richardkiwi doesn’t know our file renaming policies». If indeed this episode is instead a fluke and if Richardkiwi does indeed use his move/rename ability well, then in that case it should be retained. That’s what being discussed here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
That's absurd, this is a hobby, which I like, and this looks like some trial. It's impossible to not make mistakes, and I do know the file renaming policies. I just didn't see the new upload. That can happen. You try to make some example out of me. To say on my talk page, that you would like the same treatment, if it was you, is b...shit. I rename a lot more than you, so the chance I make a mistake is a lot bigger. If it's not allowed to make mistakes, let's kick everybody from the flag... - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Tuvalkin: , you are right. I made a mistake, I should have looked better, but this is a fluke (like you call it). And as I said, "high trees catch a lot of wind". I'm sorry that I was impolite. Please be more gentle next time, if you see something that is wrong. So that being said, I think this can be closed? If you think the discussion should stay, then leave it, but you started it, so you can close (stop) it too. An admin can do that too, but nobody is responding anymore. Thanks and regards, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I will be less brusque the next time, I’m already feeling bad about it: The way I worded my alert is one I usually reserve for users whose editing history shows a pattern of poor choices, which is not the case. I should have said something of the likes of «Are you sure you want to do this?». (I have no excuse for this — my country was kicked out of the Cup, too, but several hours later.)
As for renamings, I read from COM:FR an underlying principle: No renaming is better than a bad renaming. Since most people who need to ask for one (i.e., non-filemovers) don’t know the policy anyway, their requests are bound be declined, sooner or later. There’s no rush, most of the time.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, TBH, the bigger issue here is not the knowledge of renaming policies (apparently a mistake, unless similar incidents were brought here), but the inability of Richardkiwi of properly addressing feedback related to their file renaming edits in their talkpage. How about answering "Why? What's wrong?" or "OK, I see now the mistake, thanks" instead of ""Don't tell me what to do. You understand?"" and reverting the edit? Strakhov (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    • That is already explained above. The way it was brought by Tuvalkin was not nice. I don't respond to such things. If he just explained what was wrong in a normal way, there would be nothing wrong. (but that's already said by me, your reaction is not necessary, I think) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
      • That being said, it's Tuvalkin who misses the ability to start a normal talk. That I respond like that, is not ok, but I read that in the middle of the night and you can see above that it was in a commanding tone. That was no 'conversation'. But thanks Strakhov, for your reaction! Have a good one. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Tuvalkin was concise. You were rude and unpolite. Their message (by the way, they didn't use capital letters as your posts here may suggest) absolutely did not deserve your answer and tone. Apparently they do not care much about that "grumpiness", but other users in the future may feel intimidated by that behaviour. Please avoid that. Strakhov (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm with Strakhov here. Tuvalkin's tone may not have been the best, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't make any effort to work out whether he had a valid criticism. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree my tone was not good, but I normally am a lot nicer. I'm not grumpy. I already knew Tuvalkin's user name, and I thought 'what is that?'. That's why I reacted that way.
@Strakhov, I didn't say Tuvalkin used capital letters, I didn't want to look at the text anymore, so I said it was something like that. I'm one of the top renamers, I mostly am polite, and I have the right to reject a message I don't like. A lot of users (also file movers) don't even respond if I give them a message that they made the wrong decision. I give that message with normal words, not unpolite. See the example above, where I say to another file mover that I was declining something, but he renamed it just before I could decline it. / Maybe it was just the wrong moment, I came back around midnight after the Netherlands lost from Argentina and wasn't online for a lot of hours. Didn't expect to see a message like that so late. Next time (hope there will be no next time), I will say if he can be more polite, and give an answer like 'sorry, I didn't see it'. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Although I did a zillion renames, a mistake can happen, and I'm sorry I didn't see that it was overwritten. I remember that I mostly wait before I reply, depends on the post, but this time I didn't. So I was wrong and I didn't mean to be unpolite. So, I have nothing more to say. Have a nice evening (or day / night). - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Happy to note that both of you, Tuválkin and Richardkiwi, are on speaking terms. So this episode can be closed imho. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:FrindoID, sock of User:Elfath1421

After the block of Elfath1421 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  by Yann several previously deleted by Krd copyvios have been re-uploaded by FrindoID (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . --Xunks (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, some files deleted. Other files need a review. Yann (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

More socks

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TylerKutschbach and the users' revert-uploads to Commons. Might consider page protections at this point. Twotwofourtysix (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Twotwofourtysix: Can you please provide the names of the socks active on Commons? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Donkeydude24, Patriots9033 and Wizard949 are all active, although only the last one isn't currently blocked. Twotwofourtysix (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

2405:4802:1CD:D40:C518:5AD2:F112:B168

2405:4802:1CD:D40:C518:5AD2:F112:B168 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Obviously another sock of Musée Annam, Qiure, Đăng Đàn Cung, Enevn and so on. A longer ban is needed. 源義信 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I blocked 2405:4802:1CD:D40:000:000:000:000/64 for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive mass reversions

They reverted many files to a previous version without any explanation at all, sometimes doing multiple reversions back-to-back on a single file. Could be related to TylerKutschbach as shown by reversions to versions made by the latter in File:Arizona Presidential Election Results 2020.svg, File:2021 Virginia gubernatorial election results map by county.svg, and others. Twotwofourtysix (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely as sock of Tyler Kutschbach, but did not revert anything. Taivo (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: looks like there's another sock: Patriots9033 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Elli (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. Blocked as well, will work on rolling back edits nevermind, Elli already handled it. Please let us know if this behaviour continues with other accounts. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@Huntster: here's another one doing the same stuff: Sox589 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Elli (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. Thank you for the notice, Elli. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Huntster: and another: Icecream441 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Elli (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
✓ Indeffed, thanks. --Achim55 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Achim55: Thanks for blocking. Would you please consider granting me rollback, btw? It's very frustrating to have to revert these one-by-one. Elli (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Elli, you're welcome! And thanks a lot for helping out! Cheers, Achim55 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Achim55: ofc! There's another one now, btw: DogFood1161 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Elli (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Already done by Pi, Denver606 also done by ACN. --Achim55 (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User Bennypanjaitan2

Bennypanjaitan2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Uploading self portrait and claiming to be president of Indonesia. I warned him but all his uploads should be deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User Bennypanjaitan2 part 2

Bennypanjaitan2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has been warned multiple times on December 10th about uploading selfies and claiming he is a President. I a section above, all these uploads have been deleted by @Gbawden: (see #User Bennypanjaitan2) but he comes back today with a new photo. This user should be blocked indefinitely. Pierre cb (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User:IAskWhatIsTrue Personal attacks

in this diff, IAskWhatIsTrue accuses me of dishonesty in block capitals. I find this defamatory, and a personal attack. They have been blocked previously in enwiki for personal attacks against another editor. I present this here for context. They are objecting about my nominating their uploads for deletion. They are entitled to do so but must remain civil 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you launched a personal attack. You said I had "language issues" IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
You launched an attack that I somehow do not have proper command of the English language- sounds like a personal attack. You're not on the right side- you're on the wrong one. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
WHATIS - dishonesty is not something mentioned in the commons as a "personal attack" , rather you launch a personal attack against me claiming falsely I have "language issues" as if my command of the English language is subpar- This is the personal attack. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 Comment To assist those reviewing this to find my comment about language, it is in this diff]. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
You can find Timtrent launch the personal attack against me here
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_IAskWhatIsTrue
by using the "find" functionality in your browser and search for "language issues" - where clearly you will see Timtrent launches a false personal attack against me in which he claims my command of the English language is subpar as if I'm a foreigner or something IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@IAskWhatIsTrue: really, that wasn't an attack as far as I can tell. He was (correctly) pointing out that you had already been directed to the right place and was allowing for the possibility that maybe the reason you hadn't understood was a language issue. But I can see from your obviously fluent English here that there was some other reason you had not done what you had already been clearly told to do. - Jmabel ! talk 22:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
"other reason" what? You presume, why don't you be explicit instead of presuming I have ulterior motives - I read the COM:VRT, guess what it said?
It said nothing needed to be done... I read the page and it said that since I made the photos nothing needed to be done.
So why don't you be explicit to what "other reason" you are referring to cause I got no clue IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
The nominations for deletion should be simply removed and more people should be voicing that the educational photos be kept rather than going with the false deletion request. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jmabel It most assuredly was not a personal attack upon the uploader. Rather, it was to seek to reassure the future closer of the deletion discussion that every effort had been made to accommodate the uploader's apparent lack of action, and was a courtesy also to the uploader, pointing them to Google Translate in the event that they might wish to or need to use it. Their fluent use of English has shown that my thoughts, made with goodwill, were not necessary. In case the uploader remains offended by what I believed to be my courtesy to them I apologise unreservedly for using words that appear to have been susceptible to being interpreted as offensive. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 23:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't need an apology. You should mention to the "future closer of the deletion request" you made a real mistake. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
"other reason" do you project - is it that Timtrent has an "other reason" why he submits a false deletion request- not in the interests of wikipedia - but some "other reason" that no one talks about? IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
If you'd like to see a good article on wikipedia it'd be appreciated if you went on to deletion request and say that the pictures should be kept because timtrent's deletion requests are unfounded.
TimTrent claims there is a copyright issue - there isn't
TimTrent claims See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP, yet these are NONISSUES-
So mistakes should be admitted, since Jmabel is aware of issue i'd appreciate a vote of "keep" for the interests of wikipedia a good truthful article with relevant pictures gets published in its fullest potential quality. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@IAskWhatIsTrue: The photo has no copyright of its own, because it is a faithful representation of 2-dimensional work. The copyright belongs to the artist. That is probably you, but we so far have no way to know that. VRT is our only organized way to have someone confidentially verify the identity of an account. To have any possibility of keeping these images, you need to go through that process. I don't think I'm telling you anything new here, though, and it is absolutely no problem for me if you refuse to cooperate with normal processes and the images are deleted on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 00:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Do you go and complain about every self-upload image... no so why this one? you know the answer. Tim trent chose to do this by this point - you chose to side with him - as did others- your choice. You pretend you don't know what's going on yet you know precisely why you are choosing not to side with what is clearly Ai generated pictures you'll find no where else on the internet. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 Comment those checking their global account information will notice that they have now been indeffed on enwiki for reasons stated in their block. Obviously this does not, of itself, set any precedent for Commons. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 00:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
No I was NOT banned for the reasons stated in the block, I was banned because TimTrent and others doesn't want to see an Arabid slavery article published . Why is that ? Is there a reason... there is and YOU know it, I know it, GOd Himself Yahweh knows it IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
You chose this morning to file a false complaint about newly updated photos on December 11
You also chose when clearly was presented to you how to change your mistake, you CHOSE not to fix your mistake.
God knows best- you know these are AI photos - and yet you tried to sabotage this after having a WEEK to think over your mistakes and the conflcit of interst of Elias even after I emailed you details - you made these CHOICES - so don't lie as to why you're acting why you've acted by this point. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IAskWhatIsTrue#to_someone_outside_wikipedia
the false groupthink i refer to here goes back more than decades but goes back before the Vietnam war to various unnaturalisms IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I have indef'ed the user here on commons for their behavior here on commons: repeated personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, even against those trying to help them work through our policies and procedures related to copyright (one of the most important sets of policies we have here). I note that this is the same behavior and result as on enwiki and that the behavior continued here even after they got blocked on enwiki, but I reiterate that the block here easily stands on its own. DMacks (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Good block. I've closed the DR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm grateful. I never regret trying to help someone, but this came close. I hope they use the block to think, and return as a useful contributor after a successful appeal. I fear that will not happen. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 08:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for doing you best. Next round of beer or coffee’s on me. DMacks (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Low chance of personal attack in the diff indicated in the request. Unnecessary indefinitely block (as this is the first block). Admin abuse. Matlin (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@Matlin: I'm not the one who blocked, but this is not just a matter of personal attacks, it's a matter of asking for help, getting what they asked for, and then having no willingness to behave accordingly, instead continuing an argument. Anyone doing that is unlikely to become a useful contributor. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I stand by my block. Commons:Blocking_policy#Appealing_a_block is linked and available. It entails "acknowledgement that the block was appropriate and a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated", which is pretty much the opposite of anything I and others had seen so far, despite advise from multiple editors in multiple fora over more than a week. Therefore, there is not a reasonable prognosis of change in any known limited timeframe. The block prevents disruption. Indefinite-block is not a perma-ban. If the editor chooses to make an explicit commitment to change, they are welcome to do so.DMacks (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, this user is locked. Lemonaka (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Oddballslover

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

overwriting, reverting, ... Isderion (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Images no longer display.

Images no longer display-- only getting broken image icon throughout. Did Wiki change the image code to make older OS obsolete??? please return images to previous or provide work-arounds 2601:281:4100:110:0:0:0:61C3 23:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong venue, should be posted at COM:VP/T with a description of the issue, the browser (and version) you’re using and the operating system it is on. Bidgee (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

user:Sammyteach

User uploaded a pornographic photo of a woman performing oral sex on a horse. Their only other upload is an unremarkable picture of boobs I’m not even sure is their own work. I think a block is in order. Dronebogus (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by User:Yann Dronebogus (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

SinghIsFxing

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

So called "new user" making disparaging comment(s). Most probably a sock. Yann (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It is "fair comment" as I see it. User:Yann is not a native speaker of English, so is possibly not familiar with the idiom I used Wikipedia. It can be clearly seen from this citation that this is not a disparaging comment. SinghIsFxing (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 Comment I don't see an issue with what was said. No comment on whether they are a sock or not Gbawden (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is not a nice comment. Yann (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
No need to take any action. Matlin (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Yann: most probably this is a sockpuppet, but I do not know, whose. Taivo (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not a new user of Mediawiki software. I contribute to 3 other wikis, including Scholarpedia and the LII-Wex. SinghIsFxing (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This user is also the subject of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viona Ielegems at the victorian picnic 2009.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is sheer harassment because I don't share this editor's point of view in a deletion review. SinghIsFxing (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 Info This user created in Dezember 8 2022 on english wikipedia is already blocked there as as a sockpuppet of User:Lord Alan B'stard, one user blocked for "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia", i.e. harassement of other users and had already four unblocks requests denied Tm (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
This is even more harassment over the same difference of opinions. At least 2 of those links do not refer to me or my account and are prejudicial. Furthermore, can you explain why, the same norms do not apply to say User:Fæ who was an admin on EN-WP and was repeatedly blocked over there but continued here to make 7 million uploads and 10 million edits, and has always been an editor in good standing on this project (as I also am). SinghIsFxing (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • If you think they're a sock, raise a sock investigation through the usual channels. Otherwise don't cast such aspersions on other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
    I happen to be following this user because of that DR issue, and was surprised to see Yann add a sockpuppet tag to that user’s page with no conclusion here (naturally, the tag was removed by that user who claimed there was no evidence). Brianjd (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
    Evidence from the English Wikipedia is sufficient for us. It was already evident that SinghIsFxing is a sock, and this account is not blocked yet only because the master account is not active here. Yann (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
"Evidence from the English Wikipedia is sufficient for us."
Well that's a major policy change. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
No, it has been like this since checkusers exist. Yann (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
For now I do not see a reason for blocking this account. Of course this kind of deletion discussing only sockpuppet account is dubios and not so helpful. But there is also no really harmful behavior of this account. So for now a warning and kindly request for using the main account would be sufficient. GPSLeo (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Yann has a personal animosity with me in IRL. He should therefore disclose his Conflicts of Interest, and if he brings up English wikipedia, then also things like his Undisclosed Paid Editing on Jai Jagat 2020. Finally, there is absolutely no evidence of any SOCKPUPPETRY for this account/user, either here or on EN-WP. SinghIsFxing (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
This is complete bullshit. I don't know SinghIsFxing IRL, and IMO this false claim in itself is a good reason for a block. Yann (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Yann You have a serious conflict of interest situation for your undisclosed paid editing over at EN-WP. Explain this and this for a start. Also, I never claimed I "knew" you. I clearly informed you on your talk page that we both attended certain events/meetings but never interacted personally (for reasons you would know best). You can easily figure out my IRL identity from my earlier comments on COM:AN and ANU SinghIsFxing (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It seems you have a grudge against Jai Jagat or its organisators. But you got the wrong target here. If you have any complain, go to [28]. Also, about your claims regarding the GODL, with your aggressive behaviour, you lost all credibility whatever are your professional skills. Yann (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Verdy p

Hello. Can anyone help with this? User:Verdy p is including templates with red links and duplicate links on many pages, like here and here. To me this doesn't look good at all. Is he right to do this? He keeps reverting my edits. Regards, tyk (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Red links are there on purpose (with a parameter may be be turned on for maintenance, or off if the contents are stable and complete) that signals missing categories (frequently they should exist, and have members, but no description pages, so new files cannot fit there and remain categorized at wrong or missing levels). This is like this since long, and allows maintenance when there 's a need for adapting a change in category schemes: the links are still there even if not all members remain in that category (sometimes some members disappear without reason, but they are still detectable in the navbox). These navboxes have greatly impoved the consistency of categories on Commons, in terms of structure/topology and in terms of naming (e.g. to enforce a naming convention or when there's a need to restructure, e.g. when there are administrative changes in countries, or new topics needing their own scheme that should preserve the existant, even if they are historic topics). Note that the "all=1" parameter displays some alternate names on purpose: this allows detecting missing redirections or unifying inconsistant names, or names that need disambiguation sometimes; this approach is also used in Catnav and all other existing horizontal navboxes since very long. Appaerntly you've not understood their interest and are just discovering them. And your links shown above clearly demonstrate the need of maintenance on those categories and the interest of having such navbox for downward navigations where we expect to see missing members! verdy_p (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Also don't reverse the charge: you are the one that reverted multiple times the maintenance edits that were ongoing. verdy_p (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @Verdy p: For maintenance means for maintenance. It shows the links that are missing but doesn't need to be displayed. How does this version showing Category:Marshall Islands in art as a proper blue link and showing Category:The Marshall Islands in art help anyone? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    You can see it in preview so you can tell what's missing. No one cares that Category:The Falkland Islands in art is missing since Category:Falkland Islands in art is the proper link but the template properly includes a preceding 'the' for when that is used. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    • That's exactly the role of the "all=1" parameter, it looks for possible aliases and allows checking if they need to be renamed for consistency, or if their redirection is correct. The "all=1" parameter is used in many navboxes, it fonds common aliases and suggests those that are the most likely to be used (and also avoids typos or inconstant names to be used when other subtegories are to be created, you can click on them without creating it, and frequently you may find that there are already members in them, that need to be recategorized to follow the most common convention, which should be listed before the other listed aliases; subcategories using an article "the" are the most frequent and are listed first, just before those without the article, in msot cases this is expected, except when there's no prefix before). It is only used in parent categories, not in children categories that jsut display ONE on the links, and does not show any "red link". Adduitionally, the "all=1" disables some translations of labels, and shows these distinctions. when the maitnenance of parent category is no longer needed, you can leave the parameter "all=" with an empty value, it may be reinstate easily for maintenance purpose. but when working in incomplete categories that needs to be fed (and are VERY likely) to contain expected subcategories (but that still do not because these subcategories need to be found and edited), the all=1 parameter in the parent category is very useful for such task (which may still take time and often cannot be made instantly). Many users have understood that, but appretnly you're new to it and do not understand that these are needed for transition. And it never forbids the traditional navigation and has absolutely no impact on import tools (that completely ignore navboxes and that most users are harvesting to import many files and categorize files properly). As well parent categories (notably metacats) are much more rarely visited to navigate downward: users are searching for actual precise subjects and for lateral navigation., but they may also help organizing how member subcategories are sorted. All this was documented since long and used by many. Newcomers may have not followed these past talks. verdy_p (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
      You haven't explained why it needs to be displayed in those categories. You aren't doing it here so please explain why the 'in Art' categories need to display red links that no one will ever need to create while the 'Art of' categories don't. It feels like you are making this up as you go along and then arguing with everyone after the fact. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not "need" to display red link, they are dislpayed conditionally by the "all=1" parameter which displays all possible aliases used in various similar categories using the same naming convention that should be uniformized. And for downward navigation, not all the lsited entities are direct members of the parent category. Only one parent category shoud use the "all=1" parameter, but sometimes this is not always the case because there's ongoing splitting (which will take long to be fully applied everywhere). Read the doc of all these navboxes the all parameter is explained, and effective; without this parameter, there is never any "red link". And this is not made after the fact, it is like this since MANY years and has been used as well (and reproduced for newer navboxes) by many other users on Commons. verdy_p (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@Verdy p What are you arguing for? You want the parameter turned on for Category:South America in art even though it displays a bunch of links which are nonsense and will never be created. Again, I feel like you just do stuff and then argue about it rather than actually have a reason. Everyone understands the purpose of the parameter. I just think it's bizarre to want it displayed for that one particular category and you respond by lecturing about the technical ability to do it. Again, you don't want red links displayed for Template:Counties of Ireland but why these two categories? Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
And on the example you cited, the parameter was not there, but the downward navbox was still present (so this was not a particular case). And for the case of the category in South America, it is still needed (there are missing members there to regularize, so maintenance is still needed, and those missing members should exist because they really have contents; or their content should be there but located elsewhere ni some of their other ancestor categories, themselves overpopulated and already requesting maintenance by plainc these in appropriate subcategories using the common naming conventions). So visibly you've still not understood: we need coherent naming conventions (and those are discussed in many placed in Commons) that those common navboxes help to regularize. There's a huge difference between horizontal navigation between siblings (where the parameter is NEVER needed) and downward navigation from a parent to subcategories (where it is extremely frequently needed). As well the placement of these navboxes are different (horizontal navigation between siblings comes first (never with all=1), then comes the description fo the category itself (essentially the infobox, optionally followed by other descriptions beside it, but in manty cases these info are legacy and better fit their info in the infobox), then downward subcategorization banner templates (Categorize, MetaCat or CatCat), and finally downward navboxes (only those need all=1) that are complements of these generic subcategorization banner templates. verdy_p (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
How have you have been here for so long without ever using an edit summary or responding in a thread in an organized manner? Be specific: what do you need to regularize in Category:South America in art? No one is creating a The Falkland Islands in art category. Knowing that Aruba is missing is fine to know but why do you want it to be displayed especially with misleading red links? And you aren't doing this for other templates so why these two templates? Ricky81682 (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
There are missing countries, just a few are inconsistantly listed, so files tend to be uploaded there and not in the subcategories that should be existing and listed there as they should... But terminating this job takes time or when it was ongoing, it was interrupted by this discussion thread. If it had been fainlized, the "all=1" would have been finally removed there. verdy_p (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, Verdy, as I already said in your talk page, that we do not need those templates there at all, because they just repeat the same links that already exists as subcategories, ie. Brazil in art. The "template:continents" is to be used in the continents categories, as are already displayed. Whereas the "template:Countries of South America" are to be displayed in the catergory of each individual country, so a user can move from one country to another using the template.
In general, there shouldn't be more than one discreet template in each category. Otherwise the page gets clogged. A template loses its purpose if it displays the same links that already exists as subcategories. They are navigation tools. They don't have any maintenance purpose. tyk (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@Verdy p: So once you and your colleagues are done with maintaining the portion of the tree which a particular navigation template serves, you will turn off use of the "all=1" parameter there? How many portions of the tree (and associated navigation templates) are you working on maintaining in this way at the same time? Is it possible for you to only work on maintaining one at a time?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
"You and your colleagues"? There's no coordinated action, many use these independantly since long and such navboxes are made collectively and independalty, and discussed in various places, taking into account the existant and new discussions discovered about this classification for various topics). The removal of this parameter takes time, as long as there are further pending works to do to rationalize missing members (and there are a lot, so this cannot happen instantly). That work may be blocked by such disuccsion here. The same is true for many notice banners that appear in some categories and stary for long, until discussions find a way to decide how to finalize the situation (e.g. if there's a need tochange some disambiguation links, or change a naming convention for some ranges of related entities). However nothing is broken and the impact of seeing some red links is minimal: there are also blue links that will find other relevant members that are still not listed as members of the caetgory, and this also does not affect at all how upload wizards are working to "categerorize" many files that are spread across incessible categories and that we need ot look elsewhere and recategorize once the missing categories are added with the appropriate names. Navboxes are just following the current state of the naming scheme, and finally allow this cleanup (made slowly, not automatically, by humans patiently navigating the categories to sort them and subcategorize files that need it. That's why the common "all=1" parameter should never be used in children categories, where navbox are used the most frequently for lateral navigation between siblings, but only in parent categoties, where files should should not be placed)., nad have to be patinetly moved (note that most of these file moves are performed using HotCat), which works independantly of existing navboxes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdy p (talk • contribs) 07:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Flashrays

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

User uploading OOS files after several warnings. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef., a huge deleted files record, but not even one useful contribution. Also probably a sock of Samanwik (talk · contribs) and Shame janjua (talk · contribs). Yann (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

LTA vandalism

This user is vandalizing files with some anonymous IPs, undoing my changes with this edit summaries: [29], [30] or [31]. Last week he did the same at Wikidata.

IPs user here:

81.41.172.147 23:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Also 151.43.229.18 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) 81.41.172.147 23:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
And now? --109.52.63.106 23:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
You are putting a wrong name to the photos,it should be put the name of the user who uploaded them!--109.52.63.106 23:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@109.52.63.106: However, it is curious that you are not only changing names from files uploaded by sockpuppets, but also imposing that files into articles and cross-wiki undoing my editions. This report can be seen here. 81.41.172.147 23:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Here is the link to my last week's report in Wikidata for similar reason. 81.41.172.147 23:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
And @109.52.63.106: note that in NikonZ7II's uplaods appears the name "Paris Orlando" in the metadata, so this is not a totally wrong claim, because if you search that name appears another sockpuppet account with that name too. 81.41.172.147 00:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
And what do you think they do genius? Do they block all the addresses in the world? Are you serious? --109.52.63.106 23:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
And what do you think they do genius? Do they block all the addresses in the world? Are you serious? --151.43.229.18 23:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@A.Savin: as the admin who blocked last socks of this user, what can you think it could be do? 81.41.172.147 00:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Comments like this or this clearly are added without assuming good faith. 81.41.172.147 01:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
How about a softblock for certain IP Address ranges in Italy?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done All blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

User 2001:8003:2468:3100:1C7B:A7AF:21E4:BE0D

Lots of vandalistic deletion requests by User:2001:8003:2468:3100:1C7B:A7AF:21E4:BE0D; see user contributions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I closed the DR-s and blocked the IP. Also I protected one file and cleaned its history. Taivo (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks, it appears to be all the same vandal, all over Telstra Adelaide 2001:8003::/32 and 2001:8004::/32.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

User:CCPERosario uploaded hundreds of photos but did not categorize them

CCPERosario (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
User:CCPERosario uploaded hundreds of photos but did not categorize them (that a few have a proper category was thanks to others), see Special:ListFiles/CCPERosario. Three weeks ago I have tried to reach him/her by the Talk page, but there was no respons. What to do? JopkeB (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It's allowed to upload images, without adding a category. I once was adding categories to files and saw something like this. The answer I got surprised me: I could do nothing about it. For me, it was a reason to stop adding categories. (I was looking for categories for files without, in on a special page) Of course I always add categories to my files. :) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC) PS I don't know if anything changed in the years, or someone knows more than I do, but I don't think you can blame the user imho.
I indeed cannot find a policy about this matter. And it would be sad if we can do nothing about this problem. I thought that every uploader is responsible for his/her own uploads to categorize them. And that files will be deleted after several years if they still are in a category Media needing categories (and the files are not used in a Wikipedia project). We can be tolerant for uploaders who only upload a few files, especially when they were uploaded to be used in other WP projects, but I have no sympathy for uploaders who just upload hundreds of photos without adding proper categories. If I remember well, earlier this year someone was blocked for going on with uploading many photos without adding categories. JopkeB (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
It is certainly not actively good behavior, but it's not a reason for a disciplinary action. Basically, when uploaders do this, their photos are a lot less useful (but still better than nothing). - Jmabel ! talk 05:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@JopkeB Descriptions? Licenses? Categories? Structured data? We try to pack too many weird things into our upload process, and we don’t even do a good job of handling them individually, let alone collectively. How about we stop blaming users for the outcomes of a bad system, and start focusing on the basics? Brianjd (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The problem is, that these photos have no structured data about the content, some have poor descriptions (see for instance the ones with agriculturaurbana*, without any clue about a location) and only a few of them have a category. How can you find them when you need them? The goal/purpose of Commons is to have media that are reusable by others. Then the "others" have to be able to find them. Commons has nearly 90 million media. I think that then there should be some kind of content structure to be able to find the ones you need, and that the category structure is a good tool for that purpose. The Commons policy is: "You should always put your uploads into categories and/or gallery pages according to topic, so your contributions can be found and used by others." Until this policy changes, I shall conform to it and encourage others to do the same. And for me categories are better for this purpose than gallery pages, which I consider as extras (and these photos are not in gallery pages either). Commons is maintained by volunteers. You cannot expect them to categorize nearly two thousand files of one uploader. Yes, I agree, we ask a lot of uploaders, but we do that with a purpose. And Commons is not non-committal like Flickr or Facebook. You cannot just dump thousands of photos on Commons and not look properly after them. JopkeB (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@JopkeB You can make all the policies you want; it is pointless if users don’t understand them or it is too hard to follow them. And what is the policy here anyway? ‘Should’ is not the same as ‘must’. There are many things that users should do. Brianjd (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
@JopkeB Although I find it passive aggressive, often the best way to get users to start paying attention to their uploads is if someone finds images that display nothing, have no description and no categories and properly list as them as out of scope (I emphasis the proper part). Then the uploader has an incentive to pay attention to their uploads if they care. If they just like uploading things to get an edit count or some other reason, they won't care. Else, Category:Media needing categories just continues to grow. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@JopkeB: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Is it not enough to ping the user? JopkeB (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@JopkeB Pings aren’t really meant as a permanent record, and certainly aren’t a public record, and some users get pinged many times and so may not respond to pings. An AN report is a serious matter and should be prominently included in a permanent public record. In this case you did not even include a ping: Pinging @Jeff G.. Brianjd (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
OK. Did not know this, about the AN notification, thanks.
Some time ago I learnt that just mentioning [[User:Username]] in a discussion also works as a ping. Is that not true? JopkeB (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@JopkeB Generally, yes. No one is suggesting that you did the ping wrong; what we are suggesting is that a ping is not enough. It does say at the top of this page that users should be notified on their talk pages, as mentioned by Jeff G.. Brianjd (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I now see it, I must have overlooked it, sorry. JopkeB (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
In general, users who are subject to any formal process should be notified on their talk pages; other notifications may also be necessary. Always check the instructions. Brianjd (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@JopkeB: It's a little more complicated than that. Per mw:Extension:Echo#Usage, one must link to another user's page and sign in the same edit (or mention in an Edit Summary) in order to effectively mention, notify, or ping them, and even then only if they have "Notify me when someone links to my user page" set (which is the default here).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@JopkeB and Jeff G.: en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is very clear about needing a talk page notification and they link to an archived discussion that justifies this rule. We might want to add a similar notice here. Brianjd (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Brianjd: Please search for "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s)." above, and on COM:AN and COM:ANB.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G. I am aware of that note, as I already said above. It is not similar to the one on enwiki, which is far more prominent and, unlike the one here, links to a discussion that justifies this rule. Brianjd (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Mass rollback on rather dubious grounds

It seems that a dispute between User:Davey2010 and User talk:86.152.177.188 has lead Davey2010 mass rollbacking all the IP's edits.

Problem is is that practically all of these reverted edits I've looked at are entirely valid, and this just seems to be a dispute over Davey2010 not wanting others to edit images in their tracking categories, and unless there's something I'm not seeing here, this really isn't an appropriate use of the rollback tool - what's important here is that the images get categorised, not which individual user categorises them. Equally, I don't think Davey2010's comments on the IP's talk page are especially suitable either. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 15:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

My categories state "<bus model> - Please don't categorise these images" ... so which part of "Please don't categorise these images" is hard to understand ?, If you choose to repeatedly ignore my requests to leave my categories be then you will be reverted, The polite message and the warnings thereafter are all appropriate - The IP ignored me so I warned them accordingly.
Am I the only person that finds it slightly strange that a user who hasn't edited since 22 November suddenly appears here filing this ANU thread, Very strange behaviour, If I didn't know any better I would say Alex and 86 are the exact same person .... but I'm sure Mr Noble knows all about VPNs and spoof agent softwares by now. –Davey2010Talk 18:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
"My categories"
Why would COM:OWN not apply to this?
What is wrong with the IP's edits such that they need to be bulk reverted? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I originally reverted because a few images were missing from my categories and then realised reverting wholesale may be a pointless task as they may not have removed the images in the first place (I'm convinced they have but being convinced and knowing are obviously 2 entirely different things),
Yes technically this is all Wikimedia's stuff - talkpages, categories etc are all theirs .... but if we're talking normally then I say "my" categories because I'm the one that created them and because they're under the prefix "Davey2010/" so in that respect I do consider them mine,
Anyway the IP was reverted 2-3 days ago and hasn't been reverted since (and aren't going to be). I don't really understand why Alex couldn't have spoken with me first, –Davey2010Talk 21:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The rollback tool is for reverting Vandalism - lets look at the two latest diffs on my watchlist Revision #719782226, and Revision #719782224.
Can you please explain how these are a suitable use of the rollback tool? You are as responsible for your edits when made in bulk as you are when making them individually.
Equally, do you consider this tone appropriate for a collaborative environment Last chance - you can either leave my images alone or you can be blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring, entirely up to you. COnsider this a final warning.
Ultimately, we're all hopefully here to create a store of useful, freely licensed media. I can see one user here who is helping to categorise these images, and one who is preventing it. I know who I'd rather have around. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 11:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Correction: I AM categorising the images .... just in my own time ... It's the Christmas period Alex .... I am not going to spend the Christmas period categorising 700 odd images just to please you .... I spend enough time on here as it is (which isn't a bad thing at all as I love doing the work that I do however one very important point: we all deserve a break)
Anyway logically your comment makes no sense but either way if you don't want me around then leave Alex as I'm not going anywhere any time soon.
The tone of my message was polite. Your perception of things is a bit wonky Alex.
Imagine creating this thread and believing it's an actual productive use of your time!, I'm guessing Alex didn't get all of the presents or money they desired so lashed out with this pointless and boring thread ....

As explained further up I immediately realised reverting the IP wasn't the best idea and immediately stopped and haven't reverted the IP since so I don't really understand the purpose or the point to this thread as the reverts all happened 3-4 days ago, Anyway I wish you all a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 13:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
If you want a category where no one is removing your files you have to create a personal hidden category like Category:Files by Davey2010/to do. But inside the regular category tree you can not forbid anyone removing or adding correct categories. GPSLeo (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
+1. --A.Savin 14:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Maybe it's my lack of understanding here but if I ask someone not to categorise images within my own personal categories then surely as a decent human being they should honour that request ?, As I explained to the IP I appreciated the help but I prefer doing things my way so surely as a decent person they should've said "Okay I'll let you deal with them" OR "Ungrateful sod, wont bother helping him in future" ..... The IP solely relies on Flickr to categorise these vehicles (which as I've explained to them before Flickr isn't always right) whereas I check with 2-3 different sites PER vehicle .... so as you can probably imagine my way takes 10x longer but my way means the images are 100% correct, I'm guessing the IP has come from a bus company category so even if I create it as a hidden category that'd still mess around with them anyway so I wouldn't win,

If you as a community would rather have 100s of vehicles all misidentified then I will begrudgingly move them all back to Category:Unidentified coaches in the United Kingdom and allow the IP to misidentify them or failing that the IP could leave my images alone and allow me to categorise them next year. –Davey2010Talk 14:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
There were some edits removing a personal category [32]. These edits are not okay and can become reverted. But most of the edits are not removing a personal category. If the IP misidentifies a vehicle you can of course undo the edit. GPSLeo (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
This picture is titled "...Leyland Leopard with Plaxton Supreme IV...". Unless this description is wrong, this edit by Davey seems like vandalism and Rollback misuse in one to me. And there were several reverts like this. Regards --A.Savin 14:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
GPS - At some point someone somewhere had removed a few images from the cats so I reverted the IP believing at that time it was them but then realised it may not have been hence why I immediately stopped and as I said I haven't reverted the IP since - Unfortunately I don't know where the images have gone and this is the precise reason why I maybe take a such strong dislike to people touching or meddling with my things as you lose track of everything,
A.Savin - Your comments are really not helpful, None of my edits were vandalism nor have I misused rollback - At the end of the day we have 2 editors who see and do things differently to one another - The best course of action here is for both of us to simply stay out of each others way - They help out at Cat:Unidenfied coaches.... and I help out with my own images,
  • To extend an olive branch - 86.152.177.188 as you like to predominately help with Plaxton images would you like to work on the Plaxton2 images?, I'll be honest I'd rather do it myself but providing you don't remove my categories then maybe we can work something out ?, Maybe you could categorise them but leave my categories in place?, If you want to do that let me know here, Thanks,
–Davey2010Talk 15:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah the Plaxton2 category shouldn't even exist as they should all be at Category:Plaxton coaches (as I became confused with the Supremes and various other models) so 86.152.177.188 so you're more than welcome to work on those and remove the categories from those images only if you'd like ?, Does that sound like a fair deal?, –Davey2010Talk 15:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
So then, do you have any further explanation how this edit is okay, apart from the one that "[my] comments are really not helpful"? --A.Savin 15:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes that was explained directly above A.Savin. I've now offered the IP an olive branch and hopefully for the time being a temporary resolution to this issue. Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 15:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done - I've self-reverted on some of my edits - 26th "excess" reverts reverted and 20th Dec category reverts reverted - The IP has since been on and has since been undoing my reverts to those unrelated to the cats which I'm happy with, Just disappointed they cannot come here and chime in. –Davey2010Talk 17:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Jorge Alfonso zamora romero

Jorge Alfonso zamora romero (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  copyviolated a lot. Lemonaka (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning sent. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

SinghIsFxing

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#SinghIsFxing, which was archived just now. I have nothing to discuss about this user, but note that their user page still has this notice:

This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Lord Alan B'stard.
Please refer to logs and contribs for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

There is no evidence to be found in the provided links, so what is the actual evidence for this notice (Is it acceptable to simply evidence from another project?) and why isn’t that evidence described at the notice? Brianjd (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It was added, and re-added after reversion, by Yann. Who has continued to make disparaging comments that they're a sock, whilst complaining that they're making disparaging comments. SinghIsFxing, and other editors, clarified that the supposed "disparaging comment" is a common English language idiom, but as Yann speaks English "at a near-native level" they surely cannot be wrong.
Lord_Alan_B'stard (talk · contribs) has not edited on Commons. I look forward to Yann's explanation as to how a Commons editor is "sockpuppeting" for an account that has no edits here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Benlisquare for cross-wiki harassment, Islamophobia, and other policy violations

The question on blocking the user was solved. If you want to constituent discussing in a proper form do this at the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Benlisquare or the at the policy draft Commons:AI-generated media but not here. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CW: Sexual content

Benlisquare has uploaded many images over the last six months that are ostensibly oriented towards demonstrating AI image creation platforms such as Stable Diffusion. However, after it became evident that almost all such images were of an inherently sexual nature and that these images were insufficient for illustrating the technology on English Wikipedia, editors there encouraged Benlisquare to create suitable alternatives. Their response was to create a misogynistic and Islamophobic edits of a pre-existing series. The images were used with a harassing and further inflammatory message on enWiki, resulting in an indefinite block there. Additional policy violations are semi-exclusive to the Commons and can be seen in their repeated violations of COM:PORN (primarily this image which was apparently only created to be "smut" for its own sake) and COM:NOTHOST with many other images that serve no educational purposes besides to adorn their user page on other Wiki sites. Additionally, while I don't believe the images themselves constitute child pornography, many were designed to mimic it with prompts such as "busty young girl". I am fully aware of the permissiveness we follow for sexually explicit images, but using the Commons for hate speech and the unwillingness to address what one administrator on enWiki called "ridiculous" conduct should be enough to warrant action here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti's request has been examined,
1- It has been observed that Benlisquare has made cross-wiki violations and hate speeches.
2- When the user's violations are evaluated, it is clear that he is not intended to contribute.
3- For these reasons, the user has been blocked indefinitely. And, decided to delete the pictures as well. Kadı Message 18:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Global lock requested. Kadı Message 18:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Kadı: I see that you have removed the talk page block, but your global lock request is still outstanding. Note that if you do wish to leave open the possibility for them to make an appeal, then a global lock would not make sense as it would prevent them from logging into their account at all. Also, in general we don't do global locks on long-term established users unless they have been community banned in multiple communities. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts, thank you for reminding, I was planning to withdraw the request. Kadı Message 07:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Pbritti, King of Hearts, and Kadı: Given the speed of this block, the user did not have a chance to reply here, but did reply on their talk page. (But no unblock request yet.) Brianjd (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I saw his reply. Kadı Message 13:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Pbritti Additionally, while I don't believe the images themselves constitute child pornography, many were designed to mimic it with prompts such as "busty young girl". At en:User talk:Benlisquare, another user suggested that the term ‘young girl’ is reflective of pedophilia. I have posted a rebuttal there. Brianjd (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Brianjd, @King of Hearts and @Pbritti, I replied him in his talk page. Kadı Message 13:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Unblock, and look very seriously at the fitness of Kadı to have an admin mop.
These images are puerile. But on a project that has NOTCENSORED and Wikipetan (and our ever-expanding multiplicity of COM:PENIS), they are emphatically not reasons for immediate indef blocks. I see no Islamophobia here and the fact that these images are haram, or even downright offensive, to some editors here (and presumably the admin Kadı) is not any reason to block a user, or even (of itself) to delete them. I'd support their deletion (same as for Wikipetan) because I see the subject choice as having zero valuable overlap with the notable topic they're supposed to be here to illustrate, and Wikipedia in general has plenty of problems with creepy editors and imagery leering towards the hentai. But, given our clearly established and long-tolerated policies on just what is accepted here, these are not part of anything justifying the reactions here, or on en:WP (and I stopped editing WP myself a couple of years ago because of that same admin).
Nor are blocks on en:WP of any weight on Commons. You might not like that, but it's how Commons has vehemently defended its independence for years.
I regret supporting Kadı's recent RfA and would certainly not do that again. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley I don’t think I fully understand the issues here, but I can say that Kadı’s haste in blocking the user, removing talk page access and requesting a global lock, all with no discussion beyond the initial post, is worrying. Especially when the last two actions were quickly reversed.
I would also call out the CSD F10 deletions (some of which have since converted to regular DRs – see the user’s talk page), particularly the two that I just voted to keep as user page images. F10 was never appropriate for a user who is apparently active and in good standing on another project. Of course, the ‘halal edition’ series was also deleted under F10; this should be reviewed. Brianjd (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
(Since the RfA has been mentioned already, inappropriate speedy deletion nominations were a big issue there.) Brianjd (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
(But I kind of regret posting that last comment. We really shouldn’t be discussing the RfA here, at least until there’s a consensus that this admin has a current problem.) Brianjd (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley and @Brianjd, this is not the right place for discussion about my RFA. I withdrawn the global lock request and gave back talk page access quickly. I examined carefully the whole incident, @Pbritti's arguments aren't wrong and he proved the user's harrassive behaviour with links. Users can not use Commons in order to harrass people in various Wikis. Regards, Kadı Message 15:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Your actions can be questioned in this discussion, since the actions taken may have been unbecoming of an administrator. Bidgee (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I find myself repeatedly agreeing with Andy Dingley in the discussion above (pretty much on all accounts), but there’s a searing question in my mind I didn’t saw addressed so far: Why did Benlisquare pick this specific theme for his demonstration of A.I. image generation techniques? Would’t a landscape work as well instead, or indeed anything else? Was Benlisquare unaware this theme would garner discussion unrelated to the matter of A.I. image generation techniques? Was Benlisquare interested on discussing the latter or indeed on the said garnering? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm grateful to Benlisquare for their contributions here, because it's a very current topic and clearly they have more knowledge of it than I do. But as you highlight: the two things are separable. We could have illustrative images here (even portraits) that didn't have to be so gratuitous. A far better discussion could have tried to get Benlisquare to agree that, and then to have provided some less controversial alternative.
Instead we just saw this massively confrontational response (culminating in indef blocks) and a disappointing response by Benlisquare. Now maybe they were genuinely trying to provide a halal version of these images (as we're evidently not allowed to see them whilst discussing them, that's hard to know). Maybe the sarcasm in their reply went unappreciated. This could all have gone so much better. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: No Islamophobia in the images, you say? When they were explicitly made exclusively so that Benlisquare could make this horrific post in flagrant violation of COM:EDUSE. And the issue here is the editor's misuse of the Commons to not only harass people on enWiki but also upload images that run contrary to COM:PORN. And, c'mon, you don't expect us to seriously believe "busty young girl" is innocuous when the editor themselves prefaces their actions with "I'm not ashamed". And Brianjd, I'd just recommend striking that comment about the adminiship; I'm glad you measured your comment almost immediately afterword. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

"No Islamophobia in the images, you say?" and then you cite a text post, on a different project. This is Commons, not Wikipedia. If you have an issue about behaviour on Wikipedia, then raise it on Wikipedia, or even Meta if you consider it to be that serious. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley, Can users upload inappropriate images to Commons in order to use them for harrassment in Wikipedia? Kadı Message 15:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hypothetical whataboutery. What relevance does that have here?
Ask instead did Benlisquare upload anything inappropriate, not "might" someone do such a thing.
In particular, are the uploaded images inappropriate? Why? Which Commons policy do they breach? (you are on a project where Category:Caricatures of Muhammad exists and won't be going away) We cannot see these images, conveniently you deleted them immediately and without discussion. So now we're only left with your word to go on to judge whether their uploading justified both their deletion and an immediate indefinite block of a user. I will remind you, COM:SPEEDY does not mean "I want to do this quickly, because I am angry", it only applies in the circumstance where an admin action is assumed to "have broad consensus support", and so discussion is not necessary. Given the extent of the discussion since, it's now obvious (and was almost certainly obvious beforehand) that discussion of them would have been necessary, and would have been facilitated by leaving the images visible during that. Because these are so obviously outside COM:SPEEDY you were then forced to choose a rationale of "Personal photo by non-contributors (F10)", which is ludicrously untrue. You should have your admin rights questioned just for that, because past experience tells us that we have no need of such an admin.
If users use an image for harassment, then that's an issue for where they do their harassment. Even an innocuous image is frequently usable for harassment, like turnips in an article on British footballers. Its use for harassment doesn't alone make it an unsuitable image. Only in an extreme case would we extend any measures from the harassment back to the images (such as an image that is only usable for harassment). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Exactly: the "halal" images were only usable for harassment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley, The images were showing a woman which wore a scarf. Also, these images have one purpose: Harrassment. That's why I deleted the images and blocked the user. In Muhammad's caricatures, they are used for encyclopedic articles, not used for harrassing people. In deleting process, I agree your comments about F10 criteria, the correct one is G3. In deleting process, I accidentally press to F10 and really sorry for that. But this does not affect to the block. Kadı Message 16:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Please, don't treat us as fools. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Kadı Message 01:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I think you need to think hard if you wish to stay as an admin. Andy’s comment is not bad faith, he questioned your comment to the actions you did. Bidgee (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bidgee and @Andy Dingley, the correct criteria is G3. As I said before, this does not affect to the block. The main subject is harrassment. Kadı Message 02:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
But the deletion isn’t valid. As I said I would like an uninvolved admin to review it (ensuring it is something that should be F10). I’m not sure I trust you with the sysop tools. Bidgee (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bidgee, you can ping another admin for evaluating the deleted images. Kadı Message 05:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
@Kadı Is it necessary to ping another admin? This is the admins’ noticeboard. Brianjd (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
@Brianjd No but if someone wants to ping other admin, it is not a problem for me. Bidgee said that he/she does not trust me. Therefore he/she can request another evaluation from another admin. Kadı Message 11:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I presume it's fairly easy to accidentally use the wrong rationale as a fault of memory. If your best criticism is a set of relatively inconsequential errors by an admin, then you're quite off topic in this discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Unblock the user as time served, since the user was given zero warning, regardless of being a long term contributor. Actions on other Wikipedias can be considered from time to time but not in this case.
The halal series might needed to be deleted (can an uninvolved admin review) but all the speedy deletions done by the blocking admin were incorrect done (incorrect speedy reasons, and some images didn’t warrant speedy deletion but only a DR). Bidgee (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Why not this case, as the harassment was through their actions on both the Commons and enWiki? And what about the litany of policy violations directly related to their actions on the Commons? You have given a preferred outcome without any basis for why this should be the case beyond critiquing a separate editor's actions—actions done, unlike Benlisquare's, without malice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
You’ve only pointed to guidelines not policies, guidelines are to give guidance but they aren’t something you can block someone and even then they have to be warned first and that has not been done in this case. In only extreme cases (compromised accounts, accounts uploading illegal content, sock puppets of long term abuse accounts) that blocks without warning should be done, in this case the actions on Wikipedia aren’t enforceable here.
If they upload content that is clearly content that is aimed at intimidating/harassing then they can be reblocked. Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive. Bidgee (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
They violated multiple guidelines, the EDUSE policy, and proposed CIVILITY policy/guideline, and were only stopped from perpetrating further harassment by the block. By your own standard, the action was preventative. Additionally, certain blocks—including those for serious harassment—can be performed without a warning. The editor in question can have their block reviewed (it looks like the timeline is set for three months). By then they should have had plenty of time to review their actions and resolve to not repeat them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
The block is excessive, even if one was warranted. Again guidelines are not policies and proposed policies aren’t enforceable. EDUSE is something they should have been given a warning for. Time for you to drop the stick. Bidgee (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm just explaining the policy and guidelines that were broken since your initial comment neglected to acknowledge these. Additionally, your comment towards Kadı was plainly excessive. Your willingness to defend an editor who engaged in harassment while not assuming good faith of a responding admin is unfortunate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Sigh. No way am I defending them. The block on English Wikipedia was likely warranted but this isn’t English Wikipedia. This is the last comment I’m making, as this is getting repetitive and you clearly have POV that you want to force onto me but sorry, move along. Bidgee (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley and @Bidgee, I corrected the deleting reason, and I am very sorry for clicking the wrong reason.
From now on, if you have more question marks in your heads, I would want to answer them. I always prioritize justice in my adminship, I do not want to upset anyone unintentionally. I have received these rights to serve our community, so serving the community in the best possible way is my primary purpose.
Best regards, Kadı Message 10:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 Comment Benlisquare uploaded questionable content, but I am not sure an indef. block is needed at this time. So either, the block length can be reduced, or unblocking can be granted after some message from Benlisquare. Yann (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yann What is questionable content? I am looking for specific policy violations that occurred on Commons, and having trouble finding any based on the discussion above. Do you think G3 was appropriate for the ‘halal series’? Brianjd (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Several files were deleted, as they are clearly not educational content. See Special:DeletedContributions/Benlisquare for the list. More files may require deletions. Yann (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yann Is that comment addressed to me? The link is useless to me, as a non-admin. I noticed that you recently deleted some files, including at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated art of a French maid teasing the viewer.png. Unlike some other DRs, this one had no copyright concerns and a decent amount of support for keeping the file. Also, you were involved, having !voted. The DR had been open for less than 58 hours. I would like to see the file undeleted and the DR closed by an uninvolved admin after being open for at least the standard timeframe (7 days). Brianjd (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, Benlisquare agrees with the deletion. IMO this can be considered an "attack image", and can therefore be speedy deleted. Other recently deleted content includes Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated AI artwork of Rumia.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated portrait art of a young woman with long purple hair.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated portrait art of a young woman with long blonde hair.png. I also find File:Tarrant genderbender artwork.jpg objectionable (deleted in 2019). Yann (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yann Benlisquare didn’t oppose deletion, but didn’t really give a reason for deletion either. I don’t think it’s necessary to mention that here.
Even experienced, competent users make copyright mistakes: I don’t think it’s necessary to mention Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated AI artwork of Rumia.png here. At some of the other DRs, perhaps, but not here.
The other two DRs are better examples, but the last one (blonde hair) was also closed after less than 58 hours by you, despite the incomplete discussion. Brianjd (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Kadı and Yann: Where was this used as an ‘attack image’? I didn’t see it being used in this way. In any case, I think the support for keeping the file at the DR should override any poor use this file might have previously had. I intend to take this to COM:UDR, but will wait a bit to avoid forking the discussion. Brianjd (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
An image doesn't need to be used to be considered an “attack image”. Such content would be OK if it were historical or from a notable artist. For historical documents, or documents from notable people have an educational value in themselves. Offensive content created by AI does not. Yann (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
In what way are these offensive?
(I would also note, as an unrelated digression, that we've come to a very strange doorway through the Chinese Room if we can talk about humans now being "offended" by AIs.) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
DR is now open again. I have commented there. Brianjd (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yann, I wrote here about the length of the block, if we can have a chance to read his opinions about his/her attitude, I can evaluate and reduce the block length. Understanding the mistakes is the most important thing for me, he has lots of contributions, I am not happy for blocking @Benlisquare, so if we can read a message from him, this would be better. (CC: @Andy Dingley, @Bidgee, @King of Hearts, @Pbritti, @Tuvalkin) Kadı Message 15:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I was pinged here, but I haven’t anything to add others didn’t (or wont) say better. To summarize, the subject matter of AI generated images is interesting and clearly in scope; it can be argued that there are some copyright concerns; Benlisquare obviously is knowledgeable about this stuff, and that’s good for Commons, but seems to love to cause a stirr, which is not; the contents of these images are certainly objectifying but then again in the same way art has been since the first Neolithic Venus figurine; the textual prompts used are creepy a.f. (as the father of a young woman I have been two decades trying to be neither too vigilant nor too laidback about possible leerers and gazers) and seem to have been designed to trigger human viewers more than affect algorithms (which is really bad); on the other hand lurid female portraits are only a fraction of this user’s output (how big, though?); the word choice to tag censored versions (adding "halal" to the filename — instead of, say, "SFW" or even "for prudes") in a context thitherto unrelated to Islam or to religion in general seems to be Benlisquare trying (sucessfully) to stoke flames; and Kadı’s swift and severe admin action looks like Kadı was easily baited by said word use, which is not good. This is all too complicated for me, and I don’t log in to Commons to deal with this kind of messes. Good luck to all, I’ll be categorizing >100-year old rolling stock diagrams in the room next door. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 Comment I don't see a mention above, but Commons:Deletion requests/Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare is worth a read, although the issue seems to be more copyright than content related (there are content arguments for deletions too). Yann (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't usually participate here on Commons, but I posted a version of the following on Ben's user talk page at enwiki, and wanted to post it here as well. "The first ever high-resolution AI-generated smut uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. No, I don't feel ashamed creating this, it's the 21st Century and the wheels of technology must perpetually turn." is the beginning of User:Benlisquare's description for File:Stable Diffusion AI-generated painting of nude woman.png. There is no doubt that Ben has been intentionally using the AI to create "smut" (his own word) to upload to Commons. Let's look at some of the prompts he's used to create images to upload here:

I can't believe that anyone would want this person unblocked. This isn't about censorship, this is about the use of AI image generation to objectify women. I hope Commons, as a project, can effectively self-regulate this sort of abuse. My thanks to Kadı for doing the right thing. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich An 18-year-old is fully grown for all medical purposes that I know of, and almost all legal purposes. There is nothing objectifying about that description. The uploader replied at enwiki, elaborating on the point in my previous sentence and referring to the file description.
Here is the relevant part of the file description: The above prompt was written to imitate the style of a typical cringey Facebook post written by an old man, in order to fully exploit the quirks of how the model was originally trained, as the training data was collated from public web content scraped by web crawlers and then organised into captioned pairs. Imitating the posting style of a particular demographic within the text prompt will provide better image generation samples of the typical kind of photography such a demographic would post online.
There is much more discussion at enwiki about the prompts being quirks of the training data. We can have a debate about whether this interpretation of the training process is correct (I have no particular knowledge here), but that is a different debate to the one we are having now.
Nothing that I wrote above is a defence of their other prompts, but I still fail to see any policy-based justification for a block (let alone an indefinite block). Brianjd (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Brianjd Reviewing Commons:Blocking policy, we can argue whether "Insertion of gratuitous vulgarity" applies but reviewing essays, en:WP:NOTHERE I think summarizes the issue. The uploads have a questionable at best copyright status and based on their nonsense prompts seem to be of very little encyclopedic value. The user spends all their time arguing for the sole purpose of spamming their images and nothing more. Maybe there is a slight academic argument here but any serious adult who wanted to improve the stable diffusion article would then come back with a moderate alternative set of images based on more regular prompts. In the end, is this a good use of anyone's time? Ricky81682 (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ricky81682 As I have pointed out at Commons:Deletion requests/Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare, Commons is not Wikipedia. It certainly isn’t enwiki (the user is, or at least was, also active at zhwiki). So whether they are here to build an encylcopedia or their uploads are of encyclopedic value are irrelevant.
We could argue about whether Insertion of gratuitous vulgarity applies. Indeed, there have been arguments over some of the user’s uploads, and it seems to be largely a Wikipedia issue anyway. Since the situation is not clear, why is a block justified?
As for the copyright issue, did the uploader persist in uploading copyright violations despite relevant warnings? I see no clear indication of this. Therefore, this does not warrant a block either. Brianjd (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I deleted the nominated files due to the unclear copyright status per COM:PCP and nominated the remaining files for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Benlisquare. Only one generated file is okay because it is based on free licensed photos from Commons. The two audio files also might be problematic but for now I did not nominate them. GPSLeo (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I said it summarizes the issue. Commons isn't here to create an encyclopedia but it also isn't here to be a free webhost or for people who's entirely bailiwick is arguing some policy (copyright, categorization, image issues or something else). People have been blocked for fighting over categories or file names or just generally wasting time here. Again, there are adult ways to handle things and this was none of that. Either way, I'm not any of the relevant admins here and don't intend to keep gravedancing but as an aside, I started a proposal about blocking policy issue at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Adding_NOTHERE_to_Blocking_policy. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Are you arguing for blocking Benlisquare on the basis of them "fighting over categories" or using this "as a free webhost" or was it "arguing some policy (copyright, categorization,"? Because if not, why raise these thing? You didn't "summarize the issue", you scatter-gunned a bunch of whole new reasons into it, including en:WP:NOTHERE which isn't even a policy on a project that isn't applicable here, just in the hope that something would stick.
Of actual Commons policies, that is, policies on this project, which ones has Benlisquare breached? Because so far no-one is showing any. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I am raising the separate issue of whether blocking policy reflects current policy. You keep pointing to the ten items listed in policy and I'm saying we block for more than that so we should have official policy reflect that. You are fixated on the listed policies and ignore the fact that users have been blocked for things not listed there. That is why you are not getting a satisfactory answer to what listed policy Benlisquare has violated. But keep on demanding a listed policy for the block when we only have "more common" reasons for blocks in policy. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Typically I have seen most users (excluding LTA, and users posting illegal content) are given at least one warning before a short block, that ramps up every time they continue with the behaviour they were blocked for.
In this case, zero warning was given and a excessive block was placed, against COM:BP. The user was given a indefinite block, with no history of a block before and no history of issues before this thread. The fact is the only “Intimidation/harassment” case I’ve seen. Bidgee (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay, how is the picture of a teenage geisha “objectifying”? At all? Dronebogus (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
As Ricky alluded to: there are very few absolutes when it comes to Wiki jurisprudence (copyright perhaps being one of the most certain of rules). The rest is about judgement calls within parameters in part established by policies, guidelines, precedence, and sometimes subjective decisions made on the hope they improve the relevant project. This is a case that involved multiple policies and guidelines. Because it also involved behavior that spanned two sites, considerations for the standards of both are relevant. Some will cry "censorship" (it's not), some will appeal to policies/lack thereof. Neither overcome the reality that a block in this case improves the safety, stability, and longevity of the Commons. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Pbritti An indefinite block, with no discussion, somehow improved the safety of Commons? That might be true in extreme cases. This isn’t one of them. I keep asking for a proper explanation of what Benlisquare did wrong, and I am not getting good answers. It certainly feels like censorship. Brianjd (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This block not only lacked prior discussion, it is now impeding subsequent discussion. Although I am happy to help this user, like I said, I should not have to. Brianjd (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

What discussion has been impeded? The user's single comment about the technical aspects of what the user says the software does is fine but not particularly significant. Still, defend this if you want. I find boundary-pushing childish behavior a net drain and one person's obsession with getting their fetishes publicized is not new. Just because you can be offensive and annoy people doesn't mean you have to and it doesn't mean other people have to deal with it out of some general principle of tolerating idiocy. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ricky81682 The user’s understanding of AI seems to be highly regarded and should be valued in that DR, which will set an important precedent for all AI works on Commons, especially when some users currently display a grave misunderstanding of how AI works. Brianjd (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Levivich above made it to the point perfectly. It is very sad that some people continue to support inclusion of these images on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
What point? That the subject of a file (and whether it's offensive or pornographic) is defined by its filename? (As he also claimed at Meta). Or that it's based on the text of a prompt to an AI generating program? Of course neither is true, we have to go by the content of the image, as uploaded. None of those that I've seen (although you have been busy prematurely deleting them, thus preventing their discussion) have been any more so than a great deal of content we already have here, and are not evidently considered as a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I have never made any claims here, at Meta, or anywhere else, about filenames, or what defines the subject of a file, or what makes the subject offensive or pornographic. @Andy Dingley, I'd appreciate you striking the incorrect statement. Levivich (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • That's in relation to meta:Steward requests/Global/2022-w51#Global lock for Benlisquare where you had the same problem I was complaining of, in that we were expected to discuss a global block for uploading files that had since been deleted, so all we could see left were their filenames. If your comments were only in relation to the text prompts he'd used to create them, then I'm happy to withdraw this.
But the same problem is still there: we can't say "this upload is pornographic" if we can't judge the content, not just text associated with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Yann: I don’t support the images produced by Ben but they should have been given a warning and if that didn’t stop them, an AN/U discussion should have been started for ways of restricting them. This whole situation was handled poorly. Bidgee (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Unblock - First and foremost the blocks at both EN and here were deserved for obvious reasons, Anyway I would support an unblock in leu of Ben being indefinitely banned from uploading ANY AI images to this website (no exceptions) and this ban should also extend to them attempting to skirt the ban by trying to upload the content to Flickr and then transferring it from there to here. If we cannot have them banned from uploading AI images then this block should continue being in place for the foreseeable future.
For context they've been here since 2008 and as far as I can they've never been a problem up until now ..... so instead of losing a potentially good editor why not focus our efforts on stopping them doing something that's caused so much controversy here ?, –Davey2010Talk 22:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
If Benlisquare expresses both an understanding of how their images broke other policies, guidelines, and conventions—particularly with regards to harassment, Islamophobia, and sexualization of all stripes—a topic ban from AI images like that described above is actually a fine solution for the Commons, imo. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, Of course it should also go without saying but any <x>phobic comments or a repeat of this commentary should result in an immediate indef-block. I feel I should also state for the record that I certainly don't agree with nor condone any of their comments .... however IMHO that happened on EN not here and IMHO EN have dealt with that ..... As far as I'm aware no such comments have been made here (except possibly under the guise of images but I don't know as I never got to see the now-deleted images). –Davey2010Talk 00:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Unblock summary, unwarned punitive block for crap done on another wiki. A lot of the support comes from people who seem to want to aggressively and unilaterally create a chilling effect on “gratuitous vulgarity” instead of letting the community decide on a case-by-case basis as it’s always done. Dronebogus (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    And while we’re here de-mop the admin responsible for this mess and de-mop Yann for supervoting with a ludicrous rationale. Dronebogus (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked Benlisquare given the lack of support for sustaining the block as seen above. Discussion can continue below regarding any further action necessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Extremely bad call. Two admins and another user oppose this action with three supporting it—three who have expressed their views without an ounce of AGF. Really a bad move, KOH, and I hope you immediately rectify you error. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@Pbritti: I think there is a slight consensus to unblock, but even if there was no consensus either way, a unilateral indef block does not stick when there is no consensus to support the block. The way AN/U discussions are usually supposed to go is that people propose remedies and !vote on them, and then the decision is made whether to block - with no block being the default of course. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I also support support the unblock despite I support deleting the files. But this problem has to be addressed in the deletion discussion and not with a block. A block would be justified if the user uploads similar files after the current files got deleted. We can and should never block someone for policy conform files. GPSLeo (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts, @Dronebogus and @Pbritti: I took action to protect Commons, the community's view was to unblock the user, I respect to the decision. Thank you to everyone involved. Kadı Message 05:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn’t actually call for an unblock above (and I hope Pbritti was not counting me among those who expressed their views without an ounce of AGF), but I do support it. Brianjd (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I do find it rather ironic that Pbritti accuses three of us (whom didn’t support the indef block) of not AGF, yet they also didn’t AGF. I have to give some credit to Kadı who accepted the decision, though I think they could’ve handled the whole matter better but at least had AGF. Bidgee (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bidgee, Thanks for pointing out, the community sometimes opposes the decisions of admins, this is completely normal, new ideas are bringing different perspectives, so the community can have a chance to analyze deeply and make a consensus. This is very significant for me, I love the Commons' system about these issues. For example, in Turkish Wikipedia, we do not have policies which are about consensus in admin's decisions, so Commons is one step ahead of Turkish Wikipedia.
@King of Hearts, @Brianjd, @Dronebogus, @Pbritti, @GPSLeo: I would like to thank all of the opposers and supporters for their valuable comments. Kadı Message 14:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bidgee: I'd caution against accusations you can't back up, especially when you accused me of POV-pushing in a discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I should clarify that I oppose a topic ban for the same reason I oppose a block: no one has clearly stated what the user has done wrong on Commons. And whatever the problem is, it isn’t their use of AI, so a topic ban on AI is particularly problematic. (This might be a moot point, though, as the user stated on their talk page that they have lost interest in AI generation.) Brianjd (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
"And whatever the problem is, it isn’t their use of AI, so a topic ban on AI is particularly problematic." - Brian have you actually read the issues at EN and have you seen the AI imagery here ? ... because if you have then you'd know their use of AI is the reason why they're blocked at EN and the reason as to why they're here now ..... The whole AI thing is the root cause so your " it isn’t their use of AI" is utter nonsense.
Despite Ben apparently leaving AI behind IMHO they still should've been topic-banned from it .... nothing stops them pulling this stunt in 5-10 years time..... –Davey2010Talk 20:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It's not worth trying to explain; Brianjd has been told repeatedly exactly what behavior on the Commons precipitated this block (to recap: creation of out-of-scope attack images and non-EDUSE "smut", uploading images that AI created that could be interpreted as child pornography due to the prompts). Benlisquare seems to understand the issues and has made improved statements of remorse, so at least there's that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
You want someone blocked for files the user uploaded they are not even deleted? As you see in the new deletion discussion this is definitely no obvious and easy case. What are the deleted and reuploaded files you are talking about? I do not see such case here. --GPSLeo (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: Actually, a substantial number of the images in this discussion have been deleted; try checking the OP and clicking through the links as quite a few were so demonstrably in violation of policies and guidelines that they were almost immediately deleted. Never mentioned anything about "reuploading". ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@Pbritti Can we drop the child pornography thing, which has been thoroughly rebutted at the user’s enwiki talk page and received no support from anyone else here? Actual child pornography concerns should be dealt with by WMF legal, not here.
Commons:Deletion requests/Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare’s footer says: Because of the detailed description these files can have an educational value. That discussion was basically about copyright, not scope; it is far from clear that these files are out of scope. Brianjd (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Agree, baselessly accusing people of creating or uploading child sexual abuse material should be an actionable offense. Dronebogus (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Neither of you engage in dialogue, deflecting and using personal attacks. Frankly unacceptable behavior from both of you, and I hope both of you don't comment on further discussions on this page as neither of you have demonstrated requisite knowledge nor ability to refrain from personal attacks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
How is “this user makes child porn” not a civility violation? Dronebogus (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
@Davey2010 No, AI was merely a tool they used to create certain problematic kinds of images. If someone uploaded a bunch of harassing photos (and there was consensus that they were indeed harassing), we would deal with the harassment but we wouldn’t impose a topic ban on photography, whatever that means. Brianjd (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Brianjd, Yes and the use of AI tools is what got them in this mess in the first place .... so surely banning them from the very thing that got them indeffed on EN and got them a thread here is a good start to resolving this ?,
Why wouldn't we or more importantly why shouldn't we impose a topic ban? - Again their use of AI has been the issue here so why would you not ban them from uploading AI imagery ?, People at EN routinely get banned from editing certain subjects because of issues .... so why would we not ban from uploading certain images that causes issues here ? .... It seems the most logical answer here.... –Davey2010Talk 13:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Closure

This discussion seems to have run its course and is just a pointless hostility magnet. There’s no consensus for further sanctions and I don’t think they’re necessary given that Benlisquare acknowledged fault and stated he will no longer be making AI works. Recommend uninvolved admin closing. Dronebogus (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

So Benlisquare is no longer indef banned from the project, but they're simply driven away from the field they're usefully working in and they're only permitted back on the basis that they "admit guilt" and that Commons editors are allowed to label them as a child pornographer? Well that's a result we can be proud of. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Please, just accept there’s a point at which you mitigate losses and fold ‘em. I think Commons should be less tolerant of casually chucking extremely inflammatory accusations like “child porn” at other editors but that’s a question for another thread. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Technically speaking, I don't think any formal sanctions have been imposed on Benlisquare. Nothing in this statement indicates that. It is not productive to make up a misrepresentation of the unblock statement but the closer of this section may this differently. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't King of Hearts' comments that I saw as so intimidating. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
DB, didn't you recently have to clarify that in the nude pictures of Wikipetan that you drew and uploaded, she was an adult? I mean you got some guts defending the AI smut in this discussion. Yes, of course Ben should be TBANed from uploading AI-generated images. He used the AI to create smut and then uploaded it here and then tried to add them to Wikipedia under the guise of demonstrating AI. It's a more sophisticated method, but basically the same thing as drawing a nude picture of Wikipetan and uploading it. You guys are too much. Happy New Year! Levivich (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Charming passive- aggression. You are now muted. Happy new year. Dronebogus (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. If it’s to humiliate me, the only purpose I can possibly see, it isn’t working. Dronebogus (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
But while we’re playing the below-the-belt ad hominem game, wowee what’s this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1126914409 Dronebogus (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • WTF is "Ben" ?
"Yes, of course Ben should be TBANed from uploading AI-generated images." OK, so you have two options here:
  • Pitch for a TBAN on Benlisquare. Find some policy-based reason for that, on a project that already has COM:NOTCENSORED, Wikipetan and a whole bunch of anime and similar artwork here already. Good luck with that one.
  • Pitch for a clarification of COM:SCOPE to exclude these. Then Benlisquare will obviously be in breach of it on any further uploads. But your chance of getting that through is probably worse. I understand your concern here, but the simple fact is that Commons seems to have accepted these as acceptable, rightly or wrongly. Neither of us are likely to change that. I'm not supporting it, but I'm nor am I going to see an editor hounded like this for breaching a "standard" that doesn't exist on the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
If I’m not mistaken our friend here is playing the “ew hentai” card. Or possibly the “cough pedo” card. Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Did you link the wrong diff? Anyway, my point is that it was wrong for Ben to use an AI to create sexualized images and upload them to Commons, just as it was wrong for you to draw a nude Wikipetan (and others) and upload them to Commons. I'm surprised to see you of all people defending this so ardently, it seems you haven't learned from your recent experience. Eww is right. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
That isn’t remotely an argument. Dronebogus (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
“It’s wrong because ew”? That’s the hill you’re gonna die on? No worse than naked wikipetan or “busty young girl” in your defense. Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
You are resorting to cheap point-and-laugh humiliation tactics in place of an argument. It’s just as pathetic as the behavior you’re attacking. Dronebogus (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_101&oldid=773167916"