This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Jinnifer is a long term block evader / sockmaster over on enwiki. They have recently turned to adding copyvio images to articles. You guys recently blocked User:Moilpewo and speedily deleted their copyvios. They are back as User:BoxtheMump, uploading the same stuff, and also editing logged out at 2600:387:C:7131:0:0:0:3 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), where they removed the copyvio tags. - MrOllie (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I mean, if the name wasn’t obvious their “contributions” consist of the same scat porn from the same elderly pornstar. Block and nuke is in order. Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
He has been harassing me and User:Deepfriedokra for months on en.wiki and now here. He's blocked with no talk page access on en.wiki, and on Commons I've turned off all notifications from him and prevented him from emailing me, but I can't prevent him from editing my talk page here, so unless I turn off all notifications from Commons - which I shouldn't have to do - I can't prevent him bugging me. He has even started thanking me for edits on my own talk page, because those are the only thanks notifications I cannot turn off. I've asked him to stop and he has not. If I knew how to ask for a global ban, I would, but I don't want have the time to learn right now. I know from his latest message on my talk page that he sounds like he is never going to post there again, but I have enough experience to know this is not the case. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Trust me, I have no desire to do it ever again here. But I must say, I wouldn't describe someone as "harassing me for months" unless they'd been doing it continuously for those months, e.g. once a week for over 6 months. This was not the case with me. (Speaking of which, I can certainly daydream of putting a curse on another person so that any attempt to avoid an issue will only exacerbate the issue [like in the first Harry Potter book when the Dursleys try to keep the Hogwarts letters from coming], can't I?) And by the way, please note that I've created a Request For Comment on Meta asking for help (not in lifting ANY block, but rather just dispute resolution in general; see that request for more info). Cheerio! Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello All, The user Hellomyfriends1222 seems to have uploaded nearly only Copyvio contents and very few useful content. Would it be possible to help deleteing the problematic files and remind him firmly that Commons is not a social media platform? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
RevengerTime
Somebody might want to make use of Special:Nuke for RevengerTime's uploads and have a word with them about copyright. Possibly a good-faith misunderstanding, but most of their uploads appear to be copyrighted screenshots from Vimeo. There's no evidence any of them have been released under a CC licence and several appear to be from professional music videos. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
chameleonpost may have worked on the advert, but there is no indication that T Mobile, the probable owner, was the one to release it under the cc by-sa -- GuerilleroParlez Moi15:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the deal with this person is, but it looks like they aren't here to build a media repository since they blanking people's talk pages and making a bunch of other random nonsense edits. Can someone please look into it and block them accordingly? Some of their edits probably need to be converted to. Like the arbitrary changes to category names. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal attacks from a person, I suspect using multiple accounts
Hello, I would like to bring to you attention the last comments toward my person from Priss45, Mariu44, Purisa89, 31.4.180.220, I suspect being the same person. Acoording to them/her/him, I am transphobic, homophobic, mysogynistic and racist:
For racism: [2]
For homophobic, transphobic and mysogynistic: see this comment [3], [4], [5]...
I refute all these accusations, as I did not write anything from this substance.
Also, the account it all came from Javierrrrr66668 uploaded porn on the platform, by uploading a modified photographs of a porn actor with another face on it, suposedly hers/his File:Altadama Craqdi.jpg
As stated sooner, I think they are the same person and opened a request to check it here: [6].
May I ask to block these account and IP so that I do not have to suffer peronal attacks? Thank you for having read my request. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello. A user and I recently had a dispute on Persian Wikipedia, and finally a administrator warned that user not to be disruptive. He quickly came to Commons and searched through my uploads and nominated some works for deletion. (Includes some new photos and a photo from ten years ago!)
I wonder if hounding users across multiple independent wikis can be considered disruptive? I'm not sure if my pictures are legal or not. I don't insist on keeping illegal images. But I don't want this user to hounding me on other wikis and annoy me. Ταπυροι (گپ) 08:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@محک, I understand how "notifications" can make a person frustrated sometimes. I randomly checked one DR, and it mentions that there is no FOP in Iran, and it is of course true. There is no freedom of panorama in Iran and "architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings and sculptures of all types are protected by copyright law" and they enjoy a "protection for a period of 50 years" after the death of "authors". I am not sure if this is to be called hounding but I always prefer a friendly approach. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
In either case, I notified @Mehdi: who seems to be doing a number of DRs which does not seem like hounding but more likely reviewing edits and then following up on the same subject. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't familiar with Panorama Law so far and I have no problem deleting images.
The problem is that Mehdi sued me on Persian Wikipedia this week, and the administrators concluded that he purposefully wanted to find a way to sue and condemn me by angering me. An admin warned him not to repeat it. But he has found a new way against me in the Commons. The admin of Persian Wikipedia can testify to confirm the part that concerns him. Ταπυροι (گپ) 22:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
We have differences of opinion on some issues in other wikis, but it has nothing to do with this discussion. I check many files in categories related to Iran every day. When we come across files that violate the commons rules, we need to check all of that person's images, as is now common practice. User has a misunderstanding and there is no follow-up. --MehdiTalk06:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
An outcome was reached for a new track map color scheme in order to provide Wikipedia:MOS:ACCESSibility for the color blind users at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC after having a long discussion that took multiple months. FleurDeOdile reverted image changes three times on Wikipedia [7][8] and [9]. After being warned that he was at 3RR by Jasper Deng[10] and given a followup reminder by MarioJump83[11], he then proceeded to take it to commons to avoid breaking the 3 revert rule there. He continued edit warring here by nominating three maps with the new scheme for deletion with no valid rationale. Here [12][13][14], he simply called the images "useless duplicates". This behavior is also present in edit summaries where he reverted edits on EN-WP as "useless" during the past few months. Further attesting to the bad faith in these nominations is the fact that he openly accused a participant of canvassing in the discussion on commons and in the priorly linked discussion on WP for the colors here while there is no evidence of canvassing having taken place. Someone else even mentioned that they were notified via the notice at Cyclone Freddy's talk page. Also note there is a prior block here for edit warring and multiple prior blocks on the English Wikipedia for the aforementioned behavior. Hurricane Noah (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I have left a comment in English Wikipedia regarding FleurDeOdile. In here, a ban from weather-related images should suffice, but cross-wiki disruption and (implied) off-wiki coordination should be considered. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Einfach so ohne jeden Grund und Anlass provozieren und einen Streit vom Zaum brechen, das kann es nicht sein. Kooperation ist auf dieser Grundlage nicht möglich. Ich erwarte eine Entschuldigung und zusätzlich, dass hier in meiner Sprache verhandelt wird. –Falk2 (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Die Angaben in einem Formular wurden von einer untypischen Schreibweise in die Standardschreibweise geändert. Du änderst das zurück, gibst dabei allerdings keine Erklärung, warum du dich gegen den Standard entschieden hast, sondern kommentierst deine Änderung mit einem aggressiven Spruch. GPSLeo (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@Falk2: - dein Account wurde am 6. Januar diesen Jahres erst wieder entsperrt, vor dieser verkürzten indef Sperre gab es bereits mehrere kürzere Sperren wegen persönlichen Angriffen. Ich gehe davon aus, dass du auch weißt, wofür Zusammenfassungszeilen gedacht sind und warum Bemerkungen wie "Willst du Krieg" gerade dort nichts zu suchen haben. Falls nicht, schreibe mich gerne hier oder anderswo an. Wie stellst du dir vor in Zukunft inhaltliche Konflikte in angemessener Form zu klären? --Kritzolina (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Und deswegen darf ich mich gegen unsinnige Störungen nicht wehren? Das ist schon eine interessante Rechtsauffassung. Guck Dir mal an, worum es jedesmal ging. Ich pfusche jedenfalls nicht in anderer Leute Bilder herum. Ich mache mir die Mühe und gebe nicht nur das Aufnahmedatum, sondern auch den Zeitpunkt an und baue Bildbeschreibungen ein, die auch was aussagen. Wir haben Millionen Bilder mit sehr dürftigen oder gar keinen Beschreibungen und eher noch mehr mit deinem falschen Aufnahmedatum. Bei letztetem hat allerdings die Wiki-Software einen großen Anteil, weil der Zeitpunkt der letzten Bearbeitung. automatisch eingesetzt wird.
Im übrigen ist eine Frage keine Klage und die Aktionen kann ich nur als Provokation ansehen. »Gewaltphantasien« sind so lächerlich wie die »Nazipropaganda« Ruhig, Brauner. Was hier passiert, empfinde ich als Mobbing und ja, Kamerad Savin, Du bist hier der Chefmobber. Willst Du schon wieder anfangen? Du bist, das sage ich hier nochmal, für Deinen Posten mit erweiterten Rechten völlig ungeeingnet. Du genießt Deine Unangreifbarkeit und verteilst Bösartigkeiten. Angst habe ich vor Dir nicht. Hier besteht ohnehin keine Waffengleichheit und an deinen blindwütigen Hass habe ich mich inzwischen gewöhnt. Du hat als erster angegriffen und auch hier offenbar nur auf eine Gelegenheit gewartet. Hast Du sie vielleicht selber veranlasst? Leg die Ansprüche, die Du gerade an mich stellst, mal bei Dir selber an. Wie wäre es außerdem mit gleichem Recht für alle? Übrigens, man spicht den an, von dem man etwas möchte. Man redet aber nicht über ihn und gleich gar nicht in seiner Gegenwart. Schon deshalb bist Du für Benimmbelehrungen absolut der Falsche. Du hast selber überhaupt keine Umgangsformen. Aber klar, eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus.
Die Aktion von gestern ist einfach nur lächerlich. Sie passt aber zum Zustand von Commons. Nur haben wir auch einen Grundsatz »Nicht stören«. Ach ja, der gilt natürlich nicht für mich.
Nein, ich bitte nicht um Gnade. Das hätten einige nur gerne. Verurteilt bin ich sowieso schon. So einfach werdet ihr mich aber nicht los. Der Bilderhochladeweg über die deutschsprachige Wikipedia ist durchaus noch vorhanden. Er macht nur mehr Arbeit.
GPSLeo, Dich muss ich schon als Savinschen Paladin bezeichnen. Das Mobbingteam ist wieder da und ich staune eigentlich, dass es solange gedauert hat. Für Dich gilt letztlich das Gleiche wie für Deinen Kollegen. Trotzdem soviel: Es gibt einen Unterschied zwischen Zeitpunkt und Zeitdauer. Der Doppelpunkt steht oder stand zumindest jahrzehntelang für die Zeitdauer. Zeitpunkte stehen in Fahrplänen und dort werden korrekterweise Punkte gesetzt. Davon abgesehen, sowas nassforsch zu ändern sind unsinnige Bearbeitungen und die sind zumindest unerwünscht. Dass Das ein Komplott ist, habe ich schon geahnt, aber alles lasse ich nicht mit mir machen.
Normalerweise müsste ich schon fragen, warum niemand den Störer auch nur befragt. Hier ist aber nichts normal und Euer Hass hat sich nicht gelegt. Es tut nicht gut, wenn sich charakterlich völlig ungeeignete Personen zu Ankläger, Richter und Henker in einer Person machen können.
Jetzt könnt Ihr das Erschießungskommando aufmarschieren lassen. Zum Abschluss trotzdem ein Zitat von Erich Kästner:
„Was auch immer geschieht: Nie dürft ihr so tief sinken, von dem Kakao, durch den man euch zieht, auch noch zu trinken.“
So eine Gewaltfantasie wäre schon zu "Friedenszeiten" widerlich, und jetzt erst... no comment. Wann wird das, was früh oder spät begriffen werden muss, endlich begriffen? Und zwar nicht nur auf Commons sondern auch beim WMF Office? --A.Savin13:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Indef:User confirmed in his answer that he is not interested in appropriate language and communication, on the contrary he continued to use violent language and personal attacks. - Der Benutzer bestätigte in seiner Antwort, dass er nicht an angemessener Sprache und Kommunikation interessiert ist, im Gegenteil fuhr er mit gewalttätiger Sprache und persönlichen Attacken fort. --Kritzolina (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Can some other people, ideally including some Polish readers and admins, please take a look at the contributions and user page here. I see the whole lot at outside COM:SCOPE and falling under COM:NOTWEBHOST. Accordingly I'm thinking that bulk deletion and a block would be an appropriate response.
Folies Bergere Tropicana Matchbook front closeup.jpg
This issue was submitted to Village Pump, at it was suggested to refer to Admin.
Folies Bergere Tropicana Matchbook front closeup.jpg was recently bot deleted. I believe this copyright issue should fall under PD-US-no notice advertisement, however I could not figure out how to modify the file. The image was a scan from a physical matchbook advertisment probably from 1960. How can I get the image reactivated and assign the proper copyright information? Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
GabrielDorneles(talk·contributions·Move log·block log·uploads·Abuse filter log) block user
This user still uploads an amount of images with wrong licenses despite numerous blocks and attempts to explain him the issue [16]. Almost all of his files are tagged with source from Pinterest or "his private collection" (used in few images in comparison with those from Pinterest. However some files tagged as being from his personal collection appear to be from a website due to generally having a watermark from the website).
He also sometimes removes categories, possibly deliberately, from some images or even categories, see the user talk page [17] where the most recent posts other users have written to ask the reason for these edits. 193.146.182.3209:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: From what I've been able to see, it seems that they still continue to use Creative Commons when uploading old files despite your warning, and now using also the CC0 licnese –they usually adds the by-sa-4.0 tag–. Nor does it appear that they has modified the files uploaded before this topic was issued. However, I think the uploaded files are old enough to keep them. 83.61.231.2116:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Same range of uploads and contributions, and some files appear to be recreations after those by most recent confirmed socks. Apparently a 'duck' case. However, by the moment this person appears to uploads only files in the public domain.
This one just came up on the Village pump: it looks like User:Gmihail has been uploading a lot of files, many or all of them copyrighted, with clearly false claims of "own work", supposedly offering CC licenses on work where they don't legitimately own the copyright. Quite possibly, their work may also include valid "own work", and also quite possibly some of the files in question may be in the public domain. I don't have time to sort through this right now, but someone else who does more of this sort of thing may want to. - Jmabel ! talk18:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
And I hate to say it, but it looks to me like this pattern may have persisted for almost a decade, with many individual files being deleted, but no one looking at the broader situation. - Jmabel ! talk
I've been spot checking some of their uploads - some images with known dates old enough to be PD I've changed licenses; others where is unclear I've listed for deletion. What do we do from here? Do we need an admin who knows Serbian to try to communicate with the user? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
In Feburary 2022, User:Schlurcher made their bot, User:SchlurcherBot, start adding redundant data to the structured data section of all files, at the request of one user. Within a couple of weeks, someone noticed the edits and objected to them. There is still no consensus for which, if any, of these statements should be added but Schlurcher is refusing to engage in any discussion and also refusing to stop the bot from making these controversial edits. I wrote on their talk page in June and they refused to discuss it on their talk pages, telling me to discuss it on the project pages instead. I wrote on the project pages in August, making sure to ping them, and they were pinged again in November asking for details about how the bot works but they have still not responded. Instead, judging by Special:Diff/714181474 earlier this month (which the bot had already edited in December), it appears they have made their bot start adding even more controversial statements.
It doesn't seem like the bot is malfunctioning but people don't want it to do those tasks. I see some people asking about the bot's logic with no response which is a fair criticism but that doesn't seem like the biggest issue. I don't see the objections on the bot approval pages and having other discussions in many different places does not help resolve the situation. It looks like a half-approved VP discussion was taken by one person to create a pretty significant bot task which was approved there but people don't like it. Request 9 is just for a speed approval so that's not relevant but request 8 is from over 3 years ago. I agree that the solution is to have a VP proposal discussion that the prior VP wasn't really resolved (it was many things) rather than start at the bot's edits unless the issue is the bot operator's refusal to get into the bot's logic which I think will derail into a fight about whether the edits are appropriate anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll resond to the question with the bot's logic, if that's the issue. However, as mentioned by GPSLeo, I do not see this as a user problem between Nikki, Schlurcher or SchlurcherBot, as the bot is performing edits as covered by the approved requests Commons:Bots/Requests/SchlurcherBot8, Commons:Bots/Requests/SchlurcherBot9. I do not understand the mentioning of the half-approved VP discussion. This discussion was clearly linked in the first request number 8 under the out of scope section. The bot has never performed edits with regard to this discussion, especially as the discussion was not completed. -- Schlurcher (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I misread the bot approval discussion entirely. Either way, I don't see any problem with your conduct or the bot's at all. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The data is not redundant, you just think it's redundant because you might not use it.
A kid first needs to crawl before it can walk. This is crawling part and phab:T303629 is where we go walking. Given the complete lack of SDC development it might take several years before we get to that point. In the meantime this data is very useful and not redundant. When (if) we get to the point, the data can be provided by some software logic and we just remove this again. No need for admin involvement here. Multichill (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This IP has gone through seemingly every video of people having sex on Commons and tried to delete it as “amateur porn” even when the rationale makes no sense (historical, professional quality porn films like Harlot, Everready Hardon and A Free Ride got caught up in their crusade). Please block as disruptive attempted censorship/request spamming and close/delete/revert their requests. Dronebogus (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
No upload since your warning. Why do you think the account was likely created for advertisement or vandalism? Do you see anything outside of that one upload that suggests this? Kritzolina (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
This long-time contributor with thousands of uploads seems to have serious ignorance of the project rules and is not interested in them even when approached. Again and again, non-free images from other sources are uploaded under the indication "own work", modern art works in exhibitions are photographed and posted here under free licences. Numerous railway photos from recent decades appear to be works by third parties that the user has scanned or taken from other websites without permission. In turn, content with expired copyright is uploaded with restrictive licences (and own work claim). Please take note, the user is ignoring me. Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment Last warning sent, some copyvios deleted. But files which are not obvious copyvios should get a regular DR. Yann (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
User constantly uploads copyrighted national anthem recordings or interferes with existing ones, despite having them repeatedly deleted/reverted. When I told him to stop, that was his reply. · • SUM1 • ·(talk)06:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 month (maybe too lenient, but here since 2020 and not been blocked before). They can go do whatever they want somewhere else, and are welcome to come back here if they agree to abide by the basic rules. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
User has been overwriting historical photographs with poorly upscaled and colorised versions, which look like they've been fed through some face-focused MyHeritage type AI software with no further human curation (eg. File:Mary Eliza Mahoney.jpg is given a fictionally flawless complection, and a necktie bow that looks like burned garbage).
I've pointed out twice on their talk page that historical images should not be overwritten in this way per COM:OVERWRITE, phrasing the second message as a final warning. They're either ignoring that advice or not seeing talk page notifications. A block on the File: space may be necessary to get their attention. Belbury (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@Sjgdzn: Background: User requested deletion of their uploads without reason beyond wish to have them deleted, although they were uploaded years earlier. Most deletion requests were denied as images were deemed in scope and on Commons for too long for courtesy deletion without reason. The user is now removing license information from their uploads, then tagging them as missing license - apparently an attempted back-door deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I have asked nicely to have my photos deleted for personal reasons. I was not aware by submitting them under the CC license that I would not be able to delete them. I am not intentionally vandalizing my own images. Sjgdzn (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not understand what the issue is when other photos were deleted for courtesy reasons. I am asking that all of my photos be removed so I am able to curate their presence online. I was unaware that Wikimedia has a no-deletion policy as it is not stated clearly when uploading and every other site I use for sharing my work allows deletion of content when requested. Sjgdzn (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I never use Special:UploadWizard myself, so this got me to try it just to find out. As far as I can see, as Sjgdzn says, there is nothing there indicating that issuing a license is irrevocable. A user would have to dig pretty deep to work that out. In contrast, Special:Upload, used almost entirely by experienced users, says explicitly, "note that these licences are irrevocable" (bolding in the original). Why on earth isn't that in the Wizard? I'd be inclined to take Sjgdzn's complaint at face value here, and I strongly suggest we fix this in the wizard. - Jmabel ! talk22:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Answer: The third screen of the upload wizard, named "Release rights", contains the following text (in my case): "I, Robert Flogaus-Faust, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (legal code)." This should be perfectly understandable. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It's not perfectly understandable to a new user, especially when almost every other website for photography has an easy deletion policy. Without further explanation given it is not clear the license will remove the ability for a user to delete their own content in the future if they change their mind, as I have, about distribution under that license. Unfortunately, as a result of not being able to modify what has been posted under my account/name I cannot continue uploading more content to Wikimedia. Sjgdzn (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at those files that are copyrighted (non-libre) and block that user indefinitely? - The Harvett Vault | he/him | user | talk - 00:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC); edited: 21:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
User had such a profile back in eswiki, insulting administrators and contributors and engaging in 3RR, lenghty discussions at talk pages and battling on ANI for years.
The purpose to this report is due to the user's insistence on adding the 'noindex' tag repeatedly on this file. User gives no explanation when reverted by a third party and he even presumes bad faith on him when asked about it and refuses to reply to him when asking for a justification of his reverts. In this case, he's engaging again on 3RR against me for removing the tag, now saying his real name is on the file's original upload description registry (1), also tellnig me stop bothering me with what others have tried to do before, exposing a bit of a narcissistic attitude.
As this user has been banned from eswiki before, is there any possibility from being indef blocked here too? He's causing the same problems he made on eswiki of speaking aggresively and presuming bad faith most of the time. If not, is there any possibility to hide or delete the original registry for the tag to be finally removed? --Bankster (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment What is your problem? I have provided you with an explanation: "I do not want my real name to be indexed (in Google)", So you're lying when you say I haven't provided a reason. Rather, you should give an explanation for your edits here instead of gratuitously picking fights (alluding to the problems at EsWiki). What is the reason for deleting the Spanish description here, can you explain it to us? Can also you explain this? And this?
The reason for the edit war is solved. I warn both of you to not start an edit war, also on other pages, again. GPSLeo (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
New user (at least, new to Wikipedia) uploading questionable images
MuhamedK10 has uploaded multiple images that may or may not be compatiable with Commons; however, all of them are uploaded as 'own work,' which I doubt is actually the case. It's probably best I delegate this to someone who is more experienced in Commons. I dream of horses (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Ricky81682 These users seem to employ a sock farm, currently super active in en wiki too. They make me busy reporting to admins in English wikipedia. One more similar vandalism only account was blocked in en wiki. Please keep an eye on these accounts, which are already blocked in English wiki but not here:-
@Kashmiri: Do you have any information to share regarding this? I saw you were fighting against their vandalism activities in the past. Do you have any knowledge of any more user accounts which I missed to mention here? --Haoreima (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
@Haoreima Hi, not much, I just saw the edits made by लोहरान, reverted them and left the user a warning. Being active primarily on en-wiki, I'm generally disappointed with the Commons processes. These accounts have been indeffed on en-wiki, yet instead of an automatic block here we again have to spend time debating their contributions.
@Kashmiri: The two reported accounts as well as one more account that I mentioned here additionally are continuously vandalising actively. But unfortunately, no actions are being taken yet. --Haoreima (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons doesn't have the same number of active administrators and telling people "they are uploading on top of very obscure images to fight about very scripts" is not something that is obvious here. In either case, it seems like the drama has stopped and their translations and template creations which are probably problematic aren't enough of an issue to block people for. In theory, they could be useful if they knocked off the script egotism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Should we really accept such a mocking tone towards the nominator in copyright discussions of a given photo? Rainerhaufe (talk·contribs) in this discussion replied "Und wer hat es dann veröffentlicht? Irgendein reicher Geldgeber, der geschützt werden muß? Die Märchenstunde ist erst nach 21 Uhr" (translation: "And then who published it? Any rich financier who needs protection? Story time is after 9 p.m". seriously, the nominator just wanted clear proof that the photos were published 70 years ago. Instead, he got a mocking reply. How can you talk about copyright with the uploader when he makes fun of allegations of copyright infringement. How can a serious user refer a user to watch a bedtime story? how to assume that such a person shared a photo in good faith when he openly disregards other users. 95.41.211.23020:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Whatever comes from this it also might be worth giving the user a warning not to upload anymore potentially copyrighted images since it looks like quite a lot of their uploads have been either been deleted or have DRs started about them. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Most either are valid or the DR hasn't been closed yet. Its a bit of stretch to say DRs that are still open are invalid. Same goes for the reverse if they closed as keep of course, but my comment related to the ones that have resulted in the files being deleted. Although I image a good percentage of the DRs that haven't closed will have the same result. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I have posted a new topic for this in the Administrators' noticeboard and ping you in it, but you didn't respond to this anyways until the topic was archived. Now you're saying I made constant edits in violation of the consensus? 隐世高人 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
You have made a point in it, and partly I agree with it. But not all of the commons categories for Japanese name are spelled with modified Hepburn. Category:Osaka, for example, is not being spelled as Ōsaka. And because Category:Osaka already has hundreds of subcategories, it is not feasible to rename it. Generally you have to follow the right pocedure to rename a category. Please be careful not to be blocked. Some of Japanese admins are not fond of discussing, but prone to resort to authoritative actions. --トトト (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
As to your question: I told you numerous times that Japanese place names are to be written in non-macron form as per an official regulation by the Government of Japan. Besides, you failed to mention the Gaimusho (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) system and Road sign romaji, both of which don't use macrons at all.
The words in the sources you have provided so far are just suggested English writing by the Japanese government for the place names in Japan, and as the writing system intentionally removed all the phonetic marks from them on the basis of the Hepburn romanization, the writing system isn't the accurate romanization for these Japanese words. (and they aren't attached to any romanization systems) In addition, you said here that I recently performed the edit on the Commons as an edit war with the lack the consensus, and what about you on the Commons once, again, and once again with these edits recently? 隐世高人 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I think you have to read the instruction for renaming categories very closely. My edits you mentioned above are, unlike yours, in accordance with the instruction and thus not edit warring; when a category move is requested and if you are not in favour, you have to start a discussion on the corresponding talk page. Discussion makes consensus; reverting the request doesn't. And yourevertedthese requests all without starting discussions. Take this as a final warning, otherwise you will end up blocked someday.
As I have mentioned before, Hepburn romanization is the most widely used romanization writing system for the Japanese language worldwide. (includes in Anglophone countries/areas, and the inventor James C. Hepburn was also a native English speaker, all of them are also undeniable) So following the naming rules for the categories in the Category names part within the Commons:Categories page, (there are exceptions such as…names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language) the categories related to Japan that use Japanese words as names on the Commons shall use their writing in Hepburn romanization as the names of the categories, instead of the names from modified Hepburn romanization system suggested by the Japanese government. Additionally, once the discussion starts on any Wikimedia sites, performing any edit/edits on the disputed content associated with the discussion on the site before the real consensus is reached should be considered as edit war, even if it was just the request, in the case that you have made on the Commons. (including your recent edit on the Commons) 隐世高人 (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Almost no one writing in English writes Japanese place names with macrons. That ought to be the deciding factor. Look at any English-language news story about a Japanese city that would theoretically be written with a macron. We need to use names that will match users' reasonable expectations, not some theoretically pure approach. - Jmabel ! talk16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
You should know that consensus (全員の合意 in Japanese) wouldn't be declared reached by any parties or persons, by self, involved in the discussions whoever started them and it wouldn't be a real consensus was reached if any parties or persons that participated had other opinions in the discussions. For you, it is always could abandon your own claims and leave the discussions when you see reaching a real consensus to be a mess. However, if you continue with such edits on the Commons before a real consensus has been reached, then you would be breaking the rules in the name of them. 隐世高人 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: The Hepburn romanization is the most widely used romanization for the Japanese language worldwide, and it is mentioned in the Hepburn romanization and the romanization of Japanese on the enwp, (you can edit it yourself if you think not) also the romanization for the Japanese language aren't only used in the English language news. As such, this is just an issues related to the general range of use in romanization for the Japanese language, rather than to the theories. 隐世高人 (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
No one cares about the "worldwide most used romanization." That isn't the point. Commons isn't for playing a game about which romanization of Japanese you want because it makes some weird point for you. It is about finding a sensible way to organize categories. You can then create all the redirects you want to the main category in all the different versions of Japanese (romanization or not) to your heart's consent. As discussed above, Osaka is used because it is the most simple, default way of finding Osaka and all the subcategories exist so that people can figure out how to sort images from Osaka. Either way, there are instructions on how to oppose a proposed move and removing the request is not a solution. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Nonsense. Commons is expected to be correspond with wikipedia. That is what educational purposes stand for. Then why should we deny category names being syncronized with wikipedia articles? --トトト (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Do you believe there are policies/guidelines that say Commons is expected to correspond with Wikipedia or category names should synchronise with Wikipedia articles? If so, I suggest you read What Commons is not. Yasu (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I restored the move request (even though a week has passed) for Category:Lake Chōkai and started an actual discussion at the talk page (the request was NOT "clearly nonsensical, mistaken or consensually rejected") which is what the template tells you to do instead of playing revert games. If User:隐世高人 wishes to engage beyond "this Romanization is worldwide the greatest and most used so we should ignore the official Japanese government", I suggest it be conducted there. At the very least, a source for that Romanization would be helpful. We can then move onto the mountain if there is a consensus or move to a CFD if that is preferable. In either case, reverting the template and reversing a bunch of moves is inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: I have said above that "the general range of use" is part of mentioned guidelines for naming (there are exceptions such as…names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language) within the naming rules for the categories at the Category names part in the Commons:Categories page. (maybe you are selectively ignoring it?) It is the normal move to revert the disputed content associated with the discussion to the last edit of the page prior to the discussion starting on any Wikimedia sites before the real consensus is reached if the discussion is started. (and administrators do it on any Wikimedia sites, too, when they intervene) then other parties or persons continuing any edits on the disputed content after the pages were reverted would just be a edit war of violating rules. (or your "play revert games"). 隐世高人 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Sock block request for Liswinkpm
Liswinkpm was among four socks picked up during the latest round of CUs looking for Fenrk socks on EnWikipedia (see latest entry on archive page here). Liswinkpm is the only one with any activity on the Commons, so requesting a quick sock block. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done No issue here with this account. We may block it if they are operating with several accounts on Commons, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Yann (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussion of the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg will require some cleanup. The case's background is that MlangFinn uploads images to Commons with a broad interpretation of PD50Finland and Freedom of Panorama with minimal source information; In most cases, the images are OK, but some photos are considered art or contain art.
However, Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg deletion discussion comments contain off-topic remarks. I already commented on MlangFinn talk page that his idea of "...(Raid5) has assailed me previously under another username ..." is most likely incorrect. Raid5 sent me a message, and I will also reply to him to calm down. However, the deletion discussion, afaik would still require some cleanup.
In Finnish Wikipedia, I would also remove all MlangFinn's and Raid5 comments on deletion discussion with guidance that they can rewrite comments again so that they focus on a topic and do not contain personal attacks. However, I do not know the process in Commons so I will notify you here. (ping to @Raid5 and Mlang.Finn: so that they know about this discussion) -- Zache (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
A09, unfortunately I cannot see or read your message — the user “Raid5” has messed the code on the discussion page. If you care to look at the page, you may notice that after the heading No. 68 (F-E-Sillanpaa-1963.jpg), all entries are illegible or otherwise erroneous. I don’t understand why “Raid5” did not corrected her his mistake in the first place. Could anybody correct the code error because I cannot spot it? --Mlang.Finn (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)edit ”her → his” disruptive editingraid500:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mlang.Finn: Wikimedia Commons is using heavily transclusions (ie. templates, modules) for handling translations so the page rendering will timeout much easier. That is the reason why 300000 characters in wikipedia is ok, but 50000 characters in commons talk page is too much.--Zache (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa keskustelu Kysymys käyttöoikeudesta PD-Finland50 – Cc-by-nd-4.0: ”En tiennyt miten luokka kuvineen poistetaan, joten merkitsin luokan kuvat yksitellen poistettavaksi ja muutaman kuvan luokan ulkopuolelta. Yritin merkitä selkeästi poistomallineeseen linkin tähän keskusteluun, kertomasi linkit ja yksilöllisen linkin Finnan sivulle. Ehkä tämä keskustelu riittää aiheesta. Kiitos vastauksista. ---raid5 25. elokuuta 2022 kello 23.14 (EEST)” Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg ei ilmeisesti ole taideteoskuva, mutta Mlang.Finnin tallentamien kuvien joukossa on ollut useita taideteoskuvia. Alunperin keskustelu alkoi minun tekemästä virheestä: Kysymys käyttöoikeudesta PD-Finland50 – Cc-by-nd-4.0. Jokainen tekee virheitä, kuitenkaan Mlang.Finn ei vastaa, ei suostu noudattamaan sääntöjä eikä korjaa toimintaansa. Miksi kuvan tiedoista pitää poistaa tarpeellista tietoa? Miksi toimiva https-osoite pitää korvata http-osoitteella? Hän käyttäytyy huonosti eikä osaa pyytää anteeksi. Minulla ei ole muita käyttäjätunnuksia kuin ne, jotka olen maininnut suomenkielisen Wikipedian käyttäjäsivuni alasivulla. raid513:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I have not uploaded photographs that are artworks without a proper license. After 50 years, press photograph enter Public Domain and, after that, the license CC-BY-ND-4.0 becomes obsolete because there are no restrictions for Public Domain photographs anymore. The said license is valid only until the copyright expires.
I would also like to note that “Raid5” refuses to use English here — is it sure that she he has understood all relevant facts? In a general level, one might also remark that if a person cannot write grammatically correct Finnish, one may doubt if the person etc. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC) edit ”she → he” disruptive editingraid5 00:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC) edit fix Raid → Raid5 raid523:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The referred discussion above was about photographs by w:fi:Helge Heinonen, awarded photographer who got a state artist's pension for her career. Claiming that her photographs of famous persons in a studio or other ways prepared would be under pd50finland by default is a pretty stretched interpretation. --Zache (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Heinonen’s photographs are typical press photographs, many published in Apu, for instance. They do not differ essentially from the images in Category:Images from Suomen Kuvalehti or Category:Images from Helsingin Sanomat. Also the Finnish Heritage Agency classifies them as press photographs, not artworks. Labelling these something other than press photographs is copyright hypocrisy. Even a good press photograph is still a press photograph, and this is to be judged by watching at the individual photograph in question, not at the photographer (a fallacy). I do understand, though, that photographers’ associations have here an axe to grind and they wish to set the originality treshold unreasonably low (for monetary reasons). --Mlang.Finn (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Kuvan Pentti-Saarikoski-1977.jpg lisenssi Finnassa on {{Cc-by-nd-4.0}} eikä ole siten sopiva Commonsiin. @Zache kirjoitti keskustelussa Kysymys käyttöoikeudesta PD-Finland50 – Cc-by-nd-4.0 ”– – – ja osa taas on tavallisia valokuvia joiden suoja-aika on 50-vuotta kuvan ottamisesta. – – – kuvaushetki on selkeästi tehty kuvaamista varten, niin kunnioitetaan sitä lisenssiä jonka Museovirasto niille on antanut.” Tässä oli ainoastaan yksi esimerkki. Joku voisi katsoa Mlang.Finnin tallentamat lisenssiltään ongelmalliset kuvat. raid5 21:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC) edit lisäys Zachen lainattuun kommenttiin. raid522:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I removed the deletion tags as it was clear case (Same photo was licenced under CC-BY in Flickr by The Finnish Heritage Agency (Museovirasto in Finnish)). Also note this was not a similar case to the previous ones as the image was newer than 50 years old. With this photo there were no dispute if it was under the copyright or not by age. In any case, in the future, please use regular deletion with discussion instead of speedy deletion in cases that are not clear. (as I also meant in discussion you referred) --Zache (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. That was so very kind of you! Perhaps you might also consider having the following files undeleted so that I don’t have to waste time on the process:
These are typical press photographs. These could have been taken by numerous professional photographers, as well as the other Heinonen images “Raid” organized to be deleted.
By the way, why do you refer to Helge William Heinonen (a male) as “she” if “Raid5” is supposed to be a “he”? And why is “Raid5” never accused of warring or threatened with a blocking? It would be very nice indeed to try to maintain some consequentiality here, just for the look of it. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC) edit ”she → he” disruptive editingraid5 00:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC) edit fix Raid → Raid5 raid5 23:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) edit diff, @Zache: ”Please stop referring the Raid5 to her. He has repeatedly said he is male, and using the wrong gender bothers him, so it seems you are doing it to annoy him.” @Taivo: ”some users have strong opinions about how they should be called, please try to obey their wishes.” raid521:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Here “she” does not refer to “Raid” Raid5 but to Helge Heinonen, or more precisely, to Zache’s conception of him! I really do not understand that logic. Can “Raid” Raid5 read properly? --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC) edit oikea käyttäjätunnus de:Benutzer:Raid → User:Raid5raid522:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mlang.Finn, Raid5 has also said that he would like that you would write his user name properly "Raid5" and not "Raid". I have also said this to you earlier so I will say it again. --Zache (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
As the page history indicates, that user has been bombarding my talk page. I don’t know what triggered her him in the first place. I do hope that she he would stop. Her His deletion request merely shows that she he is willing to harm me by harming Commons, by hindering the public from using photographs in Public Domain. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC) edit ”she, her → he, his” disruptive editingraid521:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
@Mlang.Finn Please stop referring the Raid5 to her. He has repeatedly said he is male, and using the wrong gender bothers him, so it seems you are doing it to annoy him. -- Zache (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Please leave reverts of technical edits to somebody else, as it doesn't help that people who are participating in disputes are reverting each other edits. There are enough neutral editors, such as Wikimedia Commons admins and other regulars, who can do it if needed. --Zache (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Done. I closed the request as kept. All others: some users have strong opinions about how they should be called, please try to obey their wishes. The three redlinks above refer to files created and published after 1966, so they are in public domain only in Finland, but not in US and cannot be restored: every Commons file must be freely usable in US as well. Taivo (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mlang.Finn: : Generally CC BY-2.0 is a good license. But they were published by Museoviraston Kuvakokoelmat. The photographer is Helge Heinonen, who died 2012 and Museoviraston Kuvakokoelmat had no right to publish them under the license. Only Heinonen's heirs have the right. The photos are protected with copyright until 2083 (70+1 years from Heinonen's death). Taivo (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to note that Finna still has the older license (CC-BY-ND-4.0) visible for those three or four Heinonen images dicussed here. Why? The FHA simply does not have manpower enough to update all its databases. The new license (CC-BY-2.0) was published in Flickr but not updated for Finna. One could simply write to FHA and ask them to update the four licenses for Finna, too — and also inquire if at least the rest of Heinonen’s pre-1973 photographs (now de jure Public Domain) could be updated and released under CC-BY-4.0 or CC-BY-2.0 or PD at Finna as they do have educational value.
Accordingly, there is no reason not to undelete at least those three files (as the Saarikoski file was kept), and Taivo’s arguments are off the point. It is not plausible that FHA would lie about the permissions of its materials. The burden on proof is on the person making such a claim. Palun! Minu arvates Soome Muuseumiasutus sellest asjast ei valeta. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The user “Raid5” continues disruptive editing. For instance here and here, that user removed essential information from the “author” field of the template. The photographer is anonymous, but he or she worked for Helsingin Sanomat newspaper, as I indicated in the first place. This is essential, as the anonymous photographer might have been working for Lehtikuva agency as well. edit ﹫mlang.finn ”+hr” → raid5 ”+hr” → ﹫mlang.finn ”−hr” → raid5 ”−hr” = ±0. raid521:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
At the same time, this user accuses me with missing essential information. The behaviour of that user is disruptive and intentional, not only here but in the Finnish-language Wikipedia as well. Basically, that user campaigns to drive away a productive contributor. Please take action here, and note that the user may not understand English perfectly. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Helsingin Sanomat ei ole valokuvaaja, vaan lehti, jota on käytetty lähteenä. Valokuvaaja ei ole tiedossa. Miksi et täytä tarpeellisia tietoja ohjeiden mukaan? Johtuuko se vähäisestä kokemuksesta tietotekniikassa, josta mainitsit keskustelusivullasi? Siinäkin voit edistyä ja lukemalla ohjeita teet parempia muokkauksia. @Yannkorjasi väärään paikkaan panemasi lisenssin. Sinulla on vastaavanlaisia käytösongelmia kuin suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa, täälläkin harrastat muokkaussotaa keskustelusivusi arkistoinnissa. raid518:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
As earlier, this user does not understand language or the issue properly, and responds in Finnish so that administrators cannot asses the poisonous and malicious attitude presented in the replies. Such behaviour is not normal anymore.
To make the point that the photographs in question are press photographs indeed, it is relevant to mention the employer (newspaper or agency) of the photographer, especially if the photographer is not known. It is inappropriate to delete that information, present in the byline in the original source and mentioned by original uploader.
Mlang.Finnin käytös on kenties normaalia hänelle, mutta epänormaalia hyvin käyttäytyvien muokkaajien mielestä. Pyydän, että ylläpito puuttuisi Mlang.Finnin huonoon käytökseen ja huonolaatuisiin muokkauksiin. Mlang.Finnin suomen kielen taito (Käyttäjä:Mlang.Finn: ”Tämän käyttäjän äidinkieli on suomi.”) ja atk:n ymmärrys näyttää olevan puutteellista (”I have so little experience with computers”), joten ylläpidon olisi hyvä pitää se mielessä. raid521:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Please take action with the user “Raid5.” There has been a certain amount of bullying in the Finnish-language Wikipedia, involving also some administrators, and it has spread here. It has been going on especially since summer 2022. I don’t know what exactly triggered it but it “still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors.”
This user goes on writing in Finnish here, expecting support from those administrators, and hindering others from assessing the true nature of the inexorable allegations.
The user keeps accusing me of edits of poor quality, while actually these are questions of interpretation, of secondary importance, and mostly “Raid5’s” changes do not mean any real improvement in legibility or otherwise.
These users try to circumvent the ban on unciviliced behaviour by writing here vile accusations in a language which very few will understand. Still, their intent is malicious. Are there surely two different individuals behind those usernames? Note that both usernames idealize crime and conflict and they may be in violation of username policy.
Apparently I have done something right when such individuals have begun to molest me rather compulsively both here and in the Finnish-language Wikipedia.
I do hope that the administrators would take action so that we don’t need to take an endless amount of spins in this merry-go-round. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Ilmeisesti juuri sinulla on vaikeuksia ymmärtää suomea ja ymmärtää sääntöjä. Nyt olet lopettanut useiden huomautusten jälkeen sukupuolinegatiivisen nimittelyn ja toivottavasti myös käyttäjätunnuksen vääntelyn. Jatkat kuitenkin edelleen perusteettomia syytöksiä. Ylläpidon olisi syytä puuttua valheellisiin väittämiisi käyttäjätunnuksen vertaamisesta rikoksiin. Sinulla on ollut aikaisemminkin outoja kommentteja: Oikeustoimilla uhkailusta, Suomalainen vs suomenruotsalainen. Voiko sinun kirjoituksiisi luottaa? Miten RAID 5 liittyy rikoksiin? Nyt kommenttisi menevät aina vain oudommiksi. Laxkirjoitti osuvasti: ”Jos vaatimus olla lisäämättä yhtä otsikkoa artikkeleihin (ja vieläpä jälkikäteen muiden kirjoittajien muilta osin kuntoon saattamiin artikkeleihin) on näille "asiantuntijoille" ylivoimainen toteuttaa, kertoo se näistä "asiantuntijoista" ihan riittävästi ja pullauttaa esiin ajatuksen, että heidän pitäisi keksiä jokin muu "arvonimitys" itselleen.” raid517:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
We are still waiting for that those vile, unfounded and personal attacks would cease. This is an English-language section of this site, and it would be polite indeed if those users would mount their attacks in said language so that others – especially the impartial administrators – may see the true nature of them. Currently, these users are merely seeking attention & waisting our time, and by now, it is obvious that their accomplishments constitute bullying. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Lähinnä sinä haaskaat omaa aikaasi täällä esittämällä perusteettomia syytöksiä. Sinulla on joitakin haasteita teknisten asioiden kanssa. Mielestäni huono käytöksesi aiheuttaa kuitenkin enemmän haittaa. Ihmisten nimittely ei ole kovin sivistynyttä. Tähän tulisi puuttua. raid519:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons on monikielinen projekti eikä ihmisiä pidä asettaa eriarvoiseen asemaan sen mukaan, miten he osaavat yhtä tiettyä vierasta kieltä. Jos halutaan pitää Commons englanninkielisenä, tulee sen yhteydet Wikipedian muihin kieliversioihin katkaista kokonaan. Kohteliaisuudessa sinä et ole oikea henkilö neuvomaan muita. -Lax (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Nyt ylläpitäjien olisi syytä tehdä päätöksiä Mlang.Finninhäiriköivään muokkaustyyliin, henkilökohtaisiin hyökkäyksiin ja ilman perusteluja esitettyihin väärinkäytösepäilyihin liittyen. Hän käyttää valheellisia yhteenvetoja. Diff ”added Category:Odyssey using HotCat”, oikeasti samalla Mlang.Finn poisti otsikon. Diff ”please do not remove essential information. in this case, the photographer was working for Helsingin Sanomat newspaper. please stop your disruptive editing.”, hän keskustelee yhteenvedossa ja väittää perättömiä. Hän ei voi merkitä tarpeellista tietoa, mutta syyttää siitä itse. Poistin Mlang.Finnin tulkitseman tiedon, jota ei voi varmistaa, koska ”ei voi tietää Helsingin Sanomien olleen kuvaaja, tiedossa ainoastaan 20photographer.)” Usea käyttäjä suomenkielisestä Wikipediasta on kommentoinut Mlang.Finnin huonoa käytöstä ja outoja kommentteja. Myös Commonsin ylläpito on huomauttanut nimittelystä ja osallistunut Mlang.Finnin keskustelusivun arkistointiin. raid518:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
As one can see, these users will not cease and cannot cease their vituperation because their behaviour is obsessive and their accusations excessive. Help is needed to resolve this aggravation.
By not using English here, (a) they admit indirectly that their claims do not deserve any closer scrutiny, (b) they show contempt toward the local administrators, (c) they confirm that their insults are of personal nature because the passers-by won’t understand the language or intervene.
They cannot contemplate their hostility fixated on me and cannot show mercy because, you know, mercy is a sign of weakness.
Rather they seem to use Wikipedia as a platform for their self-aggrandizement and appear to see all of this as a kind of a social game where one gathers influence and self-esteem; as they have no literary or scholarly merits, they have to resort to disgracing others, coordinating their charges.
As it was pointed out previously, some of their user names idealize crime and conflict, that is, they are combatant names, as if the Wikipedia project were about waging war and not about coöperation.
@Mlang.Finn miksi keksit edelleen käyttäjätunnuksille omia merkityksiä? Sinun ei ole pakko pyytää anteeksi huonoa käytöstäsi, mutta voisit toimia jatkossa järkevämmin. Suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa lisäilit ylimääräisiä otsikoita konsensuksesta huolimatta. Keskusteluita käytiin useassa paikassa pitkään ennen saamaasi muokkausestoa. Commonsissa vastaavasti poistelet tarpeellisia otsikoita neuvonnasta huolimatta. Muuttelet https-osoitteita turvattomiin http-osoitteisiin. Et lisää tarpeellisia tietoja tiedostoihin. Sinulla oli ongelmia Commonsiin yhteensopimattomien lisenssien kanssa – virheitä sattuu kaikille, myös minulle – mutta sinä et myönnä mitään tai edes muuta toimintaasi. Välttelet aluksi keskustelua ja sitten ryöpsähtää outoja kommentteja ilman selkeitä todisteita muutoslinkeillä. ”Armo on merkki heikkoudesta.” Mitä ihmettä oikein tarkoitat? Toivottavasti se ei ole oikeasti sinun periaatteesi. Jos voisit kirjoittaa yksiselitteisesti ja ilmaista itseäsi selkeämmin. @Taivo, Yann, and Zache et al.: Mlang.Finnin estosyitä suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa ovat olleet: häiriköivä muokkaustyyli, henkilökohtaiset hyökkäykset ja oikeustoimilla uhkailu. Ainoastaan oikeustoimilla uhkailu puuttuu Commonsissa, muut perusteet ovat täyttyneet. Kyse ei ole muutamasta virheestä, vaan se on kestänyt pitkään ja heikentänyt yhteistoimintaa. Olen esittänyt todisteita Mlang.Finnin vääränlaiseen toimintaan. Toivon, että ylläpito puuttuisi edes huomauttamalla epäsopivasta käytöksestä Mlang.Finniä, joka sitten ottaisi opikseen. raid523:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
We would really appreciate a cease-and-desist here. The accusations of these users will just go on and on, endlessly, and they are already repeating themselves like a broken music-box. They only refer to their mutual accusations (circulus in demonstrando) and forget that their deletion requests (this and this) were unfounded and apparently made in anger and with malevolence.
My contributions are here not better or worse than those of most others. These users, however, keep accusing me of alleged shortcomings that characterize many other uploaders, too. See, for instance, this or this file. Are they not missing essential information? Why won’t our “raiders” attack that uploader as well? They seem to lack a sense of proportion.
It seems a plausible hypothesis that these individuals use Commons merely to give vent to their general resentment, and as a tall person, I must now serve as a permanent lightning-rod for them. (There is also a K9 term, which I will not use here because I am a gentleman.)
Wikimedia Commons is an American site and one can very well be expected to use English on this page. One cannot act as a Webmaster on an English-language site if one doesn’t understand the language.
Linkki ﹫Zachen muokkaukseen: ”confirmed that file's metada information is correct from Lehtikuva-service. If we think that the image is out-of-copyright after 50-years of publication it doesn't matter what is the original url so broken url is ok”. raid520:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
As it seems, these bullies are trophy-hunters. They are not interested in providing the general public with reliable and concise information, but in their own grandeur, and they can attain it only by belittling others.
That M. O. reminds one of those whose hobby is collecting bird-watchers’ eggs. Does anybody remember what was the name of the Englishman who devised that marvellous sport? Was it a Mr. Mantle...? --Mlang.Finn (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
These bullies use Wikipedia as a sort of social media. They are here primarily to harass others, and they should be blocked permanently. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Henkilökohtaisia hyökkäyksiä ovat ilman perusteluja esitetyt väärinkäytösepäilyt tai käyttäjän toimintaan kohdistuvat syytökset ilman todisteita. Vakavat syytökset vaativat todisteita, joita et ole esittänyt. Suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa sinut on estetty henkilökohtaisten hyökkäysten takia (Esto 2023, Esto 2017) ja sinua on myös huomautettu asiasta (Marc Okran). Myös tässä keskustelussa olet nimitellyt välittämättä useista huomautuksista. raid517:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not helping anyone, least of all yourselves, as you go back and forth saying how little you like each other's conduct. Frankly, Mlang.Finn, unless Google Translate is very misleading, you are making at least as many personal attacks here than anyone else, so please stop trying to act the innocent. May I suggest that you all just let this drop? (In case it is unclear, "you all" most specifically also includes raid5.) I'd rather not block either of you, but you are both getting close to the line. - Jmabel ! talk22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
ChuchoVCJMuzik
User ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk·contribs) has uploaded several copyright violations, some of which have been deleted, most recently uploaded on 30 March. Most uploads had dubious, to say the least, source information and has even gone to claim an artist selfie as his own. I think they should at least given a warning, given their track. Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I am the requester of the 3 RCUs against Takiva and his puppets. The first contribution of ZakariaDjaafar goes directly on an Algeria flag image which is the regular Takiva main target. So, I have no doubts
FYI, I am CU in WP-fr. Today I treated a RCU for several users who are fighting with others about two Maghreb countries. My conclusion of this RCU is positive. But by examining some contributions of one of the contributors I find exactly the same type of passion for the Algerian flags (and old dynasties which ruled in Algeria). A few more clues and I'll ask for a Cross-RCU WP-fr/Commons. --Poudou99 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
This user has uploaded multiple blatant copyvios which have since been deleted. Just today they uploaded another, which I happened to see on enwiki - it is a frame taken from a YouTube video and there is no evidence of permission. I strongly suspect most or all of this user's uploads are copyright violations. Many are missing exif data. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm late to this discussion, but from reading the discussion, I support an indefinite block – if three temporary blocks didn't work, I don't know what will, apart from an indef block. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHB2000 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Verwijderen Anita Leeftink
Dringend verzoek alles verwijderen. Informatie incl Foto's en links van Anita Leeftink verwijderen. Geen toestemming voor publicatie. Stop!
Verzoek aan Vera Kok- Veertje1 verwijder alles mbt Anita Leeftink Gemakfraud (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
As a someone who utilizes maps often for research, I have seen how maps can inform or misinform users and the general public. For sometime now, User:Sky Harbor has been adding the Philippines as a Spanish-speaking nation on Spanish linguistic maps such as File:Voseo-extension-real.PNG, being adamant that despite less than 0.5% of the country's population being Hispanophone in all credible sources, this constitutes inclusion of the nation as a representative of the Spanish-speaking world. Since these maps give a linguistic and not political overview of countries where it is predominant, should a country where a relatively small number of speakers be included? There are more Japanese speakers in the United States than Spanish speakers in the Philippines or proportionally, Vietnamese speakers in the U.S., and I certainly hope that the United States is not included in the linguistic maps for those languages (other than geographical distribution).
Yes, Spanish played a role in the country in the past, but the maps are supposed to show contemporary linguistic usage and I don't see how less than one percent of the population makes a country representative of that linguistic wise, especially for such a global language. Removal of the country and justification by myself, User:Bankster, and others always ends up being reverted back by Sky Harbor, who has threatened to conduct an edit war to always include the Philippines on these maps. Any thoughts on this topic? If we include the Philippines for Spanish grammar maps, then surely linguistic maps for Vietnamese for instance, should include the U.S. and France as representative countries too since speakers constitute a similar proportion of the population and linguists have identified the development of variants there that differ from the country of origin. - Moalli (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I've wanted to raise this discussion here for a while now, so I'll be glad to raise it.
In 2019, Bankster reverted one of my edits, and in my talk page stated that "no one speaks Spanish in the Philippines anymore", when this is clearly not true. I've since responded to their message on my talk page, and I want to make it very clear here because both of them seem to know better than me: I will not be patronized by non-Filipinos who want to insist that Spanish in the Philippines is dead, when in fact it isn't and when Spanish speakers in the Philippines (myself included, given that I speak it and know people who speak it) will say so as much.
Unlike Moalli bringing up Vietnamese or Japanese, the Philippines has – and, I shall stress here, continues to have – an indigenous variety of Spanish, complete with a language regulator (the Philippine Academy of the Spanish Language, headed by a native speaker of Philippine Spanish) and a community speaking it for the last 400 or so years. There continues to be literary material published in the language, there have been linguistic studies conducted of the language, and there continues to be a community of people who use the language in their everyday lives. Data from the Instituto Cervantes shows that up to two million people speak Spanish in the Philippines to some degree (which may or may not include Chavacano; the data isn't clear), while up to 450,000-500,000 are fluent in it. That's not an insignificant number considering the presence of a distinct variant.
"Development" of a variant is different from there actually being one, as Philippine Spanish is old enough that it has characteristics distinct from other Spanish dialects and variants which the maps will overlook and gloss over if they are not represented. Perhaps the better examples for how Philippine Spanish ought to be treated would be Acadian and Louisiana French, which each have roughly the same number of speakers both in terms of raw number and proportion of the population, and are treated as distinct variants in their own right. Moalli seems to think that Spanish speakers in the Philippines all speak Castilian when this is in fact not true, and I believe the maps are made more accurate by adding the Philippines rather than removing it given that there is a verifiable Spanish variant present there. (Keep in mind that they also want to remove Western Sahara from these maps, despite there being a Spanish variant in Western Sahara, complete with its own Wikipedia article.)
That said, while I share Moalli's belief in "accuracy", removing countries wholesale makes these maps less accurate. I will continue to insist that territories with clearly recognizable Spanish variants be included in these maps, and the Philippines ought to be on those maps. --Sky Harbor(talk)13:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Three remarks:
Neither party here has provided any links to what particular files they are talking about.
Maps like this on Commons should indicate explicitly what sources they are using, so that it is clear whose characterization of a country as "Spanish-speaking" or not is being applied.
Unlike Wikipedia, on Commons we do not have to agree on a single map being authoritative. People can upload different maps reflecting different sources/definitions of which countries are Spanish-speaking. If there is a conflict about this, and each has their own citations, there is no good reason for one to overwrite the other.
Castellano-Español-es.png (a map of which countries call Spanish castellano and which call Spanish español)
These maps are supposed to be linguistic maps, not political ones. Moalli's position is that only countries with Spanish as an official language should be represented in these maps, never mind that Spanish isn't even an official language in the United States save for Puerto Rico, or that there should be a "large" proportion of the population that speaks it, to which "large" is undefined and is largely defined only by them and Bankster. This is despite the fact that there are Spanish variants in countries where the language isn't necessarily "official", nor is it widely spoken by the population, yet where variants are recognized by linguists and linguistic authorities. For example, in the Philippines the language is constitutionally only a "voluntary and optional" language, but that glosses over the fact that there is still a minority of people who speak it despite the overwhelming prevalence of English. Does that mean then that we should ignore that community because they happen to be a small proportion of the population? No, right?
I will continue to stress that these maps are inaccurate as is if they disregard the fact that there are Spanish-speaking communities in countries not included in these maps. This doesn't just extend to Commons: even the infobox in the English Wikipedia's article on Spanish was edited, where before these were considered countries that are at least nominally Spanish-speaking but were edited out by the users in question. While Commons may believe in there not being one authoritative set of maps, and that's fine, I don't think it's appropriate for Moalli or Bankster or any other user to gatekeep which countries speak Spanish and which don't, especially when considering that there are still Spanish-speaking communities in countries like mine which, in spite of everything that it had to put up with over the last 100 or so years, are still alive and kicking as best as they can. --Sky Harbor(talk)19:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
None of this answers point 3. Create a separate map and see if you can convince the Wikipedias to use one map or the other. A new Voseos one should be more likely seeing that en:Voseo#Geographical_distribution includes the Philippines although it does not match the article at all which has a "some" section but the map does not. The map meanwhile splits between written and spoken while the article has no mention of this. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment Maps showing usage/dialects of Spanish in majority Spanish speaking countries only, and maps showing usage/dialects in areas with significant Spanish speaking minorities, both sound legitimately in scope. I'd say Commons should have both, and the criteria and information sources should be included in the image descriptions. Leave those editing specific articles in various projects to decide what version is most useful in a particular case. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Only one of these (File:Voseo-extension-real.PNG) cites its sources at all, and that provides a laundry-list of sources without indicating what is sourced from what. So everything here could use improvement in that respect
And File:Voseo-extension-real.PNG leaves me wondering even as to what it is claiming where the stripes are. Contradictions in the claims of its sources? There is a solid-color key for coexistence, so it can't mean that.
Really, point 3 comes into play here: if there is disagreement, these should be split. And with such poor citation of sources, they come down to being just someone's opinion/impression.
While we are at it, my two cents (and disagreeing with User:Infrogmation here): a map about dialectical differences is certainly independent of which countries have what languages as official. I can't really say anything knowledgeable about the Philippines, but the U.S., where I live, has no official national language. Would someone therefore leave it out of a dialectical map about English? Or would someone leave Canada out of a map for French because it is not the country's majority language? Spanish is certainly the second most prevalent language in the U.S., the native language of about 1/8 of the U.S. population, which is to say slightly more people than the entire population of Central America, about as many native speakers of Spanish as Spain, and more people than the total number of native speakers of Romanian or Dutch in the entire world. - Jmabel ! talk23:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Sky Harbor, I see your analogy with French variants in the United States and sort of see where you are going with this. However, French (in general, not just dialects) is actively used in the public/governmental sphere in U.S. states where it's indigenous to, such as the Office of Cultural Development of Louisiana, not to mention significant funding and promotion by the state government itself to revitalize the language, which is different than simply offering it as a foreign language elective in schools. I'm also curious where you got the 2 million figure for Spanish speakers in the Philippines. The latest report by the Instituto Cervantes (p. 10) has ~460,000 including Chavacano speakers. Native speakers make up a very small proportion of the overall population of speakers, so should we also include the U.S. for German grammar maps given that it has been spoken in the country for 400 years and has a similar proportion of native speakers? I'm not patronizing you, but I actually lived in the Philippines for a number of years and had the opportunity to travel around the country and work with local communities. Spanish was offered at a few high schools but it seemed that pupils tended to gravitate towards Korean or Mandarin for foreign language and the few Mestizo families I met spoke in English or Tagalog to one another (but enough with first-hand accounts that are not referenced).
The same report above also lists what countries are considered Hispanophone and the Philippines is not included. Mind you, the United States is apparently also considered one now, with a section dedicated to the country and section 5 regarding internet usage. I'm not gatekeeping what is and what is not considered Hispanophone; I have no issues with the likes of Andorra and the U.S. being included since there is a significant amount (+10%) of the population using the language and how it's been diffused into the contemporary public sphere even though Spanish is not official in those places nor has been (unless if you consider the Southwestern states and Florida up until the 1800s). Editors at the Spanish Wikipedia page have also reached a consensus for what countries to include on the article due to rampant POV from Hispanistas, who've gone as far as even putting Antarctic bases or Brazil as Hispanophone due to "significant presence" there.
Jmabel, I was only able to find a source for File:Voseo-extension-real.PNG so far, which is here (I couldn't find an English version since it's from the Royal Spanish Academy). No mention of the Philippines is made and the stripped areas you brought up are also highly questionable. - Moalli (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
On the whole: all the more reason to create good, new, clearly-sourced maps and just walk away from these. - Jmabel ! talk15:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, Moalli, let me address the data first to get that out of the way:
The Department of Education has data on students who participate in the Special Program in Foreign Language (SPFL), which specifically targets public high school students. The latest data that is publicly available is from 2017-2018, and as of 2017 [20] Spanish is the most popular SPFL foreign language with 33.5% of students, with Japanese coming in second at 28.6%, and Chinese in third at 21.7%. Korean isn't even close, with only 700 students enrolled as of 2018 [21]. This also doesn't include the 20,000 university students that study Spanish every year [22]. (I'm not even counting students in private schools here, as that data isn't publicly available.)
I don't know where the IC gets its data, but its data points have been inconsistent. The two million figure, which Hispanophone academics like Fernando Zialcita admit might be overly optimistic, comes from a 2022 article in Hola[23], though the outlet doesn't say which data points they cite (I presume with no confidence they cite 2014 data from the IC [24], which includes Chavacano speakers). The IC report you link to does come with two flaws: first, the "native speaker" number only cites the number of Spaniards in the Philippines, disregarding the number of Filipinos who speak Spanish natively; and second, the Chavacano numbers are uncited especially given that there are nearly a million people living in Zamboanga City alone. It also contradicts the IC's previous reporting, as I cited earlier. According to the 2020 Philippine census [25] there are 167 households in the Philippines where Spanish itself is generally spoken at home (which I suppose we can extrapolate to mean people who speak Spanish natively), and around 105,000 households which use Chavacano (combined figures for Caviteño, Cotabateño, Davaoeño and Zamboagueño, with the census not asking about Ternateño). This I suppose doesn't neatly translate into population figures, and I was hoping the PSA would make more numbers available, but of course I'll admit that we're debating numbers that are small and, given the wide swings between data points especially in the last 20 years, of varying reliability. These numbers have also yet to reflect Filipinos in the diaspora, including the 200,000 Filipinos in Spain.
I know that first-hand accounts aren't citable on the Wikimedia projects, but you will not meet Spanish speakers in the Philippines unless you already know them to begin with. A few of my cousins, for example, are Spanish Filipinos, and while they may not speak Spanish fluently (if at all) their further relations do. I went to high school in the Philippines with a couple of Spanish-speaking Spanish Filipinos, and since moving to Spain I now have Spanish Filipino friends who were born in the Philippines, grew up and went to school there, and are, by their own admission, native Spanish speakers. These are data points that the hard data we're debating about tends to overlook. Ultimately, the numbers are very speculative: in La hora Cervantes, a Filipina academic (disclosure: I've met Prof. Young during my time in the Ateneo de Manila) estimated that around 500,000 Filipinos either understand or speak Spanish [26], and as I mentioned earlier the numbers can and do vary widely. At any rate, these numbers may not seem to be as small as you want them to believe.
That said, if you want to debate perceptions, then let's talk about perceptions. The Community of Madrid for the first time included the Philippines (and Equatorial Guinea) in its Día de la Hispanidad celebrations last year to, in their words, "promote the global character of the Spanish-speaking community" [27]. Spanish-speaking Filipinos don't treat Spanish as a foreign language (as opposed to what you're insisting); rather, it is a language that is as indigenous to the Philippines and the Filipino experience as the Philippine languages and English are, as insinuated in the documentary El idioma español en Filipinas[28]. Presidents of the Philippines have said just as much [29]. Even the small group of Filipinos who to this day write in Spanish pretty much believe in the same thing. There have been efforts on the part of non-Filipinos to expel the AFLE from ASALE, or at least to wind it down, but to no avail. This is arguably the crux of this entire argument: you want to brush aside what Spanish speakers in the Philippines believe, which cannot be compared to Germans in the U.S. as what you were trying to insinuate, simply because they're small and the government isn't doing enough? Yes, the Philippine government can do more to promote Spanish (and a lot of the heavy lifting is being done through the universities, the AFLE and ASALE, AECID and the IC as opposed to the government generally), but that doesn't negate the fact that what you're looking to do is othering Spanish-speaking Filipinos by insinuating that they don't exist, and that Spanish in the Philippines is like Spanish in some other foreign country, never mind that Spanish as a long, deep history in the Philippines, and where we are today linguistically is pretty much unique to the Philippines and cannot be neatly explained.
I get that Hispanistas are POV-pushing, and it doesn't help that said fringe of the Internet and beyond are also playing a role in promoting Spanish in the Philippines (case in point: Vox, the far-right Spanish political party, wants to do precisely that [30]), but people are collateral damage here. I agree that POV-pushing isn't healthy and is wrong, but I would argue that said argument applies best when, as you said, it's not factual. In the case of Spanish in the Philippines, it absolutely is factual. There's even less Portuguese spoken in Macau yet the treatment on Wikipedia of Portuguese in Macau is better than Spanish in the Philippines just because Portuguese is official in the territory. I'd argue that Spanish in the Philippines, with more speakers than Portuguese in Macau, should at least get a similar treatment. --Sky Harbor(talk)17:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I really don't see an administrative issue here, so this seems the wrong place for any further discussion. I absolutely encourage those who may disagree with current maps in this area to create maps of their own. I strongly recommend that if you are serious about having your maps used in the various Wikipedias, your standards of citation for the map contents should be comparable to those that would be expected by Wikipedia. That is, it shouldn't be your individual impression: it should be either that the map reflects the views of some one particular source, or that it combines information from several sources, with some clarity as to what information comes from what source.
Jmabel, I want to thank you for your time in providing a third-party position regarding this issue. I was trying to bring this discussion up in order to prevent any future edit wars, especially a 3RR one. When I get the chance (or if another user beats me to it), a more accurate map that includes the source provided will be made for adoption. For now, the maps will revert back to the slightly more accurate source from the Royal Spanish Academy itself.
Sky Harbor, okay, so Spanish has had a homegrown presence in the Philippines even after the late 20th century. However, for accurate purposes these linguistic maps should be showing the Hispanophone world as it is accurately portrayed both by credible sources and the consensus reached by the community of editors. No politics involved period. It's a shame that the Philippine government has not done much to promote the language or incorporate it into the public sphere given its role in Philippine history but when that does happen, the country will be included on the Spanish linguistic maps similar to how the U.S. and Andorra are on some of them. Due to this local variant, Philippine characteristics of Spanish will be left in the article bodies to acknowledge its existence, similar to how local characteristics of say, Portuguese, are used in Goa despite it not being an official or significant language there.
Just some other pointers, you wouldn't use diaspora populations to count the figure of speakers in a separate country, would you? In this case, Indonesia should have at least a million Dutch speakers by virtue of the Indo disapora in the Netherlands alone, not including Indonesian expats or recent immigrants. Secondly, Macau (or East Timor for that matter) isn't even included in the Portuguese language maps for linguistic characteristics that I've found, so that itself should be a project to undertake. And side note, about 2% of the Macau population speaks Portuguese which is a rate more than double than that of Spanish in the Philippines but it being used officially is most likely why the territory itself is highlighted on Lusophone maps. Even so, this just goes off the main topic of discussion here. - Moalli (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect, Moalli, your "compromise" isn't reassuring, and the examples you provide off-base. Portuguese in Macau and Goa, as I mentioned earlier for Macau specifically, is spoken by only a few thousand people between them, even if the percentages are higher. Neither is there specific coverage of any distinct features of what the dialects (if any) may have, given that Macanese is very close to standard European Portuguese, and Goan doesn't even discuss this at all. They cannot be compared to the situation with Spanish in the Philippines, which as a variant has characteristics that are more divergent from Castilian and has a larger pool of speakers in absolute numbers, and if you think a single line in an article about the topic more broadly (as is the case with Portuguese in Goa and Macau in the English Wikipedia article on Portuguese) gives the subject justice, it does not. Just earlier today I had to revert an anon edit which removed the Philippines from any mention of the Names given to the Spanish language article, which I immediately put back as soon as I saw it. You think text is still a better compromise?
For example, the Philippines is one of only three countries (the others being Bolivia and Paraguay) whose local Spanish variant is lleísta, a fact that is documented in credible linguistic studies of the language [31]. Should that not be covered in a map about yeísmo if it's already mentioned in the text just because Spanish Wikipedia editors (who, mind you, are not from the country in question) decided that it be so? Linguistic maps should cover the subject as mentioned in the text, and it makes no sense to exclude the Philippines from a map about yeísmo or voseo or seseo yet talk about it in the article about yeísmo or voseo or seseo because there's no "consensus" (which, mind you, is political) that the Philippines should be included in these maps. Readers will wonder why we talk about Philippine Spanish in the text, yet are excluded from the maps illustrating those topics which you happen to put at the very top of the article, and will very likely brush it off. What kind of acknowledgement, if any, is that? (While I trust our readers are reasonably intelligent people, I take no chances.)
Finally, you speak of "consensus" set by editors, but where was this consensus set, and when? There are a few Filipinos editing the Spanish Wikipedia (myself being one of them), and these are discussions to which, as far as I know, we have not been looped into nor have been made aware of, neither by you nor anyone else. I look forward to challenging the existing consensus when the opportunity to do so arises, and until then I have every intention of making sure the Philippines continues to be represented on these maps and is accurately represented in articles more broadly. Given that what you're effectively doing is arguing we are too insignificant to be covered, and therefore don't exist, I believe that presumption ought to be challenged vigorously.
Thanks to Jmabel for providing us a sounding board, but clearly it looks like there is no consensus. I'm not a mapmaker but hopefully we can find a better way forward, one better than Moalli's exclusionary approach to these maps. --Sky Harbor(talk)14:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no need for a consensus here, other than a consensus to stop edit warring, and instead to make your own separate maps (preferably with cited sources). If either of you wishes it, the one thing I can see to do administratively is to impose a complete ban against either of you editing a map the other has uploaded or where the other made the last edit, but I'll only do that if the same condition applies to both of you. Note that even that would not be an interaction ban, it would mean "keep it on the talk page" and let the other make the final decision on their own map. - Jmabel ! talk15:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment This is just my opinion, but any map based on the idea that a certain language is spoken somewhere should be based on the actual reality of how many people speak the language there. In this, depending on the states Spanish is spoken by anywhere from as little as .05% to as much as 5% of the population. If it's 5% then cool. I think that's enough to justify including the Philippines on a map of Spanish speaking countries. Although it's really stretching it. If the percentage is on the lower end though, say anywhere under 2% or 3% then there's no reason to include the Philippines on the map. The problem is that there isn't solid statics about it. So there's zero legitimate reason to include the Philippines in the map/maps. At least not until it's clear what exactly the numbers are. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to include every minor country with a tiny percentage of Spanish speakers in the map. Since for one, that's not the purpose of it. Also, it would just be miss-leading, if not bordering on miss-information.
One (and really the only) way forward IMO would for Sky Harbor to upload a new version of the map that includes the Philippines and for them to argue their case for why it should be included in the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia's side. It's not Commons' problem though and creating a new version of the map that includes the Philippines in the meantime just seems like a bad faithed way to run around having to discuss it on the articles talk page before changing the image. Which clearly shouldn't be the way to resolve or skirt around potential content disputes. So, IMO Sky Harbor's version should be reverted. Then they can upload a new image and deal with it on Wikipedia's end. There's really nothing to see here except for Sky Harbor trying to upload new versions of an image to do POV editing instead of just getting a consensus to change the image on Wikipedia's end like they should have. Editing waring to right great wrongs isn't an acceptable way to do things though. Either here or on Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I wish people wouldn't keep raising new, non-administrative issues here, but Pinging @Adamant1, when you are saying that if a language is not spoken by at least 5% of the population, are you saying that we should have no linguistic maps for Yiddish or Ladino, or any Jewish language except Hebrew, which should show only Israel? That a map for Romani should show only Bulgaria and Romania? That even though Aranese is co-official in Catalonia, we should not have maps because there aren't enough speakers? It seems clear to me that we cannot have hard and fast rules about this, which is why people should make their own maps, and cite their sources, and be as clear as possible as to exactly what the map shows. I will really be astounded if someone can define a broadly applicable rule here that would supersede that. - Jmabel ! talk18:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
It really depends on the situation. If Spanish was co-official in the Philippines like Aranese is in Catalonia then that would be a different story. As far as I'm aware Spanish isn't an official language of the Philippines though. In the meantime there's like 120 languages spoken in the country, Spanish isn't even in the top of those languages when it comes to usage, and the language is essentially a global language in the meantime. The inherent problem with including the information on a map or an article is that it makes it seem like the information is notable, which it clearly isn't. At least not in this case. It also gives the false impression that the language is common, especially if it's including in a map that has zero context. And again, Spanish isn't commonly spoken in the Philippines. Only like 300,000 or so people in the Philippines speak it. Including it in a map with places like Guatemalan, where upwards of 90% of the population speak the language, is just disingenuous. At least it is if the map doesn't have a legend saying what the actual percentages are.
Otherwise, it would be like including Austria in the map because 219,000 Austrians speak Spanish. Hell, there's upwards of 2 million Spanish speakers in Germany. The map would be completely worthless if it included those countries though. Otherwise what's so special about it being spoken in the Philippines compared Austria, when both countries have essentially amount of citizens who speak the language? Same goes for Germany. Why not add Germany and Austria to the map? At that point essentially every country in the world could be added to it. It's not really a percentage thing though. It's more about what makes the information being included notable. Although in this case around 5% of the population speaking the language is a good measure, but only one of several. That said, I'd probably be OK with the Philippines being included in the map if it had the actual percentages of how many people from each country speak the language, but it's just miss-leading without the context. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Adamant1. Unlike in the countries you cited, Spanish in the Philippines is not a foreign language unlike what you're claiming. Spanish has been spoken in the Philippines far longer than English has, has been an official language of the Philippines up until 1987 (and today has some sort of legal status, even if that legal status is somewhat undefined), and there is still a community of local people who speak it, write in it and think in it that dates back to before the United States took over the islands and imposed English.
As I mentioned in one of my responses to Moalli, Spanish speakers believe that Spanish is as part and parcel of our history as the Philippine languages and English are, complete with markers that are normally not found in countries where Spanish is merely a "foreign" language. For example, the Philippines has a corpus of literature in Spanish (to which authors are still contributing to it today), a Spanish language regulator in the form of the Philippine Academy of the Spanish Language, and the native Spanish variant has distinct dialectical features (the subject of the maps in question, and which to my knowledge has no parallels in our coverage of other Romance languages) which are notable enough to warrant mention both in the Wikipedia articles described and in the maps that they highlight. You say we're "misleading" people by giving people a false sense of Spanish being common, but I would argue that we're still misleading people by ignoring that reality and perpetuating this idea that Spanish in the Philippines is merely "foreign" when, in fact, it isn't as attested by the very people who still speak it. The maps are supposed to describe Spanish as spoken in countries where there are people who still speak natively their national/regional variant, and the Philippines, which has its own attested native variant as spoken by people in the country, should be no exception to that. --Sky Harbor(talk)23:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't really feel like getting into a discussion about what makes something a "foreign language" or not because it's super pedantic and not relevant to discussion anyway, but Spanish was never a "native" to the Philippines. Tagalog was and still is because it's the first language spoken by the ethnic Tagalog people who make up a quarter of the population of the Philippines. Acting like Spanish was ever anything other then a foreign language to the area is just historical revisionism. To the degree that it was ever adopted in the Philippines, or really anywhere else outside of Spain, is because the Spanish forced local indigenous groups to adopt. Often at threat of death. At least baring places like certain areas of South America that were colonized by Spanish settlers who lived there over many generations and slowly integrated the into the local cultures. Those are the rare exceptions though. Most of the time, including in the Philippines, local people weren't given the choice of what language to speak (for a comparable situation look into the history Native American re-education schools. It would be massively insulting to say that English is a non-foreign language to native Americans just because most tribes were forced into speaking and using the language and still do).
Anyway, the fact that there's now an Academy of the Spanish Language in the Philippines is completely irrelevant since no one is debating people in the Philippines speaks Spanish. At least I'm not. All we are saying is that the number of people who do isn't large enough to justify the country being included in a map of "Spanish speaking countries." Every language is attested by the very people who still speak it. Your just talking in circles because at the end of the day you clearly can't give a legitimate reason why the Philippines should included in the map over any other country where the same amount of the population speak the language. Otherwise, be my guest and give one that isn't just some form of "people speak it." It's not like I said it shouldn't be included in "a map" either. Just that you should upload a new version of the map instead of overwriting the original and have this discussion on Wikipedia because it doesn't belong here. Again, Commons is not the place to resolve disputes about how to write articles on Wikipedia or what images should be included in said articles. So be my guest and upload a new version of the image that includes the Philippines. then take this on the articles talk page where it belongs. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, Adamant1, I want to be clear here: I didn't insert the Philippines into these maps, so please don't accuse me of POV pushing. Other users have, and you can check the edit history accordingly for those maps until Moalli and others began insisting that the Philippines (and others too, like Western Sahara) shouldn't be there and started removing them. I'm currently working on cleaning up the old English Wikipedia article on Philippine Spanish (which currently redirects to Spanish language in the Philippines) to at least bring that back up to snuff, but I've given legitimate reasons (there are unique dialectal features that should be documented, etc.) for why these linguistic maps specifically should include Philippine Spanish, to which that article addresses.
I'll gladly raise these in the appropriate fora to spare Commons the additional burden of needing to talk about an issue that isn't necessarily within its scope, but I have reservations with you accusing me of speaking without substance when, in fact, I have. --Sky Harbor(talk)00:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Sky Harbor, as the others have said, putting the Philippines onto the linguistic maps when there is such a small share of the population speaking it and it not being present in the public sphere creates misinformation that the Philippines is currently a Hispanophone country, something that the bothersome "Madre España" Hispanistas have constantly tried to insist on in the past. Yes, there is a local dialect of the language that has been spoken for many centuries, but is it widespread enough in contemporary times as the maps intend to portray? Portuguese has been spoken in Goa for about the same amount of time with some characteristics that have developed separately from the original European standard too, and there is also a body of Portuguese literature that has been written there plus membership in Lusophone institutions and yet, I don't see anyone obstinate in including it on linguistic maps; it's only mapped on geographical distribution.
Using the sources provided by the authoritative bodies that regulate Spanish, plus its application in actuality, these maps should revert back/be improved to reflect the citations. Petition the Instituto Cervantes or Royal Spanish Academy to consider the Philippines as Hispanophone, and then the Philippines for sure will be included once it's cited as so. Perhaps there will be an exploration on cartographic methods to include the Philippines with the equivalent of asterisks and indicate that while it's not Hispanophone in current times, there is local variety with said characteristics when the new map is developed. As of now, the current cartographic layout is misleading. - Moalli (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to say this one last time.
There is no need for a consensus about individual maps.
It is preferred that maps of this type cite their sources.
@Moalli, Sky Harbor, and Adamant1: Stop wasting the admins' time reading through a ton of argument that is not about an administrative matter. The only further acceptable post on this thread that is not about something specifically administrative is if someone wants to link a place where you can continue this non-administrative discussion. Consider this a formal warning.
In case it is not clear: you are all making good points, but this is not the place to make them. You are wasting my time and, presumably, that of several other admins who are having to read through these postings to see if there is something we need to act on. This noticeboard is a place to get the attention of admins, not a place to hash out disagreements about which maps are better than other maps, which is not a Commons issue. Every map of you wants is allowed. Make your own maps, let the individual Wikipedias choose what maps they want, end of story.
Is it possible that User:Yellow Horror is another sockpuppet of banned user PlanespotterA320, they are nominating Russian images using the same rationale that PlanespotterA320 was using. PlanespotterA320 had at least 6 aliases. --RAN (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, I can say that according to the behavior in the Russian Wikipedia, these are generally different people. Need confirmation from checkusers. Iniquity (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Yellow Horror and PlanespotterA320 are different people with different writing styles, different interests and different views on many topics. Therefore, this blocking is erroneous. Всеслав Чародей (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Also, please, take a look on this discussion in the administrator's forum in ru.wikipedia. There are clear consensus among Russian wikipedia administrators that PlanespotterA320 and Yellow Horror are absolutely different users. Rampion (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Recently I saw the file File:Kazan-Khanate.jpg of this user and noticed that this file is his original research. No sources confirm this territory of the Kazan Khanate, and I put it up for deletion. However, the user erased all service templates, without discussion - which is destructive behavior. at the same time, the source on which he relied refuses to provide. At the same time, his files on Wikimedia Commons were previously deleted for violations. In response, he started insulting me as a vandal and a crook. This is a clear violation of the norms of ethical behavior. This participant is familiar to me from the Russian Wikipedia, where he is also his contribution is mainly his original research and is not confirmed by sources. I also ask you to hide his comments from my discussion page .--Ilnur efende (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the deal with this user is, but they appear to be mass creating "articles" (if you can even call them that) containing tables of temperatures for various locations, Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/Panevėžys.tab being one example. Honestly, the whole thing is just odd and it doesn't seem like they are here to build a media repository. So can an administrator look into their edits and block them if its justified, or at least delete the "articles" they created? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I hope you read the content of Commons:Assume good faith carefully. First of all, there is nothing wrong with me making temperature tables for various regions. These temperature tables will be referenced by the English Wikipedia. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what your talking about, but this isn't Wikipedia and the only thing they "reference" from Commons that I know of is media files, which temperature tables obviously aren't. The purpose of Commons isn't to be a dump of random facts that aren't up to Wikipedia's standards of nobility either. So yes there is a problem with you creating the tables. At least as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise I wouldn't have reported you for it ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Let me emphasize one more point, please don't take a prejudiced view and look at anything that you think is not pleasing to you. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Temperature data tables are not off-topic per se. However, I remember a case we had many months ago where someone created several temperature tables containing fantasy data. So we should insist on reliable and verifiable sources of the data. 迷斯拉10032号, please add them to your tables. --Achim55 (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Your biased behavior is based on your self-righteous and narrow cognition. Lol, OK. You already had a warning on your user page about your editing from Jeff G. and you've clearly made other questionable edits in the meantime outside of this. So it seemed like something worth reporting just in case. If the temperature tables turn out not to be an issue, cool. I could really care less, but maybe spare me the sanctimony and insults. There's nothing wrong with reporting someone if their behavior looks problematic, and yours clearly does even if the temperature tables turn out to not be an issue. Although I still think they are and agree with Achim55 that they should at least be referenced, if not deleted as out of scope. I'm more then willing to take it to the Village Pump if other people disagree and think their fine though.
That said, while we are here I'd interested to know what the deal with Commons:Deletion requests/File:莊竣傑.png is. So if you don't mind me asking, what exactly makes the image "Vandalism and violation of the Biography of Living Persons Clause"? It's more then a little rich that your saying my behavior is self-righteous and cognitively narrow when your the one accusing random people of vandalism and citing a nonexciting "clause" while doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
First, the user who uploaded the file was blocked indefinitely for deliberately creating a destructive page on the Chinese Wikipedia.[32] The purpose of his uploading that image is obviously to serve that page of the Chinese Wikipedia that defames others. And in that picture, the photographer should have intentionally shown that person's ugliness, so I requested the deletion of his image to be reasonable and compliant.
Since this account is inactive, there is no policy to block it on Commons. However the link provided on the page you mentioned above clearly shows that they are not here to participate constructively to the projects. Yann (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The account doesn’t appear to meet the minimum criteria for a ban and is not an obvious, uncontroversial vandal or spammer which would apply for a global lock. I’m not sure what to do here. Dronebogus (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
If there are no new edits there is also no problem. If the users starts to edit again and the edits are problematic we can block the account then. For the offline behavior contacting T&S is the only way to act because of this. The user page should be discussed in the deletion request. GPSLeo (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yann
Yann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) For incomprehensible reasons, he gives a undelete period of less than 120 years after the image was created. I tried to ask why he was doing this, I found out that he would tell me in 2031 - [User_talk:Yann#Date_of_undelete] This behavior suggests that he treats me like an idiot. If he normally explained to me why he gives protection periods less than 120 years, I would not have a problem with it. The only argument on his part is blocking. Someone with sincere intentions would justify their behavior. Unfortunately, further, for incomprehensible reasons, he forces a shorter protection period.
[33] - This photo was taken until 1935, so it should undelete in 2055.
[34] - This photo was taken in 1941, so it should undelete in 2047 - 70 years after publication in 1977. 2036-1941= 95 years, not 120 years. Why does the protection period of 95 years last?
[35][36] locomotive was built in 1938. Date of undelete, according to the user, is 2031. It's incomprehensible. 120 years after the photo was taken will pass in 2058. pE
Can someone evaluate and check whether the user is actually right? I find it hard to discuss with someone who is rejecting me for the next 8 years. There are rules here, so I'd like someone to explain to me how long the protection period lasts. Uoijm77 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Everything is incomprehensible for the one who doesn't want to understand. As I told you, for old images, we usually assume that they were published at the time of creation, unless we have evidence to the opposite. I don't argue for keeping these, as they are most probably covered by URAA, but we can reevaluate the copyright status 95 years after creation. By then, we would probably have found where and when they were first published. Yann (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
May I know where is written the rule that 95 years after creation we undelete photos? You have never indicated anywhere that there is such a period or show me where you told me before. Uoijm77 (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
As we do not know the author we have to rules the EU anon rule with 70 years after creation and the 95 years in the US. If we can not consider the author as unknown we have to use the 120 year rule where we assume that the author is dead for 70 years. GPSLeo (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I just came here to post about Uojim77, but I see they've already started.
They're just off a 3 day block for edit-warring / inappropriate editing, changing the "undelete in" dates on DRs. They're unblocked, and within an hour of editing they're up to this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The locomotive DRG Class E 19 was built in 1938. [37] The period of 95 years after the photograph was taken expires in 2033, not 2031. The photo could not have been taken 2 years before the locomotive was produced. 2031-95=1936, not 1938. Uoijm77 (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose any sort of action. This seems to be a license-related dispute, but I see no wrongdoing that would warrant administrative action by Yann here. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, and compounded by the fact that in dispute are two opposing views, one of which is that of absolute cluelessness. I’m always ready to applaud a regular user who dares to question an admin and even to complain on these pages, but in this case there’s it has merit at all: User Uoijim77 should instead learn some stuff — about copyright laws, yes, but also about humility, good faith, and collegiality. Or else this user might soon be envolved in a dispute with another user, admin or not, and find that not all of us suffer this obnoxious mix of cluelessness and arrogance as calmly as Yann (and others) do. -- Tuválkin✉✇13:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm reporting myself here for copyright infringement: I've received multiple warnings on my talk page for many copyrighted images that I've accidentally uploaded. Will I be indefinitely blocked for these repeated violations? Jarble (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
If I'm not blocked, I'll try not to upload incorrectly-licensed images from Flickr again. I think most of the images that I uploaded were licensed correctly, except for several images that were incorrectly labeled with "Creative Commons" licenses on Flickr. Jarble (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
FWIW: the thing here is not to trust a "random" Flickr user. People claim bogus licenses for other people's work there a lot, and I don't see any sign that Flickr patrols for this. If a Flickr account isn't pretty clearly one person's work, or that of an organization that seems to have a pretty fair clue about copyrights, I'd steer clear of it. - Jmabel ! talk22:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
all of uploads of user Rahaavard is involve copyright violation and taken from google image/ non of them is this user own work and cc 4.0 license is fake
A previous report was filed on March but was dismissed as a solved edit war.[38] However, this goes beyond an edit war. The user is disruptive wherever he goes, gives insults, makes remarks about minor mistakes or about what he believes is wrong. Has defied the SysOps on eswiki multiple times, even here, earlier today,([39], [40],[41])and has even violated his ban with new accounts that behave just the same.[42] This user cannot work with others, he wants to be the only one who is right and that is unacceptable in collaborative projects such as these. MexTDT (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, whoever you are, this is not Wikipedia in Spanish. My responses have been in keeping with the tone of Bankster, who is the only one who hasn't complained here. I don't even know who you are. Ciao. Drachentöter78 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I'm joining too as a complainant in this request, this user is using Wikimedia Commons as a refuge to perpetuate unacceptable behaviors, and even racist ones.
I am Spanish, you are South American, speak to me in Spanish. I don't care about your warnings or threats. I'll edit what I think. You're warned.
— Diff translation
In addition, he believes that here he will not be blocked in Commons for the same thing, since he considers that the Commons sysops are more flexible with the blocks.
You already tried, Taichi, don't you remember. The problem that some of you have is that you do not realize that this is not Spanish Wikipedia. Here your bravados and injustices have no power.
— Translation of the edit resume
This user is indef blocked in Spanish Wikipedia and these diffs shows that his behaviour wasn't changed. Taichi (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I simply replied to what the user told me:
I don't care lol. Stop being racist. You either do a single revert and you're out. You're warned.
Maybe user Taichi should stop bothering me on Commons (this is the second time he requests my global block, in what looks like a case of harassment). Regards. Drachentöter78 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, the sysop Ezaratewarned him in June 2022 with the global block.
The warning was given after the user spat with unpleasant terms the complaints he received on Wikipedia in Spanish:
This is the class of... that handles in the Wikipedia in Spanish. They can't even write three sentences in a row without making a multitude of mistakes, but they allow themselves to denounce and harass others: the first and this other. And the third genius in discord. my goodness.
— Diff translation
The user cannot moderate his comments, and in the case of his sockpuppet, he chooses to insult and discriminate against users of the Spanish Wikipedia. Taichi (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
And is what I say false? Every time you write you show that you have problems with your own mother tongue, Spanish. Is it my problem? no. But I don't go looking for you to denounce you in other projects. By the way, where do you read insults and discrimination? You're not misrepresenting the discussion? I have answered exactly the same thing to the user, so don't lie. Drachentöter78 (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
This diff is the answer. Drachentöter78 demands that the user Bankster answer in Spanish and not in English and threatens into a Wikihounding to his contributions in Commons because Bankster denounced him in March 2023:
Why do you answer me in English, being Peruvian? Is it part of the same process as requesting my global block? I remind you that this is not Spanish Wikipedia, the lies or "Latino" harassment are not valid here. First, you've been poking your nose into an image I uploaded, so don't be exasperated if I do the same with your contributions (which I'll revise as I see fit, by the way). You've already been blocked from the Commons and had numerous images removed for violating the policies, so I recommend you calm down.
— Diff translation
The «"Latino" harrasment» is clearly a nickname of the sanctions he has received on Spanish Wikipedia, that in which he constantly repeats as «lies» in his cosmovision. Taichi (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Is it denigratory to call someone a Peruvian, when he is Peruvian? Or are you trying to misrepresent the discussion again, pushing for a block you never got? I remind you that this is not Wikipedia in Spanish and people here know how to read perfectly well. Please, this is a serious site, the administrators are not for puerile complaints. Drachentöter78 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
What rules are you talking about? You are the one who comes here for the second time to harass me and beg for a global blockade that you did not get. If Bankster had asked before reversing several times, he would have responded with a thousand loves just like you and another user before him who knew how to be a partner. But you don't know how to behave.
— Diff translation
Because I have already surpassed myself in reversing that message (he will not understand with warning) I request a sanction according to the acts and as far as possible, not continue to rebuke other users for being from Spanish Wikipedia. Taichi (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
False from the beginning. I have simply responded speculatively to user Bankster.
As I see that his intention here is to denounce me and if possible ban me, I am forced to defend myself. I point out exactly the fact that it has been this user the one who for the second time requests my blocking, without firm reason, for grudges of Wikipedia in Spanish, perhaps. This person thinks that here it is the same as in the Spanish Wikipedia, where by his will he blocks for weeks or indefinitely. But no here. Thanks. Drachentöter78 (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Excuse me, but, did you mean: “...by his will he blocks for weeks or indefinitely, but not here. Maybe you speak some kind of English I don’t know, it’s almost unintelligible. MexTDT (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
If someone needs to verify the true behavior of the user, just check the latest edition of both his main account and his sockpuppet in es.wikipedia. Both are hidden and unfortunately I cannot translate them here due are too graphic and vulgar to express, but if any Spanish-speaking sysop (for example, Ezarate), can indeed corroborate what I say, which is unfortunately not a lie. Taichi (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
But are you obsessed or what? Don't lie, there was nothing vulgar. On the other hand, I must repeat that this is not Wikipieda in Spanish. Sorry. Drachentöter78 (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
To all concerned: being blocked or banned on one or another Wikipedia is not in itself grounds for a block/ban here. As far as I can see, the only complaints above that relate to Commons are slightly uncivil language, but not to the level that usually results in a block, and an insistence in carrying on discussion in a particular one of your two common languages (which strikes me as silly, but not a blockable offense, and certainly if you prefer to continue in English you can just ignore the admonishment). I don't see anything particularly offensive in mentioning someone's nationality, unless that is being used to dismiss them as ignorant, etc. Drachentöter78, you'd do better to be more polite to people; at some point this could add up to enough to result in a sanction, and it all makes it a lot less pleasant for people to contribute to this site. & the others here: if there is something related to Commons that adds up to a blockable offense here please spell it out, because I don't see it above. (And yes, for what it's worth, I read Spanish just fine, and followed up a few of the links.) - Jmabel ! talk01:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thank you very much. It's not the first time that people from Wikipedia in Spanish transfer their problems here. There they block people who know how to write indefinitely for not liking this kind of people. Imagine that.
On the other hand, I accept your advice, I will be more polite, but I am not the one looking for a fight, but this is the third time I have been harassed and denounced by the same people. Anyway, it's their habits. A very cordial greeting. Drachentöter78 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say it but now the user has sent me an email making fun of me, which confirms that this user in bad faith is taking advantage of the naivety of the administrator. Since the user used the "Email this user" function, a checkuser could review it. I also have a screenshot of the email in question in case you require it. Taichi (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
This is what happens when you harass another user and you don't know how to write in your own language. This is not Wikipedia in Spanish. Best regards. — Drachentöter78 (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
¿Sabías que te podías haber retirado sin molestarme más y salías ganando, pero preferiste quebrantar la resolución de Jmabel y mentirle, sólo para un placer efímero de molestarme y reírte de mí? Lo siento, pero ya pasé el caso a un CU local. No contestaré más acá. Taichi (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
¿Ahora me hablas en español? ¿A qué refieres? No sé qué dices. ¿Eres consciente de que eres tú el que me viene a molestar por cuarta vez? ¿No te enteras de que aquí vuestras sandeces no funcionan? ¿Qué más necesitas para enterarte? — Drachentöter78 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@Taichi: There is no rule against having two accounts on here, as long as you don't do things like double-voting, using your two accounts to support each other in a disagreement, etc. If the Georgius Pertinax account has done something inappropriate in its own right, report it separately. If there is interaction between the two accounts which would be unacceptable because it raises sockpuppeting issues, present that (with relevant diffs) at Commons:Requests for checkuser. But be sure you read the rules there first. - Jmabel ! talk02:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Taichi: hold on to the email in case you need it in a further investigation, but unless it's something a lot more serious than what went by here, I'd suggest just letting it lie. There are Commons users who aren't my favorite people, too. Unless I think they are genuinely harming the project, I usually avoid them, rather then try to get them blocked. - Jmabel ! talk02:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I understand the background of your dissertation and actions, the truth is the content of the email is mocking and obviously the user took advantage of the situation to "replicate the harassment" in reverse. However, I prefer that the checkuser confirm that this email was sent after your resolution and that it remain in effect as additional proof in case the situation repeats itself in the future. Given the resolution, I will not insist here on the administrative board. Taichi (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@MNXANL: Recently removed from the category despite the presence of Pinyin (Wuxue Etymology) in the image Yes, the files are unrelated. Except! Except for one thing: that they all, 100% of them, have Pinyin in them. The "too small" argument does not mean that the Pinyin is not present in the image, and really is an admission that the Pinyin is there and that it can be seen. Why are we worried about size? Again, I ask the admins to revert these removal edits en masse. cf. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_91#Category_Problem --- a very similar discussion. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Has one of you thought about creating useful subcategories for these files? It seems they are indeed making the category:Pinyin more than a bit cluttered, but this could be helped with a e.g. a subcategory for images in which Pinyin signs can be seen, but are not the main topic of the image. Kritzolina (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I do believe creating subcategories is a solution. However, I doubt based on Geographyinitiative's criteria, lots of images with <5% of the Pinyin component would be included (just like the image on the right and this users position "if a Tongyong Pinyin-derived word appears in an image, then that image could be legitimately included in Category:Tongyong Pinyin" on Tongyong Pinyin dicussion with Jeff G. (talk·contribs) and Kai3952 (talk·contribs)) which is definitely COM:OVERCAT and not appropriate. MNXANL (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I will make some more subcategories like you two say. I would like to say though that the word 'Wuxue', printed on the sign, may take up "<5% of" the image, but its importance within the image is so great that the word 'Wuxue' appears in the title of the image. So there's more than "percent of the image" that goes into this decision- way more. In the mean time, I reiterate my request that these removals be reverted because these images are in the right category, whether or not there need to be subcategories (which I do agree with). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Again, Geographyinitiative's criteria for including "pinyin" is very problematic: a lot of the files Geographyinitiative categorized under pinyin are not "pinyin", but English. Some of them are even simply bilingual description plates in Chinese and English; some of the "signs" (like "stations" on the right) are just Chinese place names in English, compared to File:Shamian jie.jpg. Such activities could be deemed as vandalism. MNXANL (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@MNXANL: Thanks for your time. Do you want subcategories like "Pinyin in English" or "Pinyin-derived terms in English" or something like that? I'm okay with that discussion, but what I'm not okay with is just removing material from Category:Pinyin. That's why we are on the 'User Problems' page. Stop removing material from the Pinyin category without providing a specific justification in the edit summary, because there is Pinyin in every image. I'm doing a lot of hard work to help users of Wikimedia Commons get a handle on the Pinyin material found on Wikimedia Commons, but this content in this category is being removed for not being perfect by some impossible standards not applied in other parts of Wikimedia Commons. I'm reminded of the adage "it's easier to destroy than to create"- it has taken a long time for me to collect the various images of Pinyin, but they were being ripped away from the category en masse without explanation in the edit summaries. It's okay if you want to subcategorize things, but why totally remove things from the Pinyin category w/o explanation? Can you explain this Revision #750023874? This image--->, which is a perfect example of Pinyin, was removed from Category:Pinyin without explanation. That's why I've brought this to the 'User Problems' page- I'm clearly putting Pinyin items in this category, but this User is removing Pinyin material from the category without explanation. Also pinging @そらみみ: , who identified the obvious Pinyin in this image. I request that the image to the right here be restored to Category:Pinyin by an admin on the basis that it is clearly a Pinyin-related image given that the words that appear prominently in the image are Pinyin. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)(Modified)
To elaborate on the point "Geographyinitiative's criteria for including "pinyin" is very problematic" and why I believe a lot of the files (even under subcats) should be removed:
Files under Category:Informational signs using Hanyu Pinyin: a lot of files shows lengthy texts in Chinese and English with no obvious texts in Pinyin - a lot of them (with lengthy description texts) should be removed.
Files under Category:Train station signs using Hanyu Pinyin: a lot of them are just English romanizations - however, I do understand that some metro systems in China/Taiwan and China Railway use Pinyin entirely to romanize its stations. Thus I support keep pinyin cat for files like those:
I do appreciate effort G put into categorization, but keep in mind a lot of files being categorized as "Pinyin" and its subcats were commons:OVERCAT and particularly, did not follow inclusion criteria - that make me suspect it to be vandalism. Please do think about removing some of the files and only leaving with those that are in high-quality. MNXANL (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello @MNXANL: : I usually try to confine myself to four comments on any topic (so I don't become annoying), but I'll go out of my way and write a fifth comment so you can see my perspective on your above thoughts. I'd like to make any further discussion on the Talk page of any specific image. The reason I'm here on the 'User Problems' page is that there was a mass-removal of images, which has been mostly corrected. Thank you for not mass-removing the images you mention in the above comment. To prevent this comment from being overlong and too taxing, I'll focus in on just one of the complaints above. (See this Revision #750538912 for further rebuttals- many were very simple so I don't want to waste the reader's time.)
"File:Taichung Port Station - station sign.pngNot OK: the main object is "Taichung Port", which is not Pinyin." Yes, the main object is Taichung, which is Wade-Giles. BUT: the two other words in the image are Pinyin words: Dajia and Qingshui. Qingshui in particular can only be a Pinyin word. The cultural milieu of romanization schemes in Taiwan is so fascinating, and images containing multiple romanization systems should not be removed from Category:Pinyin just because there is another romanization system in the image! An image with multiple romanization schemes is EXACTLY what a person coming to Category:Pinyin might want to see!
Thanks for your time and efforts everyone. I would like to make this my final comment on this issue here unless there is any specific attempt to actually mass-remove images from Category:Pinyin or its subcategories. I would ask anyone interested to go to the Talk page on any specific image and I will talk about that image and the relevant categorization there. But again: the reason I'm on the 'User Problems' page is the mass removals, which have been mostly corrected at this point. Thanks again. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree with your perspectives, approaches and solutions on those categorizations, and I'm also unhappy that you choose to remove your defense arguments for some of the files listed on this page: They are typical examples to explain why a lot of the files need to remove pinyin categories - thus, leaving comments on individual files is simply waste of time and resources and only benefit the side who want to keep those categories.
I am very open to include other users to participate and offer opinions on that, but I still insist that the current categorization and inclusion criteria are still problematic: currently most of the files are too small and ambiguous to be included. MNXANL (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Appears to have stopped when warned. Blocks are about preventing future abuses, not punishing past actions.
At the same time: I'd be fine with a "mass keep" of all this user's deletion requests, since they all seem to be on the same incorrect basis (which appears to be a belief that explicit sexual images necessarily have "no educational purpose"; at least some of what was nominated was pretty high-quality). I'd certainly rather not have to look through a large number of such images to determine if some of them happen actually to be out of scope, based on what was clearly a scatter-shot set of nominations. - Jmabel ! talk16:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done @Pierre cb you already warned the user. Now the files are in DRs, and soon will be deleted. If the behaviour continues, then we will see what to do. Thanks Ruthven(msg)14:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
User has been abusing commons as a webhost/blog/porn site for over a decade and getting away with it largely because of the passable quality of his uploads and a handful of genuinely educational images. We don’t have a “not here” policy but this user is definitely not here to build an educational collection. Dronebogus (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
You want that a user gets punished for files they are here for many years and many of them not even deleted? I do not see any project disrupting behavior by this user. But you nominate files for deletion they where decided to keep multiple times without providing new reasons for deletion. GPSLeo (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Just because largely unused out of scope files have been kept in the past doesn’t mean they should have been. If they’re genuinely useful why have they mostly never been used in 10+ years? Dronebogus (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: "mostly never been used [in Wikipedia]" does not mean photos aren't "useful". Use in Wikipedia is a sufficient reason to consider something in scope, but it is by no means necessary. Commons does not exist just in support of other WMF projects. We have no way to know where else photos have been used. But the standard you are stating would mean (for example) that we shouldn't host most HABS photos and architectural drawings because only a small number are used in Wikipedia. What you seem really to be saying here is that you don't like his subject matter. I'm not thrilled with it either, though based on past deletion discussions it would probably be considered to be in scope. But that is an entirely different matter than saying Commons should exist only as an annex to Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk22:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
No, I’m not saying “delete everything unused”. I’m saying that if all this random nudity of no particular note hasn’t found an educational purpose in a decade or more it likely never will. Dronebogus (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
IMO the best arguement here isn't if the images are eductional or not, although I don't think they are, but the fact that the user is clearly using Commons as a thinly veiled exhibitionist platform. We can argue back and forth all day about if the Umpteenth leg shot is eductional or not, but the more important thing IMO is if the image was uploaded as part of a pattern of treating Commons like a personal webhost and that seems to be case here. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I notice that in most or all of your DRs the only justification to delete the images is that they lack meta data. On it's own that's not a valid reason to delete images. So it would be worth adding links in the DRs to to the images you've found on TinEye. Otherwise, I doubt this or the DRs will go anywhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The issue is not really the lack of EXIF data, but these files are very unlikely to be own works. Last warning sent. Yann (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
This IP is creating many empty categories, even of future events or things. Per its user talk, I see @Achim55: notified in January that for "this IP the category namespace is set to read-only for 1 month". After that restriction ended, the IP immediately returned to the same actions, see its contributions. I'm not familiar with that procedure, but if prevents this IP for editing categories, the read-only restriction should be applied again. —Frodar (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
This user has abused their administrator privileges by deleting thousands of valuable photographs with invalid reasoning. I came upon some of them, uploads by Warren LeMay, deleted without any rationale stated. LeMay is a prolific photographer, with hundreds of thousands of high quality encyclopedic photographs, used all over Wikimedia projects en-masse. Many Commons categories exist solely with his photographs, as he has documented cities and historic neighborhoods in the U.S. better than anyone ever has, as far as I can tell. I thought these deletions may have been a mistake, so I contacted this admin on their talk page. They proceeded to give three rationales for the deletion: the photographer makes mistakes when labeling their photographs, there are many similar photographs, and similar to others', and there are a lot of photographs from this photographer, which can make categories hard to navigate. All of these may be issues to some people, but they are not part of our Commons:Deletion policy here. They are easily solved, by relabeling photos, by selectively uploading, and by taking the time to diffuse them into smaller categories, as seen at Category:Neighborhoods in Cincinnati, Ohio. I am appalled that this admin thinks they can do as they wish with photographs that bother them, without any respect for their quality and Commons policy. I could see that some of these are objectively of higher quality than Andre's own photographs of the same subjects, yet Andre's remain live on Commons. See also Category:Files from Warren LeMay Flickr stream and User:W lemay. I suggest and urge that administrators who willfully abuse their deletion powers have these powers removed. ɱ(talk)04:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
This was not an abuse of power; it was an executive decision brought on by a situation that our deletion policy is unequipped to deal with, namely what to do with a firehose stream of thousands of files some of which need to be deleted outright, some of which need to be renamed or otherwise relabeled and some of which can remain as is, and where there is no non-manual way of distinguishing between those three situations, and where the sheer number of uploads make it unreasonable to nominate all those files for deletion individually. Nor is it a case of favoritism toward content created by myself, as can be seen throughout my contribution history where I have assisted in the improvement of numerous files created and uploaded by others. As I explained in my response to this user on my user talk page, this was simply the least bad of a series of imperfect options of what to do to best serve our end users, and I resent the misrepresentation of my actions and the implication that they were done in bad faith. My track record as an administrator speaks for itself and I stand by my actions here. Additionally, I think there is a larger discussion to be had about the usefulness of mass-uploading Flickr albums without any due diligence with regard to whether content is being duplicated, although I understand that this is not the proper venue for such a discussion. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Our policies are editable and the result of collaborations and discussions. If you find our policies inadequate, discuss at their talk pages, make a movement for a change. It happens all the time. What you can't do is decide to abide by your own rules, go rogue, and delete massive swaths of content without any explanation. Any user who is granted special powers and uses them contrary to policy to affect others' work must have those powers removed. ɱ(talk)04:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I am at least glad to now be assured you did not intend to act maliciously. It may not be a fully intentional abuse of power if you believed you have the right to delete these images. But you do not, and these photographs must be restored. They are exemplary works for Commons, and fully valid when referencing the deletion policy. ɱ(talk)05:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
there is a larger discussion to be had about the usefulness of mass-uploading Flickr albums without any due diligence with regard to whether content is being duplicated +1 to that. Not to mention if the images are actually in scope and serve an educational purpose or not. Often times it seems like they don't. I know for a fact that most images uploaded from Flickr would be deleted (or at least nominated for deletion) on sight as OOS if they were uploaded by a regular user. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I reject the assertion that my actions were contrary to policy; they were in fact undertaken specifically as a way of following our policies regarding avoiding unnecessary duplication of content and the need to keep categories short. As for the particular issue of the deletion policy, see Commons:Ignore all rules. I take my duties as an administrator seriously and I do not "color outside the lines", so to speak, lightly. This is a textbook example of a situation where (quoting from that page) "ignoring a particular rule [is] justified by an application of common sense and/or broader principles of our policies and guidelines", which I have laid out thoroughly both here and on my talk page. Given the excessive volume of files that were being uploaded, the remedies you propose were unworkable. Contrary to what you said, this was not an "easily solved [problem], by relabeling photos, by selectively uploading, and by taking the time to diffuse them into smaller categories". As I explained, it would have taken months of combing through the files manually to determine what needed to be done with which. Nor would it have been possible to put the "wall of text" (as you called it) on my talk page in the box where an admin is asked to give a reason for the deletion. Nor is reverting to the status quo an acceptable course of action vis-a-vis our users. As I mentioned, mine was an imperfect solution, as is usually the case with IAR, but the least bad of the options. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikimedia is an ongoing, never-finished work. It does not matter that it may take months. There are institutional uploads with millions of files needing categories, far greater than the sum of Buffalo images. You can work on it, and others will at times now and in the future. As well, your reading of the deletion policy is backwards; it allows for deletion of exact duplicates or smaller versions of the same image. It does not allow for deletion of other images of the same subject, taken in different years, dates, times, angles, heights, etc. I reject your idea of ignoring the rules and all deletion criteria in order to delete some of the top-tier photographs we host here. ɱ(talk)05:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
You can reject the idea of ignoring all rules if you want, but IAR is a page that exists on Commons, and the situation with these files fits handily into the range of scenarios described on that page. You can also reject the idea of deleting redundant content that is not an exact duplicate, but it's also something that is commonly done here at Commons, for example in this instance where I nominated a file for deletion for that precise reason, and it was then deleted by another admin just as it should have been. So if you have a problem with those things, then you have a problem with our policy, not me specifically. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The deletion policy makes it abundantly clear that all users must discuss potentially redundant files. And then Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion makes it especially clear that administrators have absolutely no right to bypass discussions and delete except in obvious cases of the criteria listed there, which have nothing to do with these category maintenance issues. I can't see why you think you have the right to flaunt all of our carefully-spelled-out deletion criteria just because you can't allow the project to evolve and improve at a slower pace. ɱ(talk)05:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
You are focusing like a laser on the issue of file redundancy and disregarding the fact that it was only one of several problems with the uploads, which put together made other courses of action unfeasible. I'm not going to belabor the other problems because I have already done so at great length. As I have already said: my actions, while admittedly irregular, were not undertaken lightly and have a solid grounding in common sense and the broader principles of our policy, which I have also already described at length. I stand by them, because in my judgment they were in the best interest of our project by virtue of being in the best interest of our end users. Now if you don't mind, it's 1:30 in the morning where I am currently located, and I need to get up early tomorrow. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
These actions reflect a disturbing indifference to official rules that is unacceptable for an administrator, or for any user here. Why should anyone respect our rules and authority, if our authority cannot follow the rules they put in place? ɱ(talk)06:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
These actions do not reflect any indifference to official rules. As I have said repeatedly, they reflect a recognition that our official rules are not equipped to deal with this particular situation. They reflect a careful invocation of IAR to justify implementing a commonsense solution that's based on the spirit of policy if not the letter. In fact, these actions ultimately reflect a fundamental respect for our official rules, as IAR was invoked precisely because following the one specific policy to the letter would have been detrimental to our broader policy goals (paramount among which is that people need to be able to actually use our material). In short, this is the exact type of scenario in which IAR is described as being appropriate. And yes, IAR is an essay, but it's an essay that's specifically about the usefulness of ignoring policy in situations just like this one. It's also a page that has existed on Commons for years and a principle that has been invoked uncontroversially numerous times just as I am doing now, so obviously the decision-makers here must not have too much of a problem with what it says. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Essays are literally noted at the header that they contain "advice and/or opinions" and "editors are not obliged to follow it". Policies are firm rules that "everyone must follow." If you want changes, the policy header says "please make use of the discussion page to propose [them]". You cannot just fully undermine all of our rules on this matter to fit your wants and needs. I can't believe I have to explain this to someone who was granted administrator powers. I can't believe you think one dusty essay and your goals hold more weight than firm, carefully-considered policies that are in heavy use, practiced and cited every day. ɱ(talk)13:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
You keep saying things to the effect of "IAR is just an essay and doesn't trump written policy" and "you can't delete files on a whim just because you feel like it." I have repeatedly explained to you that IAR is a page that has existed uncontroversially for years and specifically invites users to ignore policy under certain conditions if it serves a larger purpose vis-a-vis our policy. I have also repeatedly explained that the files were not deleted on a whim, not just because I feel like it, but actually for a well-founded reason which I have given over and over again in this discussion and am not going to repeat again. Now, good-faith debate requires you to actually address my points, even if they are hard to rebut or not conducive to the resolution you're hoping for here, rather than acting as if I never made those points at all. I would ask that you actually engage with me rather than continuing on making claims and statements that I have already refuted. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
How can I engage with someone who believes a four-image Commons category is ideal? Showing only one angle of the building clearly, when LeMay has better images and from more angles, and showing specific details? There is no "well-founded" reason for this. You know, you're not the only photographer or editor in Buffalo. I have actually worked with others. You alone are not responsible for categorizing and maintaining collections of Buffalo images. You have absolutely no right to delete simply because of the time commitment it would take you to have well-organized categories. ɱ(talk)14:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Have these images been discussed collectively at all? If they have, then I can see the use of IAR to avoid a batch DR of thousands of images if a consensus of users agrees that they should be deleted en masse. If not, then this is an out of process deletion, and IAR is not a valid justification. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠06:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, they have not been discussed at all prior to these deletions, and IAR has never been anything more than a small, barely-edited essay here on Commons, not a policy like at enwiki, or like the deletion policies here. This was deliberate - we cannot ignore rules here, as copyright law is one of the central rules to consider, and we can't very well have people quoting 'IAR' to upload everything under the sun. I trust you are familiar with that, having recreated the page in 2020, and still holding the latest of the five edits ever made to that page. ɱ(talk)13:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
An IAR page would not have continued to exist on this wiki for five years if it were not intended for editors to use it where appropriate. Nor is there anything written at IAR that says anything about gathering consensus. Nor is there a copyright issue here; copyright-protected material of course can't be hosted on Commons, but we are also not obligated to host any and all material just because it is not copyrighted. You cannot expect administrators to magically know which projectspace pages aren't to be heeded (yet for some reason still exist) and which additional procedures need to be followed even though they're not written down anywhere. If invoking IAR is such a problem, then for heaven's sake propose the page for deletion. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
IAR is an essay. You can write whatever you want as an essay. It was deleted and rewritten in 2020. It holds 0 weight in discussions when discussing actual policies. I can and probably will write an essay right now, Commons:Follow all rules. It holds no bearing on deletion discussions or rationales; no essay does. ɱ(talk)14:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Then the page should be deleted. Until it is, however, there is no basis to penalize me for not magically knowing that this set of instructions that exists on an actual projectspace page (rather than as a draft in someone's userspace or whatnot) aren't actually supposed to be followed. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Diagram showing IAR steps - you have to attempt to change the rules if you believe them to be wrong
Yes, I agree, the page should be deleted or moved to a userspace, but it is still abundantly clear in two areas - one text, one image - that you have violated.
IAR does not give you free reign to ignore all rules, all the time. If you disagree with the spirit of a rule, propose to have it removed or refined instead of unilaterally invoking IAR.
So there absolutely is a basis when you violate the deletion policy, the speedy deletion criteria, and even fail to fully read or follow this essay. ɱ(talk)14:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be a case of you misreading my comments, not me misreading IAR. Nowhere did I say that I "disagreed with the spirit of" any rule. I think the current deletion policy serves the needs of our site the vast majority of the time. This just happened to be one of the small minority of times when it doesn't. IAR was written for the exact purpose of addressing situations where an otherwise sound policy doesn't make sense. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
If an essay stands in full contradiction to a policy, you know what you have to do. Or maybe you don't. Thank you, I edited the essay to match the image instructions. ɱ(talk)14:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Again, good-faith debate requires that you do not simply ignore things your counterpart has said that are inconvenient to your argument. I have already explained to you repeatedly why IAR is not "in full contradiction of policy" and I'm not going to explain again. Please either find some other way to refute my viewpoint or else adjust your own accordingly. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I have not failed to rationalize. In fact, I have rationalized at length. I am getting tired of repeating things in this discussion that I have already said, so I'm not going to go over it all again. Additionally, the fact that the essay was once deleted by consensus is irrelevant. After being deleted, it was re-created a second time but not deleted a second time. You had five years to do so. Neither I nor any other administrator can reasonably be expected to know which projectspace pages are invalid despite existing. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
But yet you are expected to abide by our policies, same as any other user. You have failed to do so. Read the policy Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion again and tell me afterward that you have the right to delete those images without a discussion. ɱ(talk)15:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
As I have already said, I followed a set of instructions that has been in effect on this site for five years. They could not have been spelled out more clearly. Listen, I am sick and tired of talking in circles with you. It is a waste of my time to continue repeating things I've already said over and over again. If you or anybody else would like to bring up a point that I have not already addressed in detail, I will be happy to have that discussion, but other than that, I'm going to disengage and let what I have already said speak for itself. I acted in good faith, and I believe that I acted in accordance with policy and with common sense, and that's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
A category with four images, and none from remotely the same angle. I think this user would be astounded to believe we have thousands upon thousands of categories with hundreds of excellent photos, and are happy to have them. ɱ(talk)14:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Andre Carrotflower: IAR basically means "don't slavishly follow rules where they don't make sense." IAR doesn't mean "edit against established consensus" or "feel free to wreak havoc". And we specifically don't share Wikipedia's "be bold" guideline. This is particularly true for deleting pages outright, because it leaves a situation where most users don't have the power to revert if they disagree. You're an admin. You should know this. - Jmabel ! talk16:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
First of all, if you want to talk about "wreaking havoc", that's a word that would handily describe the effects of blindly dumping thousands of files in our archives that are replete with incorrect information and misidentified subjects, without regard to whether there is even a conceivable use for the material, at least in the quantity that it's being uploaded.
In his original remarks on this page, ɱ said "LeMay is a prolific photographer, with hundreds of thousands of high-quality encyclopedic photographs, used all over Wikimedia projects en masse" and that "he has documented cities and historic neighborhoods in the U.S. better than anyone ever has, as far as I can tell". That may be true, but it still doesn't explain why all of his myriad photographs need to be hosted here. All of the photos that were deleted still exist safe and sound on Flickr with the proper licenses. ɱ also says "many Commons categories exist solely with his photographs", which is also true, but not in the case of Buffalo. If there is a problem with our coverage of Buffalo, it's too much material, not too little.
As I have said already, this is a problem for several reasons, none of which by themselves would justify deleting the files en masse, but which in combination with each other do justify doing so. First of all, the sheer volume of files is excessive and unnecessary. Take for example enwiki's article on the w:Buffalo Central Terminal. It contains several pictures, as it should, but there is no circumstance under which it would ever need to include a gallery with hundreds of images. For any Wikipedia user seeking to add another image to the article that's not already hosted on Commons, the process of choosing one individually from the Flickr account to transfer over is both simple and causes a lot fewer problems on our end. As I said, such a glut of files causes problems with curation, and those problems are compounded by the inaccurate information present in the captions. As I mentioned, we are not Wikipedia, and so it is not necessary to include such detailed encyclopedic information in the captions. But when such information is included, it needs to be accurate, because it does get reused, just as surely as the images themselves do. I know this because I add similar material to the captions of the files that I upload, and I have seen the text reappear elsewhere many times, including on Wikipedia. In the case of my information, it was well researched and correct, but if someone else's information is incorrect, then we are doing a disservice to the users of the sites that we provide images for. Given all of that, I thought, and continue to think, that it is obvious that the presence of all these thousands of files is causing more problems than it is doing good for the site. And given also the fact that it would have been impossible to separate the good files from the redundant ones and/or those with inaccurate information except through an unreasonably laborious process, I did what I thought, and continue to think, was the best thing to do, and one that I thought, and continue to think, is in harmony with what's written at IAR. If some other user wants to undelete the files, I will not stand in their way, but as an administrator who takes his duties seriously, I cannot in good conscience perform any action that I believe to be detrimental to the site's functionality.
So I guess my question now is, are you saying that "as an administrator, I should" magically "know" something about IAR that's not spelled out on the IAR page? And if so, do you not see how it's a problem to enforce guidelines that don't exist except in other administrators' heads, or in some nebulous "consensus" or "precedent" that is scattered over multiple archived talk page discussions in obscure corners of the site, rather than centralized in some place where it's easily findable? Just because I am administrator doesn't mean that I'm omniscient. No administrator, even the longeststanding and most active one, knows all of policy by heart. Before performing an action, they at least sometimes have to look up what the proper procedure is. That's exactly what I did and now I'm getting called on the carpet for it. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I will again ask for at least a temporary removal of this user's powers on Commons. If, in two years of the admin role, they cannot understand the image deletion process, refuse to follow it and the multiple administrators telling them to restore the images, and will take their own emotions and COI related to Buffalo into the picture (1), fully contrary to our policies, I cannot have good faith that they will administrate well here or elsewhere. ɱ(talk)17:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I read through the whole discussion. I'm sorry, my friend, but citing "ignore all rules" as a justification for a unilateral decision to delete hundreds or thousands of photos without discussion is destructive to the collaborative work that Wikis require. I would support the redeletion of that essay if it's going to be used as a justification for actions like this, but that aside, what needs to be done now is to undelete all the photos in question and start a thread specifically focusing on this set of images, giving policy-based justifications for your proposed deletions - or if they don't exist, starting a thread on the appropriate policy talk page, such as COM:Deletion policy, to propose changes to deletion policy that you think are needed - and try to convince a consensus. Commons won't die during the wait to determine the appropriate course of action. Perhaps some kind of compromise may be broadly acceptable, but if so, it would come from discussion, not a unilateral attempt to dictate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I should clarify, I am not taking a position on any suggestion to de-sysop Andre, only on how deletion requests such as the ones under discussion should be handled. Furthermore, as Andre and I are friends, I hope it wouldn't be judged necessary to de-sysop him. However, I can't agree with the remark "I cannot have good faith that they will administrate well here or elsewhere." Andre was a great admin at Wikivoyage and took an indefinite leave of absence from that role only because he wanted to, and his participation in that project is greatly missed. Just FYI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Additionally to the deletion itself it is definitely not okay to leave the comment line blank in any and especially such a deletion.--GPSLeo (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Andre Carrotflower: Re: So I guess my question now is, are you saying that "as an administrator, I should" magically "know" something about IAR that's not spelled out on the IAR page? I'm saying that as an administrator, you should be pretty steeped in the culture of Commons, and the way that IAR (an essay, not even a guideline) has (or hasn't) been applied at Commons over the course of time shouldn't surprise you. That cultural familiarity is a lot of why even for people who've been competent admins elsewhere, we want to see them do a variety of tasks on Commons before they become admins. I won't say that as a 15+-year admin I never find out something new about an existing consensus on Commons, but I don't think I've ever missed one this big. And I think rather few admins have, and a good number of those are no longer admins. I certainly assume you acted in good faith, and your offer below should (in my opinion) be taken up, but I'm sure you can see above that of the many people, mostly admins ourselves, weighing in above, no one was saying "Yeah, he's got a good point here, I see it that way, too." It's a pretty strong and important consensus that you missed noticing. - Jmabel ! talk20:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Proposal
I have taken a break for a while and had time to process the things that have been said here. This disagreement has caused me a great deal of stress, and I would like nothing more than for it to be behind me, and to get back to the work that I came here to do, which is adding content and improving this site. With that in mind, here is what I propose. First, I am asking you not to take away my administrator status. Before this series of file deletions, I have always used the sysop tools in a consistently productive and constructive way. When I deleted the files, I did so in good faith, and I believed at the time that doing so was the course of action that best served our users and that it was not in violation of policy. But I understand now that the general consensus disagrees with that, and as an administrator I am bound to respect that. So in return for retaining my administrator status, I will undelete the files, and I will do my best over the next few months to edit any inaccurate information out of the captions, correct spellings and misidentification of photo subjects, etc., and to otherwise improve them to the best of my ability. This will address the consensus expressed here that the files should remain on Commons, and from my perspective, at least the issue of our users being exposed to misinformation will have been solved. Please understand that this process will take a long time, and may not be completed all in one go. Please also understand that this may involve the eventual re-deletion of some of the files, in which case I will propose them for deletion through the usual channels and I hope that any of the events of today and yesterday won't prejudice any decisions made in that regard. Please let me know if you find this agreeable. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment I have only looked at a small number of these deletions, but in the ones I looked at I see no reason they should have been deleted (and no reason offered), in-scope good quality images (sometimes as good as any other image we have of a notable building, in at least 1 case possibly the best), and properly categorized. These deletions seem to me out-of-process and IMO a rather upsetting set of actions for an admin to take. At the moment I have no final recommendation as to what the community should do about this, but I certainly acknowledge that all of us make mistakes, and it is good policy when that happens to try to rectify that - I suggest that if @Andre Carrotflower: still has admin capabilities at this moment, they make a start by undeleting the files deleted out of process. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I think that what Andre proposes here is a reasonable solution. It sounds like he now realizes he acted against consensus, and is volunteering to clear up the mess. I'd be willing to "let this be a bygone" and move on. - Jmabel ! talk20:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I have begun undeleting the files. Again, please be patient with what may be a slow process, as I 1) go through and correct the incorrect information and 2) balance this with other tasks both on- and offwiki. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
First of all, having spent about a few minutes trying to fully comprehend this discussion, I will say, though, that I would expect better for an administrator. While I'm all for using m:IAR/COM:IAR to bypass policies that are out-of-date, or policies that clearly don't make any sense, but stating that you "reject the assertion that [your] actions were contrary to policy" gives a bad look at best, and demonstrates your lack of understanding of policy at worst. This is also not the first time where Andre's behaviour has been out-of-line in recent times, so I'm going to take this as a final warning. However, I'm glad you recognized that your deletions were out-of-line with policy, and I hope you use this break as a time to reflect on your actions. I hope this won't escalate any further. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I got in a pretty contentious disagreement with Andre Carrotflower a while back, which almost led to them blocking me to get their in said dispute. It wasn't great to say the least. It also, at least IMO, shows a lack of scruples about how they apply (or at least threaten to apply) their administrator tools. Although at the end of the day he didn't block me, but it wasn't a good look regardless. That said, this seems fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. Especially since they admitted to the mistake and are undeleting the images. Although, I agree with SHB2000 that it should be seen as a last warning regardless. One that Andre Carrotflower hopefully learns from. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, look. In the spirit of compromise and collegiality, I just volunteered to undertake a huge and time-consuming task that none of you, understandably, want to do yourselves, and that I don't even personally think should be done. I'm still willing to do that, but I'm not willing to be used as a punching bag. Please let me know if you intend to let this conversation die a natural death after the resolution it previously seemed to have reached, or if you see this as an opportunity to pile on and settle old scores that are irrelevant to the case at hand. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how it's "settling old scores" to say this is relatively minor and not worth having your tools removed over, but OK. Either way, acting like your being treated like a punching bag or that has anything to do with personal vendettas really isn't a good look. If you don't want people bringing up past incidents then don't get reported to ANU. That's just how this works though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
"I just volunteered to undertake a huge and time-consuming task that none of you, understandably, want to do yourselves" – if I had the tools to do so, then I'd be more than willing to undelete/restore the files. Don't make overt assumptions next time. Otherwise, I don't have anything more to add apart from what Adamant1 said. SHB2000 (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but it appears that this user is waiting for this deletion discussion to end before proceeding to undelete the rest of the undue deletions. I am not sure this is the proper way to proceed when these deletions were, by consensus, invalid. ɱ(talk)02:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
It’s pretty clear from this mass undiscussed deletion and subsequent reaction that Andre Carrotflower has no ability nor intention to use administrative tools correctly and should lose this privilege. They could potentially earn it back after proving they’re a competent general editor, which all admins should be. Dronebogus (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, and in light of many of the things said in recent discussions, it has become clear that my idea of what is in this project's best interest has diverged from the community's to such a degree that it is no longer useful for me to continue forward here. Therefore, I hereby tender my resignation both as an administrator and as a regular contributor. I wish this project well in the future. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not resigning to preserve my dignity; the idea that that was ever in question is laughable to me. I'm resigning in disgust at a community that's willing to betray its core mission - as a repository of high-quality content for users of Wikimedia sites and others - for the sake of some false equivalency or bogus sense of fairness. I have been a Commons user for a long time, and I take great pride in the quality of my content and the information connected to it, which is the result of years of personal research on my part. I labor over the work that I contribute to this site for free in a way that most people don't even labor over what actually earns them money. So of course - of course - I don't take kindly when that work gets buried under an avalanche of someone else's, frankly, second-rate dreck that he mass-produces as in a sweatshop factory, who doesn't have any personal familiarity with the subject matter but only saw it while passing through town for a few days, and whose information is rife with inaccuracies. The content is self-evidently inferior to what's already on the site, and I am quite frankly astonished you all consider that second in importance to your obsession with avoiding hurting the feelings of someone who's no longer even a member of this community and likely will not even ever know that our site was spammed with his content. If I'm the only one left here for whom the content we offer our end users is paramount in importance - if, indeed, the thanks I get for safeguarding the integrity of that content is to be called on the carpet and threatened with revocation of my user rights - then it's this community, not me, who is in the wrong. Furthermore, there are many other venues both on and off the Internet where I can not only contribute my content but also retain some semblance of ownership over it, and quite frankly I've outgrown the phase of my life in which I pretend that's not important. Just as with communism in a political sense, the end result of arbitrarily decreeing everything equal is that the community abandons any pretense of caring about quality in favor of the absolute minimum amount of effort required to achieve any result at all. I want no part of this Trabant of a website, to continue the analogy, and so this is where we part ways. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Fine, ragequit. As long as you’re no longer making dubious unilateral decisions on deleting huge numbers of quality files we don’t care. (Also, “trabant”? As in a small East German car…?) Dronebogus (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Andre’s post @22:32 is sadly a textbook example case of how not to behave as a Commons user, let alone an admin: COM:OWN, deep misconceptions of what Commons is (baffling for an admin!), and diva behaviour, now with sour grapes on top.
Maybe one of the lessons to learn is to never take a user’s own work, as an author, as a proxy for their suitability for adminship — problems have arised from this in the past, especially with photographers, and should really be discarded. Commons is a great outlet for creators who wish (sincerely and unmistakenly) to freely share their works, but not necessarily an arena where those same creators are expected to be also curators and even offered or expected to lord over simple curators as admins.
Given the hostile and uncompromising tone of Andre’s post @22:32, we can presume that the good ship COM:AGF has long sailed, and it would perhaps be wise to expedite an RfDA, to avoid deterimental “swansongs” such as INeverCry’s deplorable farewell edits back then.
I doubt he'll be blocked considering how above reproach admins seem to be. Although it was a low level offense anyway. Outside of that it appears someone can't be de-admin even if they want to lose the privileges without an RfDA because doing so is out of process or some nonsense. So at least from what I can tell an RfDA is the only way to resolve this. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Good to see this matter reaching a satisfactory conclusion, sad that it happened at all. And many thanks to ɱ for their determination. -- Tuválkin✉✇13:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I’m sorry we’ve been in some heated disputes in the past where I called into question your fitness for adminshhip, you are clearly an infinitely more competent admin than this (ex-)admin. Dronebogus (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
infinitely more competent admin than this (ex-)admin. Not to pedantic, but he still has his admin rights. Although they should clearly be removed. Can anyone do that or know how to go about having it done? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
According to that discussion the only way to have his admins rights removed is through a de-admin vote. Although having one seems rather redundant since he doesn't want them anymore himself. But I guess I'll ask about that in the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Commons is listed there? It seems based on the links from there that bureaucrats actually do hold this power. ɱ(talk)13:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Whoops – looks like I didn't read the entire page carefully and Commons does seem to be listed there. So yes, bureaucrats do indeed hold the power to remove admin flags. SHB2000 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
To bad the bureaucrats don't want to do it. Seems like the only way forward is an RfDA. Not that there should have to be one. But hey, processes have to be followed! --Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to appear vindictive against this user, but I feel a need to wrap up loose ends - suggest amendments to our policy to prevent what Andre called a "Byzantine bureaucratic process" from being necessary, and to open an RfDA in order to close the book on the user's resignation. As well, I suppose we need policy to support the bureaucrats who should already have the confidence to use the power the community gave them, to temporarily or permanently remove user rights. I can attempt to start on some of this tomorrow. ɱ(talk)02:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Although it's a little ridiculous any of that is even necessary considering Andre has made it clear they don't want to do the job anymore. "Byzantine bureaucratic process" indeed. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Done Blocked the user and IP. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Support blocks against Priss45, Mariu44, Purisa89, and the IP for the personal attacks. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment All uploads already deleted. @Retired electrician: You need to inform the user when you report them here. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Already done —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done No issue here with this account. We may block it if they are operating with several accounts on Commons, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Yann (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose any sort of action. This seems to be a license-related dispute, but I see no wrongdoing that would warrant administrative action by Yann here. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
OK;
:
Not OK: signs too small to be identified;
Likely: despite being in low-resolution. It use pinyin "bei" to translit direction words "north" in Chinese
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Craqdi_Lady.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=738491155){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Craqdi_Lady.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=738491881){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CraqdiHighlady.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=738486305){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Craqdi_Lady.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=738483140){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Judy_2023_path.png){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Freddy_2023_path.png){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kevin_2023_path.png){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:J26_227_Banja-Baschi-Moschee.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=739700539){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GabrielDorneles#Frauenchiemsee,_Ludwig_I,_1.jpeg){kind=link}
_2008-01-01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[33]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:DR_99_151.png&oldid=748644040){kind=link}
![[34]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:WLF_KDL_8.png&oldid=748642787){kind=link}
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Doppelmotor_E_19_1.jpg){kind=link}
