Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 106

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

Aldair Villalta

Hello All, I would like to put into light the uploads from the user Aldair Villalta. He uploaded his holidays pictures : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Aldair_Villalta. Is there a way to request their deletion for F10 in another way than to mark them one by one? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer: You can use Batch editor (Settings -> Gadgets). Works in similar way as AWB but is made for Commons. A09 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
VFC is currently broken. I warned this user. The files will be deleted later. Yann (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done VFC is fixed. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Lhoussine AIT TAYFST

see, User talk:Lhoussine AIT TAYFST. uploading coypvio after warnins and blocks. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months (3rd block). Next time it should be indef. Yann (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Occupational Therapy History Matters

Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seems to upload images from a source that are released in an NC license. Satdeep Gill (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is the first time I've uploaded images. I am hoping to upload 11 images which have a Creative Copyright Licence. I have written permission from the archivist for the Special Collections at Oxford Brookes University.
I am uploading one mage at a time to ensure all the correct information is included. Is this OK? If not, what should I be doing? Thanks in advance. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
These are currently licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. That's not acceptable here. For you to describe this at upload time as a CC-by-sa licence isn't acceptable, because it's changing the licence and it's not clear that you're authorised to do that. If you have the permission of someone who is, then they will need to contact VRT (just an email will do) to record that. That will give you a VRT ticket number, which you can use to annotate each upload, so that anyone like Satdeep who queries this will then know that VRT has the details.
Also (separate issue), these scans could use a bit of rotation and cropping before upload. Captions and borders are bext removed, where possible. Put the caption text into the text description, where it's more machine readable.
Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Andy, this is helpful. I will contact the archivist about the Creative Commons Copyright Licence when she returns from holiday on 6 June.
I did crop the scans but wanted to retain the orginal captions. I will remove the captions for each image. There are some description in the text. I hadn't appreciated the point about machine readable.
I am planning to submit this entry on 1 June, the birth date of the subject - EM Macdonald. I will remove all the images before the launch date and then add them later when I've can include a VRT ticket number.
Hope this will be OK. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Just nominated the 11 images for deletion. I want to publish the entry on 1 June, albiet without the images. Happy to add them later when I've sorted out the copyright issue. Thanks again for your help. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't nominate them for deletion (things move slowly here) as it's just pointless make-work. We can note them (I'll do it) as "let this slide for a bit, it's getting sorted". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm too late. One of our stupidly over-enthusiastic admins (a regular offender) has already deleted them, because that's more fun than doing anything useful. Turelio, you're a waste of space. Why was this in any way an appropriate and useful action for the project? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: please be civil. When an uploader asks for their recently uploaded, unused images to be deleted, that's pretty automatically granted (criterion G7). I wouldn't expect an admin to look any further into what's going on. - Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
What Jmabel said, please see COM:CSD#G7. If there's a VRT permission, images can be restored of course. Gestumblindi (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to cause this problem. I asked for the images to be deleted, initally using the standard process and then the speedy delete. I used both processes because I was learning about the system by using it. I apologise for creating extra work for you good folk. I wanted to secure all the copyright requirements before including any image in the text.
On 1 June I will submit the biography. This is the birth date of the subject. All mention of the images has been removed from the text because I am expecting the remaining 4 images to disappear. Later in June, when the archivist is back at work, I will endeavour to sort out the copyright problem, and then upload 11 images and amend the text. This is the beauty of Wikipedia - right? It's constantly improving based on consistent standards - which as a newbie, I am just beginning to get to grips with. Thanks for your patience. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
@Occupational Therapy History Matters: please don't re-upload the images. Instead, request undeletion of the images you already uploaded. - Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for this information. I will request undeletion. 2A00:23C7:301D:7C01:357B:8F7E:B14D:F708 06:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User:SHB2000

User:SHB2000 has attributed rude and false statements to me here and continued to do so despite my warning. For the uncivilized and impolite behavior of this user, which disrupts the FPC project, I request the admins to investigate. IamMM (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  • @IamMM: There is certainly no false statement by User:SHB2000. The only thing less than entirely polite I see is to quote you back at yourself and say you were being a hypocrite, which may not be the nicest thing anyone could say, but doesn't seem to me like it calls for administrative sanction. You are the person on there who is arguing at length with every comment that takes the other side from yours. - Jmabel ! talk 14:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: Certainly?! "Acrimoniously nitpicky" is definitely an insult. "battleground behavior" is definitely slander. I hope the ethical standards in the Commons have not fallen so low that these things are considered normal. So there is a problem with arguing, but there is no problem with using offensive words? -- IamMM (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    Hi @IamMM, we have crossed paths before on the FPC page and it was always a pleasant encounter. But this exchange you are reporting leaves me confused. I well understand the frustration one feels if an image gets rejected, especially with reasons one doesn't see as valid. I tried to argue with other contributors on that page as well. But.. I honestly think you are the one not reacting in an appropriate way here.
    I read and reread this exchange and everytime I am more confused. To me it looks like you are fighting against something others can't see. I am not sure why you take the words of User:SHB2000 as such insults, but they probably were not intended as such and don't look as bad seen from a neutral position. Like User:Jmabel I don't see anything that call for administrative action here - and I think you know that I have high standards for appropriate behavior, especially on pages like FPC.
    Please try to take a step back and try to find other ways to deal with this situation. It will not be dealt with on this noticeboard to your satisfaction. Kritzolina (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    Hi Kritzolina. I don't remember ever reporting a user on this site, I say this so you understand the importance of the issue to me. What I see here is appeasement with a biting tongue, while we saw that Charles as one of our capable photographers was reprimanded many times for such comments. The words I mentioned above have a clear definition and attribute certain traits to a person, check the dictionary. It is disappointing to hear that these words are my punishment for arguing. IamMM (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Complain about me, too, for saying your objection to opposing a photo being considered one of the greatest on the site on the basis of posterization has left a bad taste in my mouth. Try to get me blocked for that. You have always been a constructive participant at FPC, so I don't understand what accounts for your behavior in this thread, but go ahead and accuse everyone who disagrees with you on anything of being rude and incivil and call for all of us to be banned. Or how about you stop doing that and resume being the easygoing, constructive user you had been until now? But you won't like my saying that because I am "not in a position to give advice to others," as far as you seem to be defensively concerned. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi @IamMM, I see how this is getting at you, yes. What I don't understand is why it is such an important issue for you - this is not clear for someone who just looks at the exchange without bias. Yes, nitpicking is not a nice word, but also look at the context around it. It was not used to call you "a nitpicker", no one said things like "your usual nitpicking" or "nitipicky as always" - the context is one of doubt and confirming an opinion you challenge.
Likewise the term "battleground behavior" is not attributed to you as a person, but to a very specific behavior you are exhibiting in this thread - a behavior which other usually construcitve contributors to this page also find disruptive, see Ikans comment above.
I don't think it makes sense to keep arguing here, it will not lead to anything. If you want I can offer you a private call where we can talk things through, as I really don't think this is an issue for this noticeboard. If you would like to talk, please send me an email through the email this user function. Kritzolina (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
@IamMM: This started out as a minor trivial dispute, but quickly escalated. However, you are the one that's being disruptive here. What I think you're failing to realise is you're invalidating the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you (myself and Ikan Kekek), make spurious accusations of voting "based on liking and taste", later accusing Ikan Kekek of "not [being] in a position to give advice to others in this regard", then further escalating the already-headed discussion by calling my behaviour as immature, offensive and disruptive. We all have our own opinions – I have mine, you have yours, Ikan has theirs – having different opinions is not disruptive – but it does become disruptive when you try to shove your opinions down someone else's throats, which is what you were doing (and still are).
In my defence, though:
  • "Acrimoniously nitpicky" – in what way is this an insult? I'm a native English speaker and this is the first time I've ever heard someone take offence to the word "nitpicky" which is completely idiomatic in English.
  • "Battleground behaviour" – how is that slander? You kept (indirectly) insisting that your opinion was the only one that mattered and anyone who disagreed needed was out-of-line with Commons standards – that may be subjective, but that was the behaviour that you were exhibiting.
  • "someone's being hypocritical here" – I do agree with Jmabel that I could have said something similar in a slightly more nicer way, but quoting the Oxford Dictionary, a hypocrite is "a person whose behaviour does not meet the moral standards or match the opinions that they claim to have". That is exactly what you were exhibiting in that thread.
What would have constituted as offensive is if I had directly attacked you instead of your behaviour, better known as ad hominem (such as directly calling you a hypocrite – calling your behaviour hypocritical, however, isn't ad hominem) or if I had sworn at you (which I didn't).
I don't know how this will go, but I thank Jmabel, Kritzolina and Ikan Kekek for giving genuinely-unbiased opinions (or in other words, the opinions of someone not IamMM or mine) and I hope the steps that Kritzolina takes to resolve this dispute resolve this once-trivial issue.
My final remark is that, you should take a step back; maybe also keep in mind that phrases can mean much more than a dictionary definition. Context matters – I'm glad everyone else in this thread but you agrees that my statements aren't personal attacks, rude, false, uncivilised or impolite because of the context (something that dictionary definitions don't often account for). --SHB2000 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
@SHB2000, I can understand why you felt it is necessary to reiterate all the things already expressed in this thread. After all you were accused. But considering you obviously made someone feel insulted (even if you did not mean to do so) - do you think it was wise and kind thing to do? Kritzolina (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I don’t know where else I could defend myself, though (but your first sentence already explains why I reiterated what I said) —SHB2000 (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, not responding can give an impression of not wanting to accept that there's an issue. At least, that's the impression I get from people who don't respond or comment on ANU threads about them. SHB2000 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 Not done No administrative action is going to be taken. That was clear days ago. Continuing the discussion here serves no one. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

ChuckLiks2Fuk1964

ChuckLiks2Fuk1964 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Acceptable username? Yann (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by GreenMeansGo. Yann (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User talk:V952010

Please remove his uses all images. He used my image without permission from my website File:Mum103.png & his all images seems like someone elses. He states that he owns them. & This is his second account User talk:Indianspy007 constantly changing same images From this account also. Please check this user is related or not. 103.251.217.140 15:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. I wonder why this user was not blocked before. Yann (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Pilotico72

Pilotico72 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)'s with nonsense, disruptive actions. Only 12 edits, including 3 deletion requests. Looks like another user's sockpuppet to me. No new, inexperienced user does this. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 10:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See Neau (talk · contribs) too. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello I am not a sockpuppet account, in fact it has been created at least since 15 years, I simply downloaded the "Commons" Android app and prior to contributing images, I started the "Peer Review" and judged the image to be out of scope, as the circus is not clearly visible, so I nominated it for deletion. Neau (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I had been inclined to give this person the benefit of the doubt, but https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Pilotico72 says the Commons account was created May 1 of this year, and according to "global contributions" they have never edited any other WMF wiki. User:Pilotico72, it is imaginable that I'm missing something; on what wiki do you claim to have created this account 15 years ago? I see no trace of it, but I wouldn't see other wiki's account creation logs by default if you never contributed. In any case, I hope you will admit that you have no prior edits on any WMF projects, and that this is an odd way to start. - Jmabel ! talk 15:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: I agree with Neatu too. There are almost certainly sockpuppets behind "Pilotico72" and "Neau", as they were created in quick succession and make deletion requests on my pictures.
Especially "Neau" was probably created as a precaution as a sockpuppet and coincidentally after the admin problem I reported, he immediately creates a deletion request for another of my pictures. Behind this is another user who does not want to be identified by name and seems to have a problem with my work/edits. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 20:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Quacking. Nonsense DRs. Yann (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Neau

Neau (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)'s Only edits are deletion request to my picture. probably created as a precaution as a sockpuppet and coincidentally after the admin problem I reported (see above), he immediately creates a deletion request for another of my pictures. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 20:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest an Administrator should check IP-connections between Pilotico72, Neau and possible other sockpuppets. If only one account acts here, it should be warned and blocked if project attacks continue. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 20:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Quacking. Yann (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Orlando Paride/LivioAndronico2013

@Yann, familiar with LTA case. Don't wait for the translation!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Livioandronico2013Castro Pretorio (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Elizium23 and Castro Pretorio: may I assume all of the above is specifically addressed to Yann? Because it's pretty cryptic to me. - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No, to anyone. Thanks. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Livioandronico2013 Castro Pretorio (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done All blocked. Yann (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Sebbog13

I'm concerned about the uploads of Sebbog13 (talk · contribs). Their user talk page suggests a history of badly-licensed uploads. I've just found three of their recent uploads (File:Christopher Paul Neil.png, File:Ai chimpanzee 1981.png, and File:Peter Ivan Lodtz Bastiansen Gravestone.jpg) to be tagged as Creative Commons when there is no licensing at the source. I recommend auditing all of this user's uploads, and preventing them from continuing to do so. Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Chagger (surname)

Please create the Category:Chagger (surname) included in blacklist. The content will be {{Wikidata Infobox}}, Category:Surnames and Category:Surnames (flat list), to categorize Category:Bardish Chagger, thanks --JotaCartas (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Steve Rogers Jr

Steve Rogers Jr (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)'s uploads seems to be problematic to me. They uploaded several old pictures without a clear permission or author (like here) or as "own work" (as here). They quickly sent permission via VRT. However, several of their files were still missing a clear source. Now, they claim as "source", of pretty much all their uploads, a Flickr account that was created today. It's a clear case of COM:FLICKRWASHING. It seems that this account is trying to take credit for work that it's not theirs. I would like someone to look into this, before taking any action like nominating the files for deletion. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Might make more sense to discuss this on the VRT noticeboard, because without reading ticket 2023053010015751 we don't know what is really being claimed, and only people with VRT permission are going to be able to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 01:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm the legal owner and I have the rights to those photos. The Flickr account was not created yesterday. I have that account since 2011. I have a lot of pictures from the family and others in private mode. I uploaded the photos for wikipage yesterday to prove that are mine and for you to stop picking with it. I have already sent email to wiki to confirm some of them who were asked me to give source.
I'll try to explain to see if you understand:
- These 2 I took them myself in 2013. They are my own work:
File:Ala José de Sousa Faria Júnior, no Hospital da Lapa.jpg
File:Placa de Inauguração do Bloco Operatório Subterrâneo do Hospital da Lapa, realizado durante o mandato do provedor José de Sousa Faria Júnior.png
- The following 6 are from my family "Sousa Faria" archives wich I'm the curator (my family took them and now I'm the legal owner of them. I have the rights to all of them and my company Intelectual Editora:
File:Comendador José de Sousa Faria Júnior.jpg
File:José de Sousa Faria Júnior e a sua esposa Maria do Céu em 1934.jpg
File:José de Sousa Faria Júnior (primeiro da segunda fila à direita) com os colegas de trabalho da companhia de seguros Argus, em 1933.
File:José de Sousa Faria Júnior no exercício das suas funções no Hospital da Lapa em 1992.
File:José de Sousa Faria Júnior e Georg Jann assinam o contrato do Grande Órgão de Tubos da Igreja da Lapa no dia 5 de maio de 1991.
File:José de Sousa Faria Júnior (segundo à esquerda) no Aero Clube do Porto, em meados dos anos 60.
- The photocopy is of a missing photo. That's what's left of it. Taken in 1986 and used in a newspaper back in the day. The rights of usage and the photo were given to my family archives. The newspaper "Diário de Lisboa" no longer exists. Closed in 1990's:
File:Recorte do jornal Diário de Lisboa. Na fotografia, o Provedor José de Sousa Faria, o Presidente da República do Brasil, Dr. José Sarney e o Presidente da República de Portuguesa, Dr. Mário Soares, na Igreja da Lapa, na cidade do Porto, em maio de 1986.
So, do you need more information about them? Steve Rogers Jr (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Kacamata regarding the Flickr account. That is false when you say "a Flickr account that was created today." The account was created in 2011. Most of the pictures were in private mode. I changed some to give a reliable source to wiki since you were doubting about the source and copyright. Steve Rogers Jr (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Steve Rogers Jr: you posted more or less the same on your talk page, I've already replied there; no point to duplicating the discussion, but please see my response there. There are still a few issues, but I'm sure VRT will be able to sort this out. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

However this may sort out, I don't think there is any administrative issue. I'd consider this section resolved, as far as anything administrative. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel, thanks for answering. The pictures are ok, then? Should I still open a topic in the VRT noticeboard? What about the COM:FLICKRWASHING? Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 16:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Kacamata: it is up to VRT to decide whether the pictures are OK. With one possible exception, I am guessing they will decide "yes," but it's not my position to determine this, and in any case there is no administrative issue involved.
Assuming -- as now appears to be the case -- the uploader is the rightful heir to the rights for at least the bulk of these images, it's not really a problem that he may have been confused about what is and is not appropriate as to how to get them onto Commons. If he can show VRT to their satisfaction that he has the relevant rights, that's what matters. - Jmabel ! talk 23:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Tm

User:Tm readded irrelevant and unexpected categories to porn images and removed my talk page post asking him about it as well as for example pointing out COM:CAT issues without reading. Is it okay that people just remove talk page posts? I think it's one thing to not reply but another to just remove talk page entries about it.

It is this talk page post.

We had a discussion about this subject earlier here and here where people where largely okay with the removal or supported it and Tm did not participate.

Just because somewhere in the pornographic picture there is a bottle in the background does not mean it needs to be categorized with a direct cat of that drink. Just because there is the name of a children's game written on the body of naked woman showing her asshole, does not mean it needs to be categorized into that children's game. Just because a logo of company is drawn onto a body does not make it relevant in the product's/company's category. And so on.

On Flickr you can't even see such images when not logged in. On basically any other large site except for porn sites, such images are tagged as NSFW and/or only shown in sites where the user expects them. His readding of these categories is not constructive and proves once more that Commons is not capable of self-governance. Or is it your intention to provoke policy-makers outside Wikipedia to attempt to in/directly intervene or something of that sort? I really dislike censorship and being required to use real-names or whatever else such people come and came up with so far.

Right now you're proving not only that you're incapable of self-governance (and don't have much common sense or good procedures for finding solutions), but also that tons of porn can be uploaded to all kinds of irrelevant categories as long as some words are written onto the genitals/bodies etc...as in "Just write category titles on your dick and make porn videos, how realistically educational useful in and relevant to this category about a [kid's game/food]".

I'd like to revert his recent category additions and think his actions warrant a warning or similar action that is constructive in a way that is not fundamentalist but reasonable. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

This was previosly discussed in village pump, this board, categories pages, file pages, etc and in there there was already suggested to move some of this files to some lower categories as people suggested like Category:Nude or partially nude people and ChatGPT or Category:Nude portrayals of Fake news created by me today as an example of what you could do instead of removing. This last two discussions the majority agreed in move and\or creating lower categories, not remove upper categories like you did.
You, instead of doing it, like i suggested in your talkpage in User_talk:Prototyperspective#Topless_is_not_"Nude", you removed valid categories instead of creating them.
Of course you forgot to mention that your behaviour was reported in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_105#User_finds_lots_of_“porn”,_uncategorizes the image used as an example of your actions was reverted by an administrator to a previous version to your edits like other images reverted by other users. Do the proper categorization instead Tm (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Why do you removed valid categories instead of creating categories like i did in Category:Nude portrayals of Facebook or Category:Nude caricatures of Donald Trump instead of removing them from its valid parent categories? Tm (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Because a captcha written/drawn onto an ass/asshole saying "I'm not a Trump" is not a w:caricature. I don't know what on Earth made you believe otherwise. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Very briefly, I'm not here to create subcategories for hundreds of porn files that I find not educationally useful and hence not worth any time (I'm not saying they aren't educationally useful or that "realistically" isn't subjective). You suggested this only after many reverts and after I made this post here. If you or other editors think these cats are useful, you can still add subcategories. However, you didn't do so but readded the direct/upper categories. I linked the wikilink at the bottom myself, this proves that you don't even read what I'm saying. Do the proper categorization instead. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
If they are not worth your time why did you wasted it by removing dozens of valid categories to around 200 images?
Also more than 30 deletion requests all kept, several on the village pump, this board, pages and pages of discussion of talkpage of files and categories prove that this files are in scope and so in use in several projects and this same discussions several users say that someone could move from parent categories and\orcreate lower categories to this kind files, not remove the parent categories like you did. This same suggestion was pointed squarely at you by several users in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_105#User_finds_lots_of_“porn”,_uncategorizes, so dont pretend that this is the first time you hear it.
Also it is false that i only "suggested this only after many reverts and after I made this post here". You opened this discussion on 17:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC) when i already did the same sugestion that others did on your talkpage on 17:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC), i.e. 19 minutes before you opened this discussion. Tm (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Because I care about Wikipedia's reputation outside of Wikipedia, because I don't like WMC to get censored or be required to use real-names or even just sign in to be able to see questionable images (and at least in children's games pages or high-frequented ones like "Fake news" this just invites problems), because having functional sexuality I find them distracting at these category-pages and in no way remotely realistic way possibly relevant or useful, and most importantly because I'd like to demonstrate or help ensure that the Wiki-model and WP/WMC is capable of building good policy and self-governance...but my personal motivations for this don't matter.
I won't repeat what I already said here and I didn't make this threat do so we bicker back and forth. I didn't get a notification about your talk page post until after I made this post here but that's irrelevant. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I do not want to open this discussion again. In short: Topics they are visible on the image can be categorized despite what other topic is visible on the image. You are free to create a subcategory and move files to this subcategory. You opened a proposal to change the current policy but there is no consensus to change the current policy. You can think that some policy is harming the project but as long as there is no consensus to change the policy behavior against the current policy needs to be considered as disruptive behavior. GPSLeo (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be changed (even if neither an alternative solution is decided nor sufficient arguments are provided), here I was asking that Tm does not readd the removed categories. I don't think the current policy is harmful like you suggest, it already says "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" (I think it's well-written, possibly sufficient and well-intended), I just think COM:PORN needs a brief amendment. "what or whom does the file show? What is the main subject? What are the noteworthy features of the image?" is possibly sufficient already too. I don't know where you see "behavior against the current policy", as far as I know people are allowed to remove categories or where you referring to Tm's actions? Prototyperspective (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The "realistically useful for an educational purpose" refers to the files not the categories. If you think that a file does not fall under the scope you can propose it to be deleted. You removed a category someone added to a file because the content of the file is somehow linked to the topic of the category. Removing the category without a replacement is intentional disruptive. If you are already editing the categories why do you not create a subcategory? This only lasts 5 seconds to do so. GPSLeo (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Concerning "[r]emoving the category without a replacement", this once again assumes that every category added is sufficiently relevant, useful, appropriate, displayed/represented in, descriptive of the image. Categories are added or removed all the time, usually I add large numbers of categories, rarely I remove them; and while "what or whom does the file show? What is the main subject? What are the noteworthy features of the image?" could be clearer, it also hints that not everything that in any way could be argued to be related to an image needs to be put into the file's categories.
  • For a lack of common sense or other reasons that I don't think have been elaborated, adding autoplaying decapitation gifs with flowers visible to flower categories, or porn videos with the logo of a children's game company above genitals to the children's game category (things like the latter likely en masse once various videos lose copyright in a few decades) is perfectly okay. Such images would be adequately placed in categories like "Nude people with video game related bodypainting". I better understand why it needs a larger diversity of people and/or arguments-based structure in decision making now, because otherwise small narrow-opinion or past-practices&policies-must-be-good conservatives circles are likely to make decisions that are just absurd when considered from most outsider perspectives. I was aware of the latter issue before but thought the Wiki model & this implementation is still good enough for self-governance which is quite limited in scope and difficulty.
Prototyperspective (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Tm

Mass-spamming copyright violations. Already been blocked several times. John Alsburg (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Block this clearly sockpuppet registered today. Tm (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Block this account which uploads thousands of copyvios per day and could cost WMF legal millions. John Alsburg (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, John Alsburg is up to no good.[1][2][3], suggest BOOMERANG is in order for this obvious not-new-user and almost certainly sockpuppet. Has apparently got some sort of dislike for Tm it seems. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 16:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
User talk:BloxyColaSweet#Severe warning clearly shows that John Alsburg is just here for trolling. Please block asap. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Possibly a sockpuppet of Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk · contribs). Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I see someone else blocked John Alsburg before I got to it. Seems pretty clear this is someone here to create chaos. I'm not sure if the one-week block is sufficient, but I guess it at least postpones any problem. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

John Alsburg (talk · contribs)

I've blocked this account, who registered today, but is obviously a sock-puppet of an experienced user by their edit-behaviour, for publicly calling another user "a criminal"[4] . --Túrelio (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Túrelio@Jmabel: I don't think that they intend to get unblocked. [5] Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 16:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I extended the block to indefinite for legal threats and the pattern of behavior (before I saw Túrelio's post above). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Should their pages get nuked? They're almost certainly evading a block on a previous account, and the deletion requests are basically just part of their trolling. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 16:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Either that or all "speedy close"-d. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 16:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Account has been globally locked now by steward for LTA. --Túrelio (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
ResolvedYann (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Coforbit

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

Uploading promotional content under a company name. LDM2003 (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned, file deleted. Yann (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I note that this user is blocked on the English Wikipedia because the username is promotional. LDM2003 (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Prinaki

Uploading other people's work as own work and manipulating deletion requests list of today. 186.175.131.193 13:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit already reverted and user warned about copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

User Allforrous keeps editing categories involved in a discussion

For at least the fourth time User:Allforrous:

  • added categories and files to a discussed category, but
  • does not participate in that discussion, not in a constructive way or not at all.

See User_talk:Allforrous/Archive_9#Stop_editing_categories_involved_in_a_discussion!, User_talk:Allforrous/Archive_9#Again:_Stop_editing_categories_involved_in_a_discussion! (for two discussions) and now again in Category:Retail processes and techniques (yesterday, when I made the discussion page, there were six subcategories (now 17) and no files (now six), all added by Allforrous). How can he be stopped?

His actions cloud discussions and it takes a lot of time to clean up a category after a discussion has been closed. JopkeB (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Mikael1973

Mikael1973 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)'s Only edits are deletion request to my picture. third account with only deletion requests between few days.

1. Pilotico72

2. Neau

3. Mikael1973

--> created as a sockpuppet (see above), and immediately started a deletion request for another of my pictures.

I suggest an Administrator should check IP-connections between Pilotico72, Neau and Mikael1973. If only one account acts here, the IP should be blocked, because project attacks continue.

Yann blocked 1. and 2. (see above)

Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 12:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. You could fill up a request for checkuser. Yann (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please temporarily block Svetlov Artem

This user is adding a bunch of images to "Moscow photographs taken on" categories. They don't respond to a message on their talk page. I'm suspecting that the user is actually running a script. Please block them temporarily until they come back. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Also to make it clear, this is time sensitive as the probably unintended vandalism is ongoing. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I've made a 2-hour block based on my trusting Cryptic-waveform; this will give someone time to sort it out; I happen to be headed out the door right now. - Jmabel ! talk 01:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like the bot-like behavior started correctly and then started tagging a lot of pictures obviously not taken in Moscow, such as Revision #772397368 for example. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
And the user commented the following on their talk page:

Я теперь научился писать скрипты на pywikibot + bing ai, и теперь наверно смогу так поменять, только не сразу, а в течении месяца.

I have now learned how to write scripts on pywikibot + bing ai, and now I can probably change it this way, but not immediately, but within a month.

Cryptic-waveform (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
There was strange error, somewhere around pywikibot. For category of Moscow district Konkovo Category:Konkovo a some portraits from United States was returned. I stop these processes, it requires more checks than i estimated at frist. Svetlov Artem (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Note that you need to go through the process at Commons:Bots to create and run a bot. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jmabel. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

82.120.229.176

82.120.229.176 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Portuguese-speaking IP that keeps deletion images for deletion for nonsensical reasons. Can we do something about him?--Trade (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Evterpa1

I've got serious doubts about all uploads by Evterpa1, but I'm traveling right now & have a lousy Internet connection. Could someone else look into this? File:Лидия Сизенёва и Владимир Васильев Сказки Гофмана.jpg was recently deleted. I had nominated it to see if Evterpa1 might have some explanation, but nothing was forthcoming. - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Willing to bet that File:Sizeneva_Lydia_jako_Julia_(Opowieści_Hoffmanna_J._Offenbacha).jpg is a screencap from the same video as the deleted one. Or at least another screencap. Some of them look like scans of pictures. The bar on File:Лидия_Сизенёва_2021.jpg indicates shenanigans. The quality, size, and metadata is all over the place. Probably all bad uploads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I've started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Evterpa1. - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Fake License & Copy wright violation

None of these are own work of user:Lorestani.irani and licenses used all fake

please delete all uploads [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lorestani.irani. Yann (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Threats from anonim

Some anonimous user with IP 2A02:2378:1096:D73D:0:0:0:1, probably one of the blocked for puppeting on the Ukrainian Wiki, tries to threaten me on my talk page. Please block the user and remove the threats. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ewerhide1989 continues that. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@RajatonRakkaus ✓ Done Ruthven (msg) 09:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
+ Ewerhide1987 RajatonRakkaus (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Blocked. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I've also blocked Ewerhide1989 (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2A02:2378:10B3:6AA9:0:0:0:1 one more RajatonRakkaus (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:2378:1000:0:0:0:0:0/36 for one month. Yann (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Polyimidefilm spammer

Polyimidefilm (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Warnings and deletions months ago, but they're back at it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Spam only, indef. Yann (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Jinnahpk

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

Continuing self promotion. 181.43.4.96 15:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done This user should have been warned and/or blocked long before. Final warning sent, selfies and personal images deleted. Yann (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Continues uploading personal images after warning, so blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

MihaiUpload4

Hi, I blocked MihaiUpload4 for creating test pages and nonsense after several warnings. Help needed for cleaning. Yann (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Tests deleted. Yann (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Epicamused

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

user continue requesting frivolous file renames after warning.

probably worst example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:SIP_logo.svg&action=history , declined by 4 different filemovers.

other examples: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kena_Mobile_logo.png&action=history , declined by 3 filemovers. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_PosteMobile.png&action=history , only removing a dash, unfortunately moved. RZuo (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Falk2

Diff messages are on another level: [8] and [9]. All this for non-problematic updates. Please block. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Edit war because of the order of categories in the file description's source text? Wow. --A.Savin 02:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Reywas92

Having overwritten File:Flag of Navassa Island (local).svg an astonishing 14 times, I am asking the file be protected. Whether the flag is real or not is of little consequence. This is not how to deal with such a dispute. Reywas92 should also have to explain their position and their behaviour. Fry1989 eh? 20:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As it stands, there are over 450 pages with false information on them. There is a very easy way to have the correct flag on these pages, which is to have the U.S. flag – the proper flag to represent this island – appear on all of them. Instead, some users (such as multiple blocked sockpuppets whose vandalism has been reverted everywhere and who I was not going to have a discussion with) have decided to revert to a fantasy design. A duplicate of this file has already been deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Navassa Island (Unofficial).png) because as a made-up design it should not be used anywhere. I would be happy to see this one deleted as well, but then you have 450+ pages across 91 wikis with broken links and templates – it would be far easier and more appropriate to simply show that the actual local flag of Navassa island is the U.S. flag, and then the file should be protected with the correct image - maintaining the blue and white one would inappapriately enshrine erroneous information here and across the projects. Reywas92 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I've warned Reywas92 for edit-warring. Protection thus does not appear necessary, especially as it may interfere with opening a DR, which Reywas92 (or others) may or may not wish to pursue. FWIW, Reywas92 is unambiguously in the wrong here. Their replacement is a clear violation of COM:OVERWRITE, and their underlying premise is contradicted by Commons policies. Per COM:NPOV, "A file that is in good faith use on another Wikimedia project is, by that very fact, considered useful for an educational purpose and is not liable to deletion on the grounds that it is 'wrong' in some way." As this file is in use on multiple projects, indeed as acknowledged above, COM:INUSE precludes its deletion for the reason represented. The path to deletion is thus: 1) approach the projects currently using this image and persuade them to discontinue that use and 2) open a DR with a rationale that the file is not used and that its having been universally removed is evidence of being so flawed as not to be useful for an educational purpose. That this may be inconvenient ("you have 450+ pages across 91 wikis with broken links and templates – it would be far easier [...]") is irrelevant. Эlcobbola talk 22:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on Wiki. What utter nonsense. This is miseducational use. Reywas92 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    And this is table pounding. One notes you offer no policy supporting your desired position; if you believe policy is "ridiculous", propose to change it. You don't get to edit war either way. Эlcobbola talk 23:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    COM:NPOV also states Whenever possible, correcting such errors is preferable to simply eliminating the file from the Commons collection., which to be fair, is what Reywas92 has been trying to do. I agree with Reywas92s point even though his method leaves a lot to be desired. TommyG (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    No, that is absolutely not what Reywas92 was trying to do. Replacing an image with an entirely different one is not "correcting [an] error" and, again, is a blatant COM:OVERWRITE violation. Such an interpretation would put the guidance (COM:OVERWRITE and COM:NPOV) in conflict, which demonstrates it is incorrect. It apparently also needs to be pointed out that the "miseducational use" is not occurring on the Commons. We are a dispassionate archive merely hosting the image; if the image is so blatantly flawed, the real issue lies with the projects using bogus material. Эlcobbola talk 06:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
There's a scenario that frequently comes up: a file is uploaded to Commons and then used in a bunch of Wikimedia projects in many languages. Sometimes these are all added by the same people, sometimes local users stumble upon the image, or more often it propagates due to copying from a large Wikipedia like English Wikipedia or from Wikidata. Among the people who know it's misinformation, none speak many of the relevant languages, and we're unable to do anything because COM:INUSE is a suicide pact (a reference to WP:PACT, to be clear). The idea that, in order for us to delete obvious misinformation and thus prevent harm, we must engage mostly inactive projects whose language none of us speak, is bad policy. There needs to be an exception to INUSE along the lines of "if it comes to light that an image is only in use because users were misled, it can still be deleted as out of scope". I'm not saying that should apply here (it's not clear to me), but as the source of images in the Wikimedia universe, we are the ones accountable in these situations. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that we cannot know whether it is in use because of misinformation or vandalism or as an active informed choice. What we need is a standardised translated note to place on the talk pages of articles where it is used. We could even have a bot note new uses of {{Fact disputed}} and add the note on those talk pages. Anybody who has the page on their watchlist or patrols RecentChanges would be notified – I think that would be doing our part alright in such situations. (There probably needs to be edit summary text, heading and the note, with a parameter for the affected file name.) –LPfi (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
(We also need some means to trace problem users doing the edits to add the file across projects, to restrict the problem to honest mistakes.) LPfi (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Can we at least have a rule that says that images added by the uploader are exempt Trade (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
we cannot know whether it is in use because of misinformation or vandalism or as an active informed choice - Of course we can sometimes. If someone uploads a picture of an orange with a face drawn on in MS Paint, calls it Donald_Trump.jpg, and adds it to a bunch of Wikipedias, it's not hard to tell that it's vandalism. Why should an inactive project with nobody watching the relevant pages prevent us from taking action simply to entertain that it was "an active informed choice"? There are obviously plenty of cases where it is indeed unclear, but it's our job to ensure the content we host is educational and not just technically in scope because it successfully misled people into using it. That it was used is a blight on our stated purpose; no need to make it worse by committing to it. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. I think these instances of fantasy emblems/flags/COAs etc are actively harmful to the whole Wikimedia project. There was recently a blog-post published on this topic by a Norwegian encyclopedia: Flags of the world, where Wikimedia Commons doesn't really come out shining like a beacon of trustworthiness. I tried to research several of the examples given in the article to prove them wrong, but was unable to. TommyG (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Many flags don't have official versions. See the discussion on the dimensions of the Union Jack or on the blue nuance of the Tricolor. The law seldom stipulates exact colours, and included coats of arms are usually defined by their blazon, not by an authoritative graphic interpretation. We are not helped by calling some versions "fantasy" and deleting them, leaving an "authoritative" version, which may or may not be used in the country, may be just one out of several versions used and may not be the version some project has chosen to use (perhaps in an article about a time when that nuance was indeed used). –LPfi (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, but there are different types of "fantasy", TommyG. The infobox of the file states that this flag was created by someone for an event on 7 December 2001 in relation to Pearl Harbour. If that's true, and that person had this flag actually manufactured, it is a "real" flag, even if it is just this person's fantasy and not really the flag of the island in the de jure or even de facto sense. That's very different from some of the fantasy images that get uploaded here with no history and no connection to anything tangible whatsoever. We need to make the distinction between fantasy imagery with actual history behind it and fantasy imagery that came out of thin air. Fry1989 eh? 23:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
What we need is a concentrated effort to get rid of the later from Commons Trade (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Please. I've recently started deletion requests for a bunch of obvious joke or fictitious flags from Category:Flags, but there's a ton more where they came from, and undoubtedly countless more which aren't categorized. Omphalographer (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't find the exact link right now, but there was a discussion on the Vexillology part of Fandom recently about fantasy flags and even there they agreed that the flags should at least be properly labeled as fantasies. It's not a good look when Commons has more lax standards then a website like Fandom. Also, where does the whole "educational" thing play into these made up flags? Even if a flag is "real" because someone had it manufactured that doesn't automatically mean it's educational. I can spend a couple thousand dollars to have a "flag" printed by local sign printer, maybe fly it around a bridge somewhere just for kicks, and upload an image of me doing it to prove it's "real", but so what? How exactly does that make an image of the flag educational or in scope? (I'd argue the reason flags like the Union Jack have educational value is because of their historical and cultural importance, not because there are "real" examples of them on someone's bedroom wall somewhere or whatever.) --Adamant1 (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The tricky thing is that there is more or less a continuum here. It's hard to see exactly where to draw the line. Clearly official flags of generally recognized governments are "real"; stuff made up by a Commons user on no particular basis is "fake"; but there is a lot of terrain in between. E.g. the one originally being discussed here, File:Flag of Navassa Island (local).svg, even if it was used only once for an exhibition, is of some historical interest. The issue is to make it clear exactly how limited its use was, while still being clear it's not just something some rando just made up. It is near, but not at, the low end of the "reality" spectrum. - Jmabel ! talk 04:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
What makes a flag noteworthy isn't that it simply exists, but that is is generally recognized as a symbol of the place (or group, or whatever else) it's meant to represent. A single instance of a flag, flown on a single instance by a single person, doesn't cross that line, IMO. Omphalographer (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
But it is something some rando just made up. Just because he had it made for the event he was organizing does not give it any legitimacy whatsoever. Reywas92 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Are we discussing a proposal to change Commons policy in this thread? I'd suggest discussing that on the appropriate page, but my opinion is that we have enough to do at Commons without getting involved in disputes about the accuracy of files that are in use on other Wikis. Furthermore, we recently saw an attempt by a user who lost an argument about the mapping of Sydney for the purposes of English-language Wikivoyage to extend the argument by requesting deletion of the map they oppose. I don't want to allow any change in policy that would give such arguments any kind of thin wedge into Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a change to the policy should be discussed on Commons talk:Project scope, not here. SHB2000 (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Noel Deparis

Similarly to Meta:Requests for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2023-06#Report_concerning_User:Noël_DEPARIS_-_NDP, please block the spammy user Noël DEPARIS - NDP (talk · contribs) and their numerous sockpuppets:

Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The oldest account on Commons is Noel Tchallagassou. Yann (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done All blocked. Yann (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Known accounts on French WP

See fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Noel Tchallagassou. Yann (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! A few more hiding in individual checkuser requests on fr.wiki:
Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done All blocked. --Polarlys (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

One more batch

The following accounts were identified on fr.wiki:

Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to block these on Commons specifically, when most of them have never edited Commons? If we are worried about cross-wiki disruption in general, a global lock should be requested on Meta. Otherwise, there is no reason to issue a Commons-specific block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
This sockpuppeter is mostly active on fr.wiki and commons and still requesting "help" from random people and uploading personal or non-free images. Why leave dormant sockpuppet accounts unblocked if they have already been identified? A global lock has already been requested: Global block for 196.169.16.0/20. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The sheer number of socks is a problem IMO. Yann (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done --Polarlys (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

username-block

For the record: I've blocked per COM:UPOLICY the new account TúrelioIsMyOP (talk · contribs), that is obviously a sock-puppet and was created to mock by username and to post a personal attack on my talkpage[10], likely out of anger about a deletion (unspecified). --Túrelio (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

See Category:Sockpuppets of Socoolgp‎ - combination of File:Mitrović Fulham 2023.jpg, File:FRA 1-1 NED (24 March 2023).jpg, File:WHU 1-1 CHE (11 February 2023).jpg (overseveral accounts) maybe? Эlcobbola talk 19:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 Good block. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I've requested a global lock. SHB2000 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Ohrimko

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

Uploaded unfree files. --Микола Василечко (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This one reminded me of PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs), who also uploaded a lots of war heroes from Soviet Union without clear permissions. Do a check if possible. Lemonaka (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe that. Planespotter was scrupulous in copyright matters, Ohrimko has uploaded files without copyright tag or with false copyright tag. I warned him/her and will delete some uploads speedily as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Q28

This user seemed to use machine translation for communicating and contributing to Translation. FWIW, Template:Project scope/zh and Template:Sourcefield/zh. We really need some sysops who are familiar with Chinese to deal with their translations.
NB: I cannot understand what they are talking about on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Q28 Lemonaka (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: I don't really see an administrative issue here. And you probably should have pinged User:Q28 in bringing this here.
I don't understand their comment there either. Might be machine translation, might just be weak English. FWIW, I certainly use Google Translate at times here but, unless it's just to get a quick first draft in a language where I have moderate ability, I indicate when I've done so.
Looking at the DR, the pictures will almost certainly be deleted.
When someone is less than clear in a language that is obviously not their native language, it's sometimes useful to say explicitly, "If there is another language where you can explain that more clearly, please feel free to use it, someone here can translate if needed." - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel I've noticed them on their talk page. Their contributions on translation namespace made me brought this issue here. Indeed, I've nominating these translations for deletion but still want some sysops who are familiar with Chinese to review these cases. Lemonaka (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Lemonaka其实我近期翻译的这些模板，大多数人可能不会碰到，所以他们也没有翻译。我只是“稍微”翻译了一下，以便于确保我自己能够看得懂。 Q28 (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@Q28 Translation is a serious work, do not translate something without fully understanding. Misinterpreting in translation can cause serious burdens for others. If you just want to keep yourself understood, use a translation gadget on your Google Chrome or Safari. Do not publish them on the Translation namespace. This is called vandalism and repeatedly doing so will lead you to blocks.
@SCP-2000 I cannot really understand Q28's sentences, can you help me a little? Lemonaka (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Lemonaka事实上，由于我身处中国大陆，因此翻译插件在我的chrome上是不可用的，就是因为谷歌翻译服务已退出中国大陆。现在我决定将仅翻译较短的文本，例如See also，以至于不会引起争议。 Q28 (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Q28 You liar. You have created Template:PD-animal/zh, Template:Project scope/zh and Template:Sourcefield/zh. They are all in a mess and they are not something you called "short sentences". Have a read on them again, I believe even you will be tripped over by these tangled words. Lemonaka (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Lemonaka我的指的是从现在开始不再翻译过长的翻译文本。之前建立的翻译如果质量较差的话，你们可以删除，我不会有异议的。 Q28 (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Advice followed, thanks. Lemonaka (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This user is indeed problematic. They added Media of the day for months in advance, sometimes with very poor quality files, even some which might be considered vandalism (i.e. File:Ejaculation showing contractions of bulbospongiosus muscle.gif - NSFW, on 2023-11-11). They never added description, which creates more works for others. Yann (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Yann很抱歉，我之前不知道Motd不能使用NSFW的图片。另外关于Motd的新建工作，我将在把2024年1月的图片分配完毕之后休息一段时间，在2023 Quarter Mid-3后之后继续这方面的工作。 Q28 (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Yann They are still adding Motd Without any description after getting warnings, twice. Lemonaka (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Worse, they also added a lot of low quality GIF files, which I removed from MotD. Hopefully they will start listening to others.
I wonder if all they additions to MotD should be deleted right away. It takes a lot of time to fix them, and it is not encouraging others to propose other types of files. Any opinion? Yann (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
i occasionally swap them out with something more interesting, but i'm not super active, coz i'd expect some busybody (no offence to yall, just referring to one particular user who frequents motd) to take care of them. RZuo (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
advertising Template:Motd/Upcoming again, which is a pseudo calendar i created for monitoring recent motd. RZuo (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Pokeimage, I believe this is something related to their competence, acquaintance of policies and something more serious. Lemonaka (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
FYI: They have been blocked on enwiki and zhwiki due to their disruptive editing. SCP-2000 16:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Trying to clean up the mess... I blocked Q28 indef. on the Template namespace. Not competent enough to edit templates. Yann (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I hereby strongly support a CBAN for Q28 and a mass delete for all the Motd they added. Lemonaka (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
User talk:Q28#Your account has been blocked Have a look of this reply after being blocked. I was nearly certain they will learn nothing even the short block expired. Lemonaka (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I am a follower of Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope. Let's see how they behave after the short block expires. Mistakes in other namespaces are much easier to fix than in Template namespace. Yann (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Shedlon17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Repetitive, systematic downloading of non-free files from the Internet, under the guise of own work. Need to block. Ориенталист (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
We can punish someone for uploading, not downloading xd Matlin (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Sexynudesuploaded

Exhibitionism account with obviously inappropriate username. We are not a free porn site. Dronebogus (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

For the record, they were indef'ed NOTHERE on enwiki 8 years ago, and unblock-request at that time was declined. DMacks (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

User Dryaevskiy

Dryaevskiy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads numerous photos of Russian politicians that seems from official website but claims as his own. I marked 2 for deletion and warned him about copyright violation. An Administrator should look at all his uploads to judge if they are copyvio or not. Pierre cb (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done All uploads deleted, highly unlikely own work. --A.Savin 11:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
why are you complaining or deleting if you don't know if I'm the author or not?? are you sick? Dryaevskiy (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dryaevskiy: While it's imaginable that some of these could be your own work, it's pretty hard to believe that half-toned images came from anything other than published material. Dating them as having been taken this week hardly increases the plausibility. And I, for one, am quite well, thank you. - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I took these photos from a photo album and photographed them on my phone, the author is my grandfather, how should I post them then? Dryaevskiy (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dryaevskiy: If you are the heir to your grandfather's intellectual property, then you can license them with (for example) {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. You should attribute your grandfather (by name) as the author, and date them as accurately as possible. However, beware of uploading anything you can't be sure is his work: e.g. at least one of these appeared to be from a newspaper or magazine, and unless you can demonstrate that he was the person who took that, you can't really prove you have the rights. See File:MV Kameruka, Sydney, 1964.jpg for an example of where I did this with a picture taken by my father. - Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thank you very much for the information!)) Dryaevskiy (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Dr. Gorbachov

The user insists on uploading images of Colombian politicians regardless of whether are poor quality images, in order to fill electoral tables in Spanish Wikipedia. It was previously blocked months ago because uploaded unfree images, but it doesn't seem to understand the warnings. Taichi (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. One month block (second block). Taivo (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Mapper2000 using Commons as a platform to disrupt Wikivoyage

Before I start, here are all the involved parties for full transparancy, including myself. As this is the Commons administrators' noticeboard, only the three users will be notified.
Wikimedia Commons and Wikivoyage

Wikimedia Commons only

Wikivoyage

This is a bit of an interwiki issue that comes from Wikivoyage, but this user's disruptive behaviour has also disrupted Commons. I'm fully aware that it's bad karma to bring up issues outside Commons to Commons, but I'm afraid this is a bit of an x-wiki case and have come to bring this up.

On Wikivoyage, voy:en:Sydney has a certain district structure (the specifics of the structure are irrelevant to this discussion). To change the structure of any "huge city" article , a change must be proposed on the talk page; the district structure will be changed if and only if a consensus is reached (there are exceptions but that too is irrelevant to this discussion).

On May 23, through 2405:6E00:289:B4FC:49C6:F3AA:3D01:764D, Mapper2000 tried to unilaterally apply the their preferred district structure; that was reverted, they then made a proposal, it received opposition (disclaimer: from me). They then claim that "[t]he old Central Sydney Map is incredibly inaccurate and should not only be taken off this page but deleted from Wikimedia altogether", then proceeded to create Commons:Deletion requests/File:Central Sydney Districts.png on May 25 (while also voting using an IP sock, 203.49.228.129 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) ) ignoring COM:INUSE despite Ikan Kekek's replies.

Fast forward to June 9 (after various other dramas caused by this user on Wikivoyage) where Chris.sherlock2 asked Mapper2000 on their talk page for the sources (big disclaimer: there is absolutely nothing wrong with that). The discussion goes on, and on June 13 (today) surprise surprise, Mapper2000 has now canvassed Chris.sherlock2 on their talk page to support them. Nothing inexplicably wrong with pinging users who know the area, but in this case, it was deliberately done to sway the discussion (it didn't entirely, though, and to reiterate, Chris.sherlock2 did nothing wrong).

So what's the disruptive bit on Commons as I initially stated? The DR was, but overall, this user is using Commons as a platform to POV push their favored district structure on Wikivoyage hence why I'm written a long-winded request for others to review this. Also, since I've been directly involved in this, I may be overreacting, but I'll leave it there. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I was merely asked to comment on Wikivoyage. In fact, I found these maps completely independently of Wikivoyage, and in fact it’s an area of interest to me because Sydney really has no defined regions. Everyone makes up their own. I was intrigued about how he came up with the areas, and Mapper2000 gave me a detailed overview of how he came up with the regions.
My reason for my interest is because I’m taking extensive photographs of the City of Liverpool and I really like his take on how Sydney is divided up. In fact, I initiated the conversation with Mapper2000 and he mentioned he was having a debate on Wikivoyage. I didn’t think it was unreasonable to add my 2c. If I’ve caused issues on Wikivoyage I will desist.
I can’t speak to Wikivoyage, but I don’t believe Mapper2000 is being disruptive on Commons. Everyone has their own ideas about the regions of Sydney and I would say Mapper2000’s take is closer to what is on the ground than many, which is why I was so interested in their maps, and I was even more impressed with their reasoning.
Please note I’ve never met Mapper2000 before.
I am trying my best to stay out of Wikidrama so if I’ve stirred some up, I apologise. I promise I’m just trying to photograph South West Sydney! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Chris, to reiterate, there's noting wrong with you specifically adding your 2c to Wikivoyage. You did nothing to stir up the drama, and there's no need to apologise! I apologize if my comments came out – more opinions are good, but not canvassing :-). SHB2000 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
All good - I didn’t follow what was happening in Wikivoyage and it does look like there is a bit of a debate going in there that may have been caused by some actions that were taken badly. I guess I don’t really consider it canvassing for Mapper2000 to mention the debate to me. I did take into consideration some of your comments, like for instance perhaps some more colloquial names might be helpful on Wikivoyage in particular. For myself, I really only saw the maps by accident and after seeing the reasoning behind them I pinged one of my long-time friends who has a similar interest in this area to get his take.
I hope the dispute can be resolved amicably - Mapper2000 does have some great knowledge and interesting ideas but perhaps may have gone about things less than optimally? I don’t know… making major changes can often appear to be a great idea but takes consensus. God knows I’ve walked into some areas on the other project and came a cropper - I actually made a really bad enemy who got me banned! So I can see both perspectives.
I guess I just want to make it clear that the communication was initiated by me to Mapper2000 who has obviously enjoyed discussing his ideas with a receptive audience and my take on this is he mentioned it to me because it was directly related. I would hate for him to be sanctioned for comms I started! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
It appears we have an editor User:SHB2000 with ill intent and malice trying to sabotage fellow users for having ideas and suggestions they don't agree with.
I've created maps and am on Wikimedia Commons for the sheer purpose of sharing ideas and to update as well as improve articles, I don't expect everyone is going to necessarily agree with my suggestions nor be thrilled with the idea of change, this however does not mean that I am being 'disruptive' nor am I intentionally vandalising anything. A fellow user has commended my work and made that clear on a page where User:SHB2000 clearly does not like anyone disagreeing with them which has now prompted User:SHB2000 to take the next petty step of reporting all of this to Wikimedia Commons as if Wikimedia Commons doesn't have enough to do than to also have to mediate users disagreeing with each other on Wikivoyage. User:Chris.sherlock2 willingly expressed their liking towards my work, this does not mean they nor I have done anything wrong or as the User:SHB2000 puts it 'canvassing'.
I reported the currently used File:Central Sydney Districts.png on the Wikivoyage Sydney articles regardless of my map being used to replace it in articles as the File:Central Sydney Districts.png used on Wikivoyage Sydney articles is just plain and simply wrong and that's not from a POV or opinion stance, it's literally false, its boundaries, its districts are not factual any google search or research into Sydney suburbs can show you that the map is completely inaccurate in many ways for reasons that are explained here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Central_Sydney_Districts.png. The file was confoundedly kept due to an apparent jargon loophole called COM:INUSE which from my understanding means even if something is factually inaccurate and wrong it is still kept based on the merit of it being in use, which makes no sense. Basically it means nothing gets improved nor updated even if it's factually incorrect purely because it's just always been there (?). In all honesty if that's how things operate then anyone trying to make any type of improvement on Wikivoyage is just wasting their time as their efforts will be shut down and no one with the power will be bothered to improve things for the better and will ignore things brought to their attention (reminds me of my workplace lol).
I will say that I did not however report the File:Greater Sydney 2.png used on the same page as even though I feel the picture is vague and outdated, it doesn't necessarily have anything false or misleading about it. I will not report anything based off my opinion or POV which appears to be what User:SHB2000 is doing here claiming that certain users are breaking rules (e.g. not doing what User:SHB2000 likes) and is also claiming that certain users are behind multiple IPs and vice versa which I will say from my perspective is false and purely speculation as with no evidence, this cannot be proven and therefore there is no merit to these claims and suspicions. 2405:6E00:48F:E430:C10A:516D:41F6:534D is the IP I use if I'm not logged in when commenting, there are no discussions where I have used my IP 2405:6E00:48F:E430:C10A:516D:41F6:534D to pretend to be someone else in order to push my agenda, I use one or the other. User:SHB2000 comments on this talk page; https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Talk:Sydney/Sutherland_Shire make it very clear that they are acting purely out of spite at this stage based off their suspicions which is really not beneficial for anyone and especially not for the information on the articles being discussed at hand. User:SHB2000 has also now dragged User:Ypsilon, User:Ibaman, User:Ikan_Kekek and User:Chris.sherlock2 into this entire debate in order to get more people on their side, once again not how Wikimedia works and not beneficial for anyone.
All of this is really very pointless and draining and I am more than happy to discuss things with User:SHB2000 one on one as they appear to have a very similar interest in the same topics that I do and I would much rather work with users on here who are striving for the same thing that I am, rather than work against them. Unfortunately it appears that my initial interactions with User:SHB2000 have been based off as they put it Opposition which I haven't thought has been a good way to welcome a new fellow editor trying to make improvements and suggestions but hey people can get off on the wrong foot and I'm more than happy to make things better so that they and I can have more civilised debates about The Greater Sydney articles and come to more compromising amicable solutions that benefit the information on the articles for the better. I bare no malice at this stage and I think everyone needs to just take a breather and remember this is just a community website for the benefit of the people who like to use it, things don't have to be so intense and hostile. We're all here because we take satisfaction and pride in how these articles turn out and that's something we all have in common and can all work together on. Mapper2000 (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  1. @Mapper2000: This is an admin noticeboard. I suspect that somewhere in the enormous block of text you just wrote is something intended to be relevant to an administrative matter, but at a quick skim I can't find it, and there is only so much effort I (or probably any other admin) is going to put into this. Whatever that might be, could you say it succinctly? - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  2. Offhand, I don't see any admin matter here. Commons policy, with a few exceptions that don't appear to be relevant here, is that when there is a dispute over maps we keep both maps as separate files, and let other wikis decide which to use. The map in question was nominated for deletion, and was kept on this basis. If someone made a bunch of bad DRs along the same lines that might be an admin matter. One such nomination is not. If I'm missing something that is actually an admin matter, please spell it out. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
For the record, no-one "dragged" or did anything at all to "get" me "on their side." As I said in the DR, I have no opinion about optimal Wikivoyage mapping for Sydney. But I do have an opinion about not deleting files in use and respecting consensus. As long as the Wikivoyage map is protected from vandalism on Commons, we have no problem, but if anyone edits it without getting a prior consensus at Wikivoyage, we definitely would have a problem that would be properly called vandalism. So I'm hoping we never need to upload all Wikivoyage maps locally at Wikivoyage instead of keeping them on Commons, where they can benefit other Wikimedians. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
All I'm simply asking is for an admin to give them a warning to not use Commons as a host for disrupting another wiki. Mapper2000 won't listen to me and have been acrimoniously adamant with their fraudulent accusations while also being hypocritical at the same time, so I'm asking for a neutral third party to intervene. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
That rebuke came in the form of the clear rejection of the deletion request. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it gave a firm warning to Mapper2000, since they went and proceeded to canvass another user where I can't do anything about it. SHB2000 (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Still waiting. SHB2000 (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
None of what you wrote is an administrative matter, but I did not drag User:Ypsilon, User:Ibaman as you claim (I used {{User4}}, which does not ping users). SHB2000 (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey all, I don’t think this is an issue for Commons. Though I don’t think it was wise to have asked to delete an image heavily used on Wikivoyage, I have some sympathy with the reasoning as the map is rather inaccurate. I only say this because I understand the motivation for the deletion, and don’t think it was done for any reason other than the stated deletion reasoning. Obviously it is in use, so can’t be deleted.

I respect SHB2000’s efforts on Wikivoyage, and also appreciate Mapper2000s ideas also. I have to say I have no real side here, other than we seem to have stumbled into a Wikivoyage issue. Given there isn’t really a commons issue to be addressed (one DR doesn’t make for abusive disruption), could we please reduce the distress and close this and respectfully ask the participants to perhaps address the dispute on Wikivoyage? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Anolacrabsss

User with a history of uploading copyrighted images as "own work" has uploaded another half-dozen today. — Archer1234 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for two weeks. They already received a final warning in 2021. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Brutarchitekt

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

User has been warned several times and blocked once, but keeps uploading copyrighted images. --Kritzolina (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue is more with FOP than uploading copyrighted images. If the pictures are uploaded by the architect, there shouldn't a be a problem, but a permission would be better. Yann (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Why do you think he is the architect? And yes, the latest DRs were about FOP, but a lot of others were about images copied from other webages of images of artwork where the artist died less than 70 years ago e.g.: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Innenraum Aussegnungshalle Südfriedhof, Ingolstadt.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Umbau Altstadthaus in Büro, Zürich, Brutarchitekt.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wohnhaus, Thusis, Brutarchitekt.jpg and other deleted files. Kritzolina (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Nynynayeon

Nynynayeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Uploading multiple copyrighted image with some already deleted while some still pending, please issue a final warning to them. — Paper9oll 16:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Photos by Timo Breidenstein

Following the category movement => Category:Photographs by Timo Breidenstein, I'd like to ask for help. The category should be edited in the Template:TimoBreidenstein, but it's protected. Can anyone fix it, please. Wieralee (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

DONE - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

User:G.Lanting

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

User has been making problematic edits in category descriptions. These edits consist of a mix between excessive linking to interwiki links and bare urls. Was first brought to users' attention at the Village Pump where he was asked to clarify, but even after being pinged in the discussion, notified on his profile and given ample time to respond, he hasn't, nor has he ceased his habit of making unconstructive edits (in fact he seems to have doubled down). 154.47.26.195 07:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:CC-BY-SA-2.0

Following the category movement => Category:CC BY-SA 2.0, I'd like to ask for help. The category should be edited in the Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0 in line {{In category|CC-BY-SA-2.0}} should be {{In category|CC BY-SA 2.0}} instead, but it's protected. Can anyone fix it, please.
P. S. It wasn't my idea to move this category, but if someone have done it, it should be fixed. Wieralee (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this should have been moved. @Jason Quinn: what was the basis for this move? It is a shorthand, in any case. Once we decided not to spell out "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike", why is one shortened version preferred to the other? Is there a specific pattern with which this is meant to conform? The longstanding template is Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0, and that has always categorized into Category:CC-BY-SA-2.0. This change potentially affects over 9 million files, so I hope you did not just decide this unilaterally without discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 04:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ abbreviates it to "CC BY-SA 2.0". But yes, the move affects a humongous number of files and makes the category's name inconsistent with hundreds of other CC categories e.g. CC-BY-SA-2.0+, CC-BY-SA-4.0. I'd prefer if the move is undone, unless there's a community consensus that removing those hyphens in all CC categories is worth the effort. TilmannR (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I've now further notified Jason Quinn on his en-wiki talk page. I'd like to hear from him before taking any action, but I am leaning toward reverting the redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I've brought this up on Commons before, eg., at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 87#Move rename some CC-related images, as well as some talk pages. It was moved because it's the way it really should be and, yes, all the other categories and templates should eventually be moved too. "CC BY-SA" is acceptable for "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike" because it's a sanctioned shorthand used by Creative Commons themselves. "Cc-by-sa-2.0" is not and there's no reason that we should be implictly suggesting to our editors that it is. On the English Wikipedia, when writing the license release for the edit page, a WMF legal representative once objected to "CC-BY-SA" because of the hyphen in preference to "CC BY-SA". They were correct: minor incorrect details like added hyphens or miscapitalizations literally could mean a copyright case stands or fails in court. Here we are not dealing with legal text but nevertheless we should be setting the gold standard for the kosher usage of CC licenses as they are at the heart and soul of this project. Yet, at the moment, our inconsistency in our name of categories and templates is atrocious. Hypens vs no hyphens. Random capitializations, etc. And it's a crying shame that this state of affairs has festered for so long and it's a shame that there's nobody who's caring about such details. Yes, the categories and links technically function but what they do is also incorrectly teach our users and readers how to apply and use CC licenses. We should be educating our users on the best practices, not confusing them to the point where they don't even care. The moving of those categories ought to have been done a decade+ ago. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
👍 Like --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jason Quinn: I can see that you feel very strongly about this, but what I read between the lines there is, "no, there wasn't a real consensus on this, and it isn't really a legal issue in this case, I just feel very strongly about this point of punctuation in this area adjacent to a legal issue." I am not going to try to prevent any other admin from taking action here, but I personally am not going to make a change affecting over 9 million files on this basis. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Randyv638

Exhibitionism-only account. Not here to edit constructively. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

User:A1Cafel

I had told that user several times to check before uploading files from Flickr with Flickr2Commons if these files were already on Commons, because F2C is an unreliable tool. A1Cafel (talk · contribs) won't listen and, once again, he has uploaded hundreds of duplicates, this time from the album https://www.flickr.com/photos/193092213@N08/albums/72177720309111818 which I had already transferred to Commons via the UploadWizard. Add to this that A1Cafel, when he's not uploading duplicates although he should know better, is going around Commons asking for file deletions, and I am getting the feeling that he's not acting in good faith, but with a kind of hostile indifference to the project at best. Edelseider (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
PS: I just left a message to Túrelio (talk · contribs) asking him to delete the 171 duplicates in Category:European Youth Event 2023 in one go. And these are surely just the tip of A1Cafel's iceberg. --Edelseider (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  • It would be optimistic to look for consistency between the standards of A1Cafel's own behaviour, and the behaviour they expect from other uploaders. It remains a question as to whether that's something we can require of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 7 days. --A.Savin 11:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @A.Savin: I hope this will serve as a lesson. Flickr2Commons should be discarded entirely. --Edelseider (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Flickr2Commons is very useful for uploading your own work from Flickr, or systematically bringing in the work of someone who continues to post new content. In any case, the Flickr Foundation is apparently about to take over the tool, and we may hope that it will be maintained at a more professional level. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Jmabel: See here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 91#Flickr2Commons_-_the_duplicate_machine. --Edelseider (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
For now i think that tool should be disabled until the Flickr takeover, users who don't have a minimum 'auto patroller' right should not be able to access that tool let alone mass upload using it, I know atleast 3 LTA's and their 20+ socks who have used this same tool to upload 100's of thousands of images over the last decade or so..its not just a dangerous tool, but also a poorly monitored one.... Stemoc 22:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Once the takeover happens it would be interesting to see if they could implement a way to check for and/or block uploads of duplicate files. Or at least provide a warning if there isn't one already. It's kind of futile to reprimand people for uploading duplicates if the tool allows for it though. Especially if there isn't even a warning not to upload the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
While the tool itself really should be capable of checking for duplicates, it's also incumbent on the user to check the categories these images would go into. It's not unreasonable to consider that someone else might have had the same thought to upload a particular image. I think that's the real issue being raised here, that no due diligence was performed before (essentially) pressing Upload Everything™. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I don't disagree with that. At the end of the day it was still on A1Cafel to make sure he wasn't uploading duplicate images. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Again: User Allforrous keeps editing categories involved in a discussion

In continuation to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 106#User Allforrous keeps editing categories involved in a discussion. Yesterday I started a discussion for Category:Product market when there were only five files in the category, four of them put in there by him in 2018. Now he has put another 13 in it. No comment of Allforrous in the discussion at all, only passive aggression or obstruction (because it takes a lot of time to judge whether the added files have good parents after the discussion has been closed). (And he keeps adding categories with the same name as in WP-EN, when there is no need to have them in Commons and adds about five files which have perfect other parents; this is one of those categories, I saw many others and a few hours ago he added Category:Office supply retailing.) I'm done with it. Can he please at least get an official warning? JopkeB (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Bialysnieg (talk · contribs)

For your information.

Bialysnieg uploaded a lot of files and 6 years later nominated them for deletion without reason. Typical example. A lot of them were deleted, in my opinion mostly due to scope problems, but some were kept. Typical example.

A month ago Bialysneg started to nominate the kept files for speedy deletion – also without reason. I declined them, because if the file survived regular deletion request, then it is generally ineligible for speedy deletion. I even protected file:Andre Gasiorowski, Daniel Rozen, Israel XII 2013.jpg. I would allow another regular DR, but instead the user started to bomb me with personal messages (link "Email this user") and ask for deletion on my user talkpage. As this is not a proper modus operandi, I did not delete the file. No proof about copyvio was presented to me.

As I am an Estonian, Bielosnieg choosed another Estonian VRTS member Kruusamägi and asked him to delete the file.

Yesterday I and Kruusamägi sat face to face and spoke about what to do. Kruusamägi said, that Bialysnieg sent him convincing proof (I did not ask what kind of proof and Kruusamägi did not say it without asking), that most of his uploads are actually copyvios. I believed Kruusamägi and today I deleted all remaining uploads of Bialysnieg without camera data as copyvios. Multiple of them were previously kept after regular deletion request. Typical example. Taivo (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

User:ManyemaKasongoDescendent

This user has been involved in an edit war over File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg and File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. Whilst I welcome file protection of File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg, the version created by Fenn-O-maniC at 05:59, 2021 April 6 is clearly an improvement, and I would ask that the file be protected under that revision, especially considering ManyemaKasongoDescendent provided no explanation for their reverts. I would also ask that the other file be protected as well, using its improved version, and that ManyemaKasongoDescendent be forced to explain themselves. Fry1989 eh? 14:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m very insulted by the disingenuous nature of this message, @Fry1989Fry1989. As I’ve reiterated, this not an edit war. I have asked on numerous occasions to be provided with an official source to justify the revision by @Fenn-O-maniC but this request has been ignored.
The hyperlinks/sources used to justify the revision is from unofficial government websites (leganet.cd and ocongo.com to name a few)
The executive branch of the government in the country in question (Democratic Republic of the Congo), responsible for the execution of law (hence “executive” name), has made clear what the emblem of the Democratic Republic of Congo (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2)
I will happily revert to @Fenn-O-maniC revision if it is based on up-to-date government documents etc and/or explicit vectorised emblem by the government which is already the case (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2)
I don’t see why @Fenn-O-maniC usurps what the official government vectorisation of the emblem (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2)
@Fry1989Fry1989 ManyemaKasongoDescendent (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The fourth revision of File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg is totally different to the three revisions before and should therefore become uploaded as a new version. Same with File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. What version is more accurate does not matter, just respect the COM:OW guideline. GPSLeo (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, if this is the case. All vectorisation by @Fenn-O-maniC and @Fry1989 should be uploaded because the vectorisation that they are justifying are completely different to the previous vectorisation on the file.
I would also like to reiterate that the executive branch of government vis-a-vis the country in question (Democratic Republic of Congo) has stated the official vectorisation which is used. The hyperlinks provided by @Fenn-O-maniC and @Fry1989 are unofficial and dubious.
I request you visit the stated official vectorisation, not creations designed to usurp the sovereign emblem of a country in Central Africa…
see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2 ManyemaKasongoDescendent (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I have split up the Versions. And a final warning to all people involved: If you start such an edit war again you will become blocked form editing here. GPSLeo (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the version used on the website linked by ManyemaKasongoDescendent is the "official" rendition. In fact, it would appear to be the opposite, and that whoever created the website on behalf of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has chosen to "borrow" the vector version that has been on Commons since at least 2008. Fry1989 eh? 17:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
So are we going to address the issue of a clearly improved file being reverted based solely on a source that very obviously leads right back to here, or not? Fry1989 eh? 23:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to keep this open until it is addressed properly. There's no point in ignoring it. The source is flawed. Fry1989 eh? 14:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 14:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 16:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 20:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 15:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Still waiting. Your job as admins is not to simply slam on the brakes and run away, it is also to discern what is true. Fry1989 eh? 14:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Part of my role as admin is to stay out of factual disputes where I haven't a clue. Part of Commons' role is to leave it up to the individual Wikipedias to determine which image to use in such circumstances. Normal policy on disputes like this is to upload a different version under a distinct filename. - Jmabel ! talk 15:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Except that this isn't a dispute between wikis over which version to use. It's an issue of a relatively new user who reverted a file 14 times (something I came along to very late in its happenings) based on a source which is cyclical back to Commons. In other words, their source is non-existant. To split the file and ignore that is to reward that behaviour. The improvements made by Fenn-O-maniC were long-standing and well-accepted, and in the case of File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg those improvements go beyond just the national emblem itself, to correcting obvious flaws in the shape of the blue shield. ManyemaKasongoDescendent should have to explain, in the face of their source not actually being what they believed it to be, why these improvements should now be rejected. Fry1989 eh? 17:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Two month ago I wrote "And a final warning to all people involved: If you start such an edit war again you will become blocked form editing here." If there is no new disruptive behavior of one of the involved people no further action is needed. GPSLeo (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
And again, you are refusing to discuss the crux of the issue. Fry1989 eh? 15:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It is absolutely shocking to me that admins are willing to abdicate their responsibility and reward disruptive and unsourced behaviour. Fry1989 eh? 22:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Fry1989

File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg

This user has been involved in an edit war over File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg and File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. Whilst I welcome file protection of File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg, File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. doesn’t have a protection and @Fry1989 has reverted back to the unofficial vectorisation, contrary to official vectorisation as stated by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2) whilst not providing an explanation for this incorrect reverts. I would also ask that the other file be protected as well, using its the version, and that @Fry1989 explain himself… ManyemaKasongoDescendent (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

No reason to start a new thread, all can be discussed in the thread above. GPSLeo (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-notable artist deletion of portrait for biography

On 27 june, the user @Jameslwoodward has mass deleted a series of my portraits for biographies. Reason for him : out of scope -- we do not keep personal art from non-notable artists.

I wonder how this can be out of scope, as these are illustrations of notable subjects as stressed also user @Rhododendrites in the discussion on the talk page.

If DW problems led some of my individual drawings to be marked for deletion, this is an issue that can be solved one by one and I can provide, and have already made, new drawings which comply better to the DW rules.

But deleting all my portraits because these would simply be « personal art from a non-notable artist » is something new and completely different.

It has also other major consequences : this would prevent me definitely to participate to the projects les sans images and WikUnseen.

And, if the principle of deletion of my portraits for « personal art from a non-notable artist » reason passes, does it also mean that all the persons who participate to these projects and are mainly « non-notable artists » will also have all their portraits made for illustrating biographies articles deleted for this reason ?

I'm requesting your attention about this mass deletion and hope you will declare these portraits are in the scope of Commons because there are illustrations of notable subjects.

I thank you in advance.

Waltercolor (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If these people have a Wikipedia article without an image, these are certainly in scope, as the point is to provide an illustration to these articles. Yann (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Notable artist or not, these are certainly high quality. I could imagine some possibly being issues as derivative work, but if the subject is notable, there is no "derivative work" copyright problem, and we lack photos, these are almost certainly not out of scope. From what I see here, I suggest a mass undelete, and if someone wants to question any of these they should be taken up one-by-one.
@Jameslwoodward: is there any basis for these deletions beyond the fact that the artist who drew them is "not notable"? (Perhaps I'm missing something.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I fully agree with the suggestion of a mass undeletion. Kritzolina (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
With respect to Jim, the idea that we should delete in-scope illustrations of notable subjects simply because the person who created the illustration is not themselves notable does not have merit and anything deleted solely on that basis should be undeleted. The question is whether they are DWs. For context, Waltercolor uploaded several DWs either unaware of the rules about derivatives or perhaps based on bad advice from others. However, in the time since then he has worked to (a) upload replacements that are not clear DWs, and/or (b) secure permissions from the original artists. Files that are clear DWs with no permission from the original artist should be deleted, files which are not DWs or which have permission from the original author (sent to VRT) should be undeleted. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we want to keep images from amateur artists when there are perfectly good photographs available, but obviously others see this differently. So be it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Well that's just it -- the purpose of these illustrations is to provide an image for people for whom there aren't perfectly good photographs available. See e.g. Category:Claude Grison, where the sole member of that category is nominated for deletion (even though permission from the original artist has been provided). Yes, a high-quality photograph is better for Wikipedia articles, but we don't always have them (and sometimes the photos we have are really terrible). — Rhododendrites talk |  14:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
These images (and sorry for not being an amateur artist, I have already published drawings in books and magazines, but that's not the point) are here to give illustrations to articles about biographies.
If a good photograph is available, it can be used and replace easily the drawing as soon it becomes available. See the example of Agathe Rousselle. I drew a portrait to replace, with her agreement, another drawing that was made by someone else but didn't figure the facial features of the person in a satisfying way. Later, a photo has been uploaded on Commons. This photo is now illustrating the articles and I'm happy with that. But a high percentage of articles will never have a photo. Encyclopedia existed before photography and a correct drawing on Wikipedia is better than a written mention about the lack of illustration or a text only page. Waltercolor (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@Waltercolor: Sorry to intervene here with a question, but when you write "Encyclopedia existed before photography", I assume that you are aware that portraits used to be made in painting, or drawing, or print (based on drawings, sometimes on paintings) "before photography". You clearly state that when no portrait of a person is available, a drawing should be made now, in our time, because an absence of illustration is unacceptable. This seems to be an invitation to invent faces where there are none, the way artists have done with Charlemagne (of whom only vague descriptions exist, no contemporaneous portrait) for times immemorial, and in fact it's a throwback to the Encyclopaedias of the late 19th and early 20th century. Isn't it better to call a blank space a blank space and just live with the fact that some persons have left no visual trace, instead of opening the bottomless barrel of "imagining how a specific person may plausibly have looked like", which is nothing else but original research? --Edelseider (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@Edelseider: But we do have photos, just not any that are freely licensed. If a skilled artist can produce a freely licensed drawing that is derived solely from the likeness gleaned from those photos, and not any of the poses or creative choices made by the photographers, then that is a valid reason to use a drawing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: but the question still stands - are we going to have portraits of people like Chnodomarius next, of whom we know only that he was a very tall and very brutish looking man? Not so long ago, that wasn't even an issue - the encyclopedias of old are filled with imaginary portraits of historical figures.--Edelseider (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@Edelseider: we do it all the time; we just tend to use older representations. See, for example, François Villon, or for that matter Jesus or any other Biblical character. - Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
You never see historical series or films or documentaries ? They are exclusively made of reconstitutions with a presumption about how the historical characters looked . Sometimes, sculpture or painting exist, like for Nefertiti, Julius Caesar, etc... but generally, it's a creation of the mind with the element we have or we can imagine. And it works. The Ten Commandments, Cleopatra or Ben-Hur are designed by people like me : they create realistic characters based on how they imagine people should look. Waltercolor (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I undeleted some files, where there is no copyright issue, based on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Waltercolor. Yann (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok, clear. Thanks @Yann ! Waltercolor (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Retired electrician

Asking administrators to review my <hidden? deleted?> edits made today, 30-06-2023. Do you see any? I don't. I'm trying to upload from flickr via https://flickr2commons.toolforge.org/#/user/187597251@N05. Flickr2commons returns normal upload progress, says that files requested are on commons ... but they aren't and they don't show up in my edit history. Flickr2commons bug or something wrong with the original files or what?! Retired electrician (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There were no deleted edits or abuse filter logs for your account in last days. There might be a problem with Flickr2commons or the Wikimedia servers. GPSLeo (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:80.146.8.244

Yet another IP frivolously mass-nominating the same videos of sex for deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked 80.146.8.0/24 for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Promotional use of uploads on Wikipedia articles

please delete all these uploads

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done All files deleted, blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Promotional use of uploads on Wikipedia articles 2

three accounts

  • please delete all these uploads
  • [11] this one blocked and uploads deleted
  • [12] (until now no uploads ) but use as Sockpuppetry to to add uploads in articles [13]

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done for Sanazabp and Sepsukhadem. All files deleted, blocked. You could start a COM:RFCU. Yann (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

User:ArthurMcGill

This user seems to have a year-long history of overwriting files in violation of COM:OVERWRITE policy, and often he uploaded file versions with a much lower resolution of the (nearly) same crop (example 1, example 2, example 3) what is IMO a COM:OVERWRITE violation and vandalism in one... The problem is really the high number of such edits -- I managed to browse through his latest 1,000 uploads and revert overwrites among them, but he submitted at least 5,000 further uploads and during all the time there are such overwrites as well -- sadly I have no time and energy to browse through really all -- so the question is also, if there is any possibility to filter such edits by bot, and maybe also a (semi-)automated way to revert all -- I've really no clue so far -- and seems like someone deemed us fools for years, so any opinion on possible sanctions? Thanks. --A.Savin 12:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I expressly resist the accusation of vandalism. I have certainly altered some images in "good faith", recropping where necessary to use them more specifically for an article, or to tone down overly strong coloring (example 1), or for pixelation of faces (example 3) or just to sharpen it (exapmle 2).
When making my changes, I always referred to the fact that the license column says: "Dieses Werk darf von dir neu zusammengestellt, abgewandelt und bearbeitet werden".
I have also oriented myself to other users who have done something similar before. In addition, several 1000 changes to files are definitely not the truth, a few dozen maybe yes. I am not familiar with the details as to why and why this cannot be possible. In any case, it was unintentional and intended to improve the image or the article/list. ArthurMcGill (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
PS 1: meanwhile my English isn't so good anymore and I ask for German statements to avoid misunderstandings. ArthurMcGill (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
PS 2: I just did a rough scan of my file list and came up with less than 60 "crop or sharpen" changes in the last four years, some of which were self-uploaded images. Before that, I had almost never actually used this modification technique. ArthurMcGill (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. So you wanted to pixelate faces here. a) On which legal and/or policy-related basis? We don't hide random people on street or architectural photos; b) Why did you, apart from pixelating faces, reduce the image resolution from 4,964 × 3,764 to 1,187 × 900? And this is just one example out of dozens, if not hundreds. --A.Savin 14:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Even if some of his uploads may violate Commons:Overwriting existing files, raising an accusation of vandalism is rather inappropriate as it implies bad faith. While COM:OVERWRITE should be known to sysops, it is not necessarily to regular uploaders. The reporter notified the reported user about that policy less than 1 hour before reporting him here. The accused user is actually a longterm-wikipedian on :de in good standing, who also contributes media to Commons, though it's not his main project. I assume the down-sizing of some of the retouched images resulted from inexperienced use of an image-editor. Surely, the mistakes made should be corrected, but I see no justification for imputing bad intentions to this contributor. --Túrelio (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
again: based on my list, I came up with less than 60 files that I have changed in the last four years, including some files by myself. For example, I did the pixelation to ensure personal rights and the pixel reduction resulted if, for example, an image had a too strong "blue cast". I also cropped some pictures because I linked them to openstreetmap, where an object (for example a wayside cross, a chapel, etc.) should be as recognizable as possible without too many distracting impressions of the surroundings. ArthurMcGill (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
What does the pixel resolution to do with colour cast? Again, on which basis do you wish to pixelate faces of all people on all street photographs on Commons? Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Germany is, by the way, the relevant policy for Germany, which you definitely should have read before making this kind of changes on existing images. --A.Savin 14:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@ArthurMcGill: "Dieses Werk darf von dir neu zusammengestellt, abgewandelt und bearbeitet werden" bedeutet nicht, dass Sie das Werk frei überschreiben können. Das bedeutet, dass Sie abgeleitete Werke erstellen können. Wenn diese auf Commons liegen, sollten sie fast immer unter einem anderen Dateinamen vorliegen. Bitte lesen und befolgen Sie COM:OVERWRITE. - Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Genau dies war mein (!) Missverständnis. Ich deutete die Formulierung "...neu zusammengestellt, abgewandelt und bearbeitet werden..." so, dass Bilder mit freier Lizenz für alle Zielorte (Artikel, Listen, osm) entsprechend umgewandelt und aus meiner Sicht verbessert werden dürfen. Ich versichere Euch, dass ich bis zum heutigen Tage von "com:overwrite" nichts gewusst habe und es mir in den mehr als 15 Jahren bei de:Wiki noch nie aufgefallen ist, weil ich mich nur an zuvor benannte "Formulierung" orientiert habe. Unwissenheit hat mit Vandalismus nichts zu tun und gegen diesen Vorwurf wehre ich mich konkret, auch gegen die überhöht dargestellte Zahl meiner "Bildbearbeitungen". Diese Änderungen hatte ich mit guten Absichten getätigt und wollte keinem dabei auf die Füße treten. In der Summation meiner Gesamthochladungen und Edits auf commons sind weniger als 60 irrtümlich falsche Bildbearbeitungen (davon mehr als zehn eigene Fotos) verschwindend gering. Und was die Verpixelung anbelangt, so ging ich davon aus, dass, wenn man Autokennzeichen verpixeln muss, müssten erst rechtdann auch Gesichter verpixelt werden. ArthurMcGill (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Der Bedarf nach Verpixelung hängt immer vom Kontext der Nutzung des Bildes ab. Wird das Bild zur Bebilderung des Gebäudes dahinter genutzt, muss eigentlich nicht gepixelt werden. Wird das Bild etwa mit der Bildunterschrift "Touristen sorgen für Probleme" versehen, sollte gepixelt werden, weil den Personen etwas negatives unterstellt wird. Daher wird bei Autounfällen immer gepixelt, weil es dort häufig darum geht, dass eine Person einen Fehler gemacht hat. GPSLeo (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The 3 examples provided by A.Savin are really not OK. 1. Do not overwrite files from other people without their approval; 2. Reducing resolution is not OK; 3. Blurring and/or pixelization of other people's images without their approval is not OK; 4. Such editing of old images is completely useless. Yann (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I think we should assume good faith: that the user wasn't familiar with COM:OVERWRITE and had no intention to vandalize, and that he is now familiar with that rule. Assuming he abides by it in the future, I don't see any further administrative matter to be discussed. - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Support to Jmabel. The user, who has 50k edits each on Commons and :de, obviously acted out of a (bit too) Wikipedia-focussed view, as on Wikipedia his retouched/cropped image-versions probably look better than the original images and the unintended down-sizing wasn’t noticed on Wikipedia. He surely has learned his lesson wrt overwriting and down-sizing now.
I have checked the user’s uploads in 2020 to 2023 and found a number of files which don’t conform with COM:Overwrite and/or not are down-sized from the original. I‘ve listed these files on the user’s talkpage to allow him to correct this mistake by reverting the original images (and eventually uploading the retouched versions under a separate filename). However, he should be given enough time for this task.--Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to the list provided by Túrelio, I have now reverted all the problematic files back to their original state (if not already done by Savin). When the opportunity arises, I will see if and how I can bring in accepted alternatives.. ArthurMcGill (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

David S. Soriano (talk · contribs)

David have previously received a two weeks ban by Yann (talk · contribs) for "uploading out of project scope artwork after warnings". Now he continues to upload said artwork after the block expired. --Trade (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: --Trade (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done @Trade, blocked for 1 month. Kadı Message 08:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Would it be possible for you to change the block so it only applies to uploading images? Trade (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this was implemented yet. I closed all DRs as deleted. Yann (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle 6 (Michaelsandip)

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

Can someone with a mop and a LART please sort this out. Probably by closing a load of broken DRs as delete, and then blocking. No, I've no idea what's going on, but it's not useful to us. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. At least all his uploads are deleted and all his requests are closed. Taivo (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

فرات۱ (talk · contribs)

Please consider this comment. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Giov.c reverts and blanks DRs despite previous warning

Giov.c ( local | logs | global ) has uploaded a number of logos that are beyond COM:TOO. Unfortunately, he repeatedly reverts and blanks deletion requests:

The most recent edits followed this warning. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I note that Giov.c reverted this report, see Special:Diff/780613965. Giov.c, please stop removing reports and requests. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
They did it again (Special:Diff/780614479). Blocking indef, they can make an unblock request if they will stop. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Anonymus Alpha 1

Anonymus Alpha 1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) was blocked twice last year for "Uploading unfree files after warnings", but they keep uploaded images that are not theirs as "own work". Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: They were indef. blocked in the pt.WP (their home wiki) for use of socks to recreate previously deleted articles. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked indef. Third block. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Several copyvio uploaded by TheEchoes32132

Hello All, I would like to pinpoint that the user TheEchoes32132 (talk · contribs) uploaded today several album covers, not under Creative Commons. According to his discussion page, it is not the first time. Could you please remove all his uploads, and take some actions against the user? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Added {{Copyvio}} per COM:ALBUM. @CoffeeEngineer Use {{Copyvio}} next time as gets file into speedy deletion process. A09 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. The user is warned, all contributions deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Reinhardhauke

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed without action as no actionable evidence has been presented. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Bitte mal das Editierverhalten von o. g. User in Bezug auf heraldische Kategorien überprüfen und notfalls Einhalt gebieten. Siehe dazu Commons_talk:Categories/de#Familienwappen_an_Grabdenkmälern,_Bauwerken_etc.. Man muss ihm nämlich ständig buchstäblich hinterherräumen, weil er in seinem Kategorisiereifer nicht nach links und nach rechts schaut. Dass er damit Probleme verursacht, scheint er nicht einzusehen. Anfrage auf Deutsch, weil es praktisch nur den deutschen Sprachraum betrifft und ich die Problematik auf Englisch nicht gut beschreiben kann. Letzte von mir bemerkte problematische Bearbeitung siehe File:Oberbechingen St. Michael Grabplatte 317.JPG. Die Wappenkategorien sind wieder einmal überwiegend entfernt worden. GerritR (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@GerritR: Bis jetzt sehe ich keinen Hinweis auf die Eröffnung dieser Diskussion auf COM:AN/U auf der Diskussionsseite von Reinhardhauke. Siehe dazu auch die Hinweise am Anfang dieser Seite. Und dann sollte eine Problemsbeschreibung schon konkret und nachvollziehbar werden mit Hinweisen auf konkrete Diffs und wo genau ein Fehlverhalten gesehen wird. Es bitte zu beachten, dass wir in nicht-offensichtlichen Fällen eine detaillierte Diskussion über die korrekte Kategorisierung hier führen können. Dafür gibt es andere, besser geeignete Wege. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Reinhardhauke ist durchaus von mir darauf angesprochen worden, siehe desssen Diskussionsseite und die von ihm schon wieder entfernten Inhalte dort . Ich habe mich bis dato übrigens noch nie auf Commons formell über Benutzer beschwert und kenne daher die Regularien nicht. Also bitte ich um Nachsicht, wenn etwas übersehen oder vergessen wurde. Es ist m. E. zu kompliziert, etwas hier vorzubringen. Das Problem an sich habe ich an anderer Stelle erklärt, siehe oben. GerritR (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Habe dem Reinhardhauke jetzt einen Link zu dieser Beschwerde auf die Benutzerdisk gestellt. Den Umgang mit der oben erwähnten Vorlage, die wohl der Benachrichtigung von betroffenen Usern dienen soll, finde ich nicht verständlich.--GerritR (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@GerritR: Bis jetzt fehlt mir ein Hinweis auf konkretes Fehlverhalten. An „anderer Stelle erklärt“ hilft hier nicht. Wenn da nichts mehr kommt, werde ich das hier schließen. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Problembeschreibung, von A nach B kopiert: Wir brauchen möglicherweise eine Konvention über Wappen, die an einem einzelnen Objekt angebracht sind, zum Beispiel an Epitaphien, Kirchenfenstern, Grabmälern. Dies wird nötig, weil der User:Reinhardhauke vermehrt und mit Feuereifer damit befasst ist, die Bilder von solchen Werken in eigenen Kategorien zusammenzufassen. Siehe https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Reinhardhauke. Leider nimmt er die Kategorien der abgebildeten, teilweise unbekannten Wappen gleich mit. Das ist unglücklich, denn: 1. Die in der nächsthören Kategorie (z. B. Epitaph von xy...) zusammengefassten Bilder zeigen u. U. nur Ausschnitte, auf denen nur ein Teil der Wappen, eins, alle oder gar keins zu sehen ist. 2. Die Identifizierung unbestimmter Wappen wird so erschwert. Siehe Category:Coats of arms of Germany to be classified. ich verstehe diese Kategorie als Warteschlange und Durchgangskategorie, die nicht für höhere Kategorieebenen gedacht ist. 3. Wappen können durch Annotation gekennzeichnet werden. Da macht es auch Sinn, sie als Kategorie unten wiederzufinden. Hier ein Beispiel, worum es mir geht: Category:Grabstein der Katharina von Neipperg geb. von Stockheim († 1553) oder Category:Epitaph für Walter von Kronberg oder überhaupt jede neu geschaffene Kategorie dieses Typs.--GerritR (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@GerritR: Das ist kein Problem für diese Funktionsseite, sondern ggf. eine Sache, die über COM:CFD diskutiert werden sollte, siehe meine vorangegangenen Anmerkungen dazu. Ein Fehlverhalten kann ich hier nicht erkennen. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Ich schon weil man dem Benutzer ständig mit dem Kehrblech hinterherrennen muss, um die heruntergepurzelten Wappenkategorien wieder einzusammeln. Auch nach Ansprache des Benutzers.--GerritR (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@GerritR: Wie angekündigt, wenn hier nichts Verwertbares folgt, wird das geschlossen. Angebliches Fehlverhalten muss belegt werden, das fehlt bislang völlig. Meinungsverschiedenheiten zu Kategorien gehören nicht hierher, sondern bei COM:CFD diskutiert. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Brief English summary: User in question has not yet been notified, I am missing a detailed description and diffs. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Update: Notification has been done. Still no diffs or a real problem suitable for COM:AN/U. Asked a second time for this to come forward. Announced that I will close this if this does not happen soon. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Still nothing coming forward beyond some grievances due to different opinions in regard to categories. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Oberbechingen_St._Michael_Grabplatte_317.JPG&action=history als Beispiel von vielen, wie weiterhin Kategorien bereits fertig bestimmter Familienwappen entfernt werden (dass die Wappen bereits bis zur Familienebene bestimmt waren, sieht man in älteren Versionen). Diese problematische Vorgehensweise findet leider massenhaft statt. Die Mühe anderer Leute wird folglich ignoriert und man muss ständig hinterherräumen. Dazu muss man nur die Benutzerbeiträge von Reinhardhauke der letzten Wochen und Monate durchsehen, oder braucht ihr jedes Beispiel einzeln präsentiert?--GerritR (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@GerritR: Vielleicht ist etwas Klarstellung hilfreich. Diese Funktionsseite dient dazu, problematisches Fehlverhalten in Bezug auf Richtlinien von Wikimedia Commons mit konkreten Diffs und ggf. mit Verweis auf die zur Anwendung kommende Richtlinie vorzubringen. Diffs sind Verweise auf konkrete Edits, siehe de:Wikipedia:Technik/Text/Diff. Sie dient nicht dazu, Meinungsverschiedenheiten in Bezug zum Einsatz der Kategorien zu diskutieren. Sie dient auch nicht dazu, Forschungsanträge zu stellen, um die Beiträge eines Benutzers nach möglicherweise problematischen Fällen zu durchsuchen. Verstöße müssen zumindest in einem Umfang, der sie relevant macht, hier sehr konkret vorgetragen werden. Das ist trotz vielfacher Aufforderung bis jetzt nicht geschehen. Was sehe ich in der zitierten Historie? Drei Edits von dem betreffenden Benutzer, in denen die Datei in die Kategorie Category:Grabstein für Maria Tänzel geborene von Riedheim befördert worden ist und einige Kategorien mitwanderten. Das ist völlig normal und ganz sicherlich überhaupt kein Grund, hier einen Fall auf COM:AN/U zu eröffnen. Erstens steht es Dir frei, für die Kategorie Category:Grabstein für Maria Tänzel geborene von Riedheim, sofern sie Dir nicht gefällt, einen Fall in COM:CFD zu eröffnen und dort darüber zu diskutieren. Dann wird das irgendwann entschieden werden. Auch können natürlich in wohlbegründeten Fällen Reverts erfolgen. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Für ein sorgfältig erarbeitetes Dossier fehlt mir die Zeit. Fakt ist, und da muss ich mich wiederholen, dass der Benutzer Reinhardhauke drauf angesprochen wurde und dies zu ignorieren scheint: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reinhardhauke&diff=prev&oldid=775681503. Fakt ist, dass man seinen Edits hinterherräumen muss, wenn man überhaupt etwas davon mitkriegt (ich habe nur das auf dem Schirm, was auf meiner Beobachtungsliste steht). Und drittens habe ich keine Lust auf Editwars mit Reinhardhauke. Vielleicht hat der Herr hier mitgelesen und hoffentlich einen Hauch von Problembewusstsein entwickelt. Bisher hatte ich noch nie auf Commons die Notwendigkeit einer förmlichen Beschwerde gesehen, weil man Dinge zum Beispiel auf Benutzerdisks beredet. Aber hier wurde schlicht nicht reagiert und es wird stur weitergemacht. Das ist das eigentliche Problem. Wie soll man mit Leuten umgehen, die absolut nicht reagieren? So, und jetzt macht meinetwegen das Buch zu, das hier führt zu nix.
GerritR (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Brief summary in English: Nothing new was added. I've tried to explain in more detail the purpose of this board and how category discussions can be opened at COM:CFD. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Marxist Economist

Hello everyone,

The user Marxist Economist (talk · contribs) keeps on uploading fake parliament diagrams and copyright violations. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marxist Economist. Yann (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

User:ViktoriDiana

User:ViktoriDiana created a personal page and placed an advertisement for the sportswear brand XTENNISX on it. Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done In future all you have to do is tag it for speedy deletion - {{SD|U5}} Gbawden (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Wrg6jcstbwtcu

Wrg6jcstbwtcu (talk · contribs) is back after having been blocked « with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked - overwriting files after warnings) » and continues to modify (= alter, degrade, overwrite) coat of arms images without warning and without purpose.

Only speaks japanese & never answers on tp

Canceling his uploads has no effect on his behaviour

Kontributor 2K (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Account indef'd as this is exactly the behaviour that led to the previous block, see also previous discussion at this board. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Grammar5555

Grammar5555 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Persistent blatant copyright violations. For example, user uploaded photos of Gleb Danilov four times after deletions, the last one: File:Gleb Danilov.jpg is more sophisticated one - deliberate flickrwashing via single-upload flickr account created just before uploading on Commons. 188.123.231.6 06:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done No recent activity - last contribution was 28 Nov 2022 - a warning should suffice Gbawden (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Cahue Mesquita Pereira

Cahue Mesquita Pereira (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information). Editor was warned twice about uploading copyvio images, but they keep doing it. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thanks for reporting this! I've blocked them for a week. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Tu investigador

Tu investigador (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has been repeatedly uploading files with copyvio, despite the warnings on his talk page. --Ovruni (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month. - Jmabel ! talk 06:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Amirghanbarimajd

non of these uploads are own work. please delete all

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done @Modern Sciences: Can you please provide evidence of this claim? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Username policy issue

Prickster (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , for an offensive username, no contributions in scope, and appears to be trolling. Elizium23 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Dr. ResnickIgwe

Please block Dr. ResnickIgwe (talk · contribs), very likely a sockpuppet of Noel Tchallagassou. It's him in the sole picture he uploaded. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Fakez76

Fakez76 keeps uploading copyvios, mainly sports logos and player portraits, after warning and the latest file after {{End of copyvios}}. Their latest uploaded file I can't find online but by the looks of it it seems as a professional photograph which the user did not take themself. Jonteemil (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

User was warned 18 July and no subsequent edits. if they start again I would be happy to block Gbawden (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
As I wrote above, the user's last file was uploaded after warning. Jonteemil (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Given 1 week block. Uploader seems to have uploaded nothing other than many blatant copyright violations stolen from facebook and various web sites (including a couple of logos possibly under TOO only by accident not intent), all with false licenses and claims. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

User:R.o.t

R.o.t has remove my comment multiple times [20]. Is this really allowed? Disembodied Soul (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No, nor is socking to double !vote (e.g., [21][22])--master and socks blocked. Эlcobbola talk 18:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Flickr washing?

Would some opinions on whether File:Kojo Soboh.jpg might be a case of Flickr washing? It's sourced to Flickr where it's licensed as public domain; so, I'm not sure why it's being licensed as "CC-by-sa-4.0". The Flickr account also appears to be the account of the subject of the photo, and the photo looks professionally taken. I'm not sure that matters but the Flickr account was created the same day the file was uploaded to Commons. There are three photos uploaded to that Flickr account and they all look professionally taken. Two are licensed as PD and one is licensed as "all rights reserved". FWIW, other photos from what looks to be the same photo shoot can be seen here, here and here. The user who uploaded them to Commons might just be an innocent party, and the fact that the files were uploaded to Commons the same day they were posted on Flickr could just be a coincidence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the filesize, as well as what seems to be the full size resolution of the file uploaded in addition to the presence of what seems to be a complete set of exif-data, if nothing else, the uploader to Flickr at least have access to the original file as captured by the camera. This usually lends credibility to the uploader being the original creator. The file should have the same license here on Commons as it has on Flickr, so {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is an incorrect license. Possibly, {{PD-self}} would be more correct. TommyG (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Surely this is more likely to be self-promotion?
I'd see how the WP AfD goes. This could be deleted as just self promotion, in which case we look at COM:SCOPE. Although I'd have some sympathy for seeing it as "business people of Ghana in 2023".
As to the licensing, then I have no issues with it. I'm happy that the subject of the photo has most likely commissioned this as a studio shot, to which they now hold the distribution rights. There's a trivial issue as to whether it's legally possible to dedicate it to the public domain, but their intention has clearly been a very broad licensing of it, even if PR experts might advise against going quite so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I requested VRT confirmation for all uploads of the user. GPSLeo (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Might not make Wikipedia level of notability, but assuming the rights issues sort out, certainly notable enough for a photo on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
What does "requested VRT confirmation" mean? Which policy refers to that?
Because what you've actually done is to unilaterally decide to delete it, without a DR, despite the views of other editors.
This is not a recently uploaded own work, it's a Flickr import. As such, there's minimal chance of the rights holder seeing the VRT request and acting upon it. You will then delete it by default. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the responses received so far. Either the uploader or the copyright holder sent VRT a CONSENT email, which means the "Kojo Soboh" file's licensing is no longer in doubt. I've got no comment about the other files that were tagged with {{Npd}}. I do think, however, that Andy Dingley's point about tagging files for sort of a "speedy deletion default" is something that probably needs to be done carefully. I understand it's easier to tag a file for speedy deletion, but a DR does give others a chance to discuss the situation and try to sort things out. For example, if a photo can be found being used somewhere online prior to it being uploaded to Flickr, and the prior use isn't licensed for appropriately for Commons, then maybe "npd" is OK. Otherwise, a DR might be better if things are unclear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think using this specialized template that explains the user what to do and to replace the template with the {{Permission pending}} template is much better than open a deletion request and write the needed permission into the deletion request text. What we do not have but should have is a one klick button at the no permission template to replace is with the permission pending template. GPSLeo (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User:HitGirl97 and User:Abby1097

Blocked on DE-Wiki [23] -> multiple copyvios and sockpuppetry. Should be blocked on commons too. Greetings --Nolispanmo 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Please check both their userpages here on Commons to see how this affects Commons directly: User talk:Abby1097 and User talk:HitGirl97 Kritzolina (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Jung Jin-Hyuk

Jung Jin-Hyuk (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hi,
There is no doubt that blocked user Wrg6jcstbwtcu (last block) is back again, with pseudo User:Jung Jin-Hyuk, performing non-sense reverts on CoA images and uploading useless files… Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. I let you revert what need to be reverted. Yann (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Nilov28

Nilov28 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  dozens of recent copyright violations after many warnings and deletions. Komarof (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Anousha Pawar

Anousha Pawar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – Persistent copyright violations. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for one month. Deleted latest uploads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion requests

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

Crusade Ju, willingly or unwillingly, destroyed Deletion requests 23.07.23. Have a look at thread history. 186.174.146.96 16:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Almeja Mística

Almeja Mística (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) More than 100 blatant copyvios are deleted by the moment, and dozens of them still present; some are re-uploaded more than once after deletions, e.g. [24] [25]. @Túrelio: as involved admin. 188.123.231.59 18:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Some of these could be in the public domain, but proper source, date, and license are needed. That's a case for uploading block only. Yann (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

user:Kursant504

Kursant504 (talk · contribs) disrupted on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:President_of_Ukraine_met_with_the_Ukrainian_military_in_Bakhmut_and_presented_state_awards._(52712338472).jpg and User talk:PlanespotterA320, using absurd reason to stop concluding a consensus.
They have been warned about 3RR, reported here once and again filibustering. Lemonaka (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Jinnahpk

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

he keeps uploading selfies. he is using commons as a social media site. despite multiple warnings and ongoing deletion requests, he keep uploading selfies. i believe we should stop him. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 19:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. I will deleted some files. Yann (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Yann and @Modern primat I tagged some of their uploads as obviously F10 Lemonaka (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Lemonaka lets just wait for deletion request to end. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Bojan9Spasovski

Hello, a little while ago I reported for deletion an ethno-national map of a part of Bulgaria with author User:Bojan9Spasovski. The map is unsourced and completely unreliable, being an expression of frivolous pseudo-nationalism. Please check here. When its author was informed of this initiative of mine, he uttered the most vile profanities and nationalist insults against me in Macedonian language. The same editor has threatened there that even if he was blocked, he would have created a new account. Please check here. I hope that appropriate action will be taken and he will be blocked, for which I thank you in advance. Jingiby (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done indef-blocked, which feels inadequate but what more can we do? @Jingiby: let me know if you turn out to further harassed and need protection on your user page, etc., since there is an overt threat here to sockpuppet and "ќе направам се ти ебам живо." - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I just want to add: it takes some doing to reach the point where I indef-block someone who has made numerous positive contributions without my feeling any need to engage in warnings or discussion, but User:Bojan9Spasovski sure managed it. - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Vespertunes

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

Vespertunes created broken DRs of his images, saying they are not his own works. I reverted them. Probably this user need to be watched and/or explained Commons policies. Yann (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

2601:3C3:500:2E80:21F4:10B4:6F4B:1595

2601:3C3:500:2E80:21F4:10B4:6F4B:1595 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) IP keeps making DRs for invalid reasons--Trade (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days, all closed/reverted. Yann (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I request you to reopen Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stable Diffusion - In Ancient Rome - 5.jpg since that DR had an ongoing discussion. @Yann: --Trade (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Since this IP is blocked for vandalism, I won't reopen this DR. Now, if anyone has a valid rationale for deletion, feel free to reopen it. Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Rarajullie

Rarajullie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistently uploading Commons:NETCOPYVIO materials and falsely claiming as "own work" and/or licensed under Creative Commons despite their first upload already flagged as copyrighted and also notified. User also attempted to remove {{SD}} on four occassions without providing edit summary. Kindly assists to delete and block. — Paper9oll 17:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 week. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! — Paper9oll 03:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Chromjunuor

@Chromjunuor: Chromjunuor (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has loaded a large number of images or royals, but there are problems with the license as well as sources not identified, or even found with Tineye for the batch already nominated for deletion. I suspect most, if not all may be AI generated or AI colorized versions. Some have been nominated for deletion, and they should be deleted, which makes me suspect all the images. Can someone else look at a few, and decide if all should be deleted. My worry is that Alamy and other sites will copy them. RAN (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Looks to me like a pile of AI-generated crap. Claimed as own work with no basis to think of these as anything but fantasy. I'd say delete all, though I don't really see this as an admin issue; they should be warned that this is not what Commons is for, but that can come from any experienced user. Hopefully, since they are named here, they will see this right here.
  • Broader issue (and again, not specifically an admin issue): I really think we need a rule severely limiting the acceptability of AI-generated images on Commons. It seems to me that almost all AI images without a statement of what AI created the images with what prompt are out of scope. (There would be an exception where the image itself has become notable.) We need a policy on what information must be minimally present for AI images that are not notable in their own right as a necessary but not sufficient condition for them to be in scope. Possible exception where they are immediately usable as illustrations for particular articles, but I have my doubts whether we should relax the criteria even there (though we might grandfather some in). And any AI-generated image that is not identified as such should be subject to speedy deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
At least 3 of them are from the same persons under different names (File:Prezidan Michel Domingue ayiti.jpg, File:Prezidan Nissage Saget ayiti.jpg and File:Prezidan tanporé Borno Montpoint Jeune.jpg). The user should be blocked and all uploads reviewed. Pierre cb (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done 2 warnings sent + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chromjunuor. Yann (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Shortly before I saw this discussion, I deleted a few of the most blatant problem images - the user's uploads include a few photos stolen from websites and social media in addition to highly dubious manufactured images. I gave the user a 3 day block for twice reuploading two already deleted images. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

2600:387:b:9::9c

2600:387:b:9::9c (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Personal attack--Trade (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Attack on no one in particular. If this were a logged-in user, I might be concerned. Since an IP address may not even be a fixed address, I don't see any reason to pursue anything over an edit like this, especially when they appear to have removed their edit themself. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Heráldica y Más

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

Heráldica y Más insists on uploading new versions of images that are inconsistent or have major alterations. See, e.g., the edit war on File:Laureada de Madrid-fondo blanco.png. Heráldica y Más was recently banned from esWiki for being considered a single-purpose account, and, more specifically, for trying to force their images into articles without consensus. Please review the actions of this user. Gusama Romero </talk> 02:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I've upload-protected File:Laureada de Madrid-fondo blanco.png. User:Heráldica y Más please read COM:OVERWRITE. IF you are not willing to abide by that, you will be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 03:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Warning also placed on their talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Emily in Paris Fan

Emily in Paris Fan (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) persistent copyright violations after multiple warnings. Komarof (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

All uploads deleted and a final warning added. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
This user appears to be a German speaker, I've added also a warning on their talk page at de:wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Ttttyyy 535

Ttttyyy 535 (talk · contributions · user rights management) is a bit rude. (Some of their uploads might be copyvios, too.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Thanks for reporting this. This wasn't just a “bit rude” but outrageous. I've indef'd the account and hidden the comment. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) One copyvio marked. As for the epiclame rant above, it was in response to Multichill’s bot adding SDC data do the filepage — that’s some really thin skin! Said rant is not only completely disproprotionate, even with all the possible good faith, but also included completely false statements about the nature of the file and the workings of Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: It is even much worse as this account appears to be connected to a case of long-term abuse. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cccccc4444 for more details. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done (Re-)Blocked by Elcobbola. Yann (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

209.82.188.104

Someone connecting from 209.82.188.104 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) since earlier this month engages exclusively on blanking sections, no other edits. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked for a month - Jmabel ! talk 16:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

DarkEvil111

DarkEvil111 (talk · contributions · user rights management) - repeated uploads (and deletions) of images that look related to web site defacement. I'm concerned this user may be abusing Commons as a host for images to post on compromised sites. Omphalographer (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Puras violaciones de derechos de sutor

User:RuthBEATRIZ1234 Nunca le han advertido. Sigue y sigue... 186.175.189.17 00:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Parece que la usuaria comprendió el asunto. Por el momento no sancionarla por favor. Gracias. 186.175.189.17 01:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Convenience link User:RuthBEATRIZ1234. And it looks from the second comment like the IP who posted this is not requesting any admin action. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Markus13666

User:Markus13666 seems to be using his account only to repeatedly request deletion of the same usable photos that have been repeatedly kept. Since he's no longer contributing to the site and just wasting our time trying to delete as many of his photos as he can, I think there's no point in not blocking his editing privileges. See user contributions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jasper201434 uploaded a lot of copyrighted satellite images, as seen from here. They began uploading copyvios, starting with this upload, and has since persisted. After A1Cafel kept marking these images as copyvio's, he sent Jasper their last warning about uploading copyrighted images. Approximately three hours after the warning, they proceed to upload three more copyvios in the span of three days. This user has not only uploaded multiple copyvios, but also ignored Cafel's warning. This user should be blocked for repetitively uploading copyright violations. FooBarBaz (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted. Blocked for 1 week. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

User Marxist Economist

Marxist Economist (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has been warned and keeps uploading copyvios and fake electoral data. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Oh, them again. User blocked for a month, uploads nuked. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Shizhao

Shizhao (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) The user put the No permission tag on just cropped versions of properly licensed files. Here File:Valentin Michailowitsch Falin (cropped).jpg, File:Раиса Фёдоровна Дементьева.jpg, File:Yuri Solovyev.jpg, File:Lev Nikolaevich Zaikov.jpg, File:Voslensky1988 (cropped).jpg, File:Лизичев А.Д. и Романов Г.В. в 6-й гв. омсбр. Берлин 1983 (cropped).jpg and File:Ир9 (cropped).jpg. FlorianH76 (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@FlorianH76: Such mistakes can happen by accident. You didn't talk with Shizhao about this on their talk page. Nor did you notify Shizhao about opening a thread here. This is inappropriate. Please try to resolve such issues first directly. I've removed the no permission tag in both cases. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
This user did a lot of such mistakes not only in two files. Maybe he should be warned. FlorianH76 (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
You have two files listed and you have still not notified Shizhao or tried to talk with him directly. This is not a case for this board. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I have listed 7 files. And he didn't reply on my question on my talk page. FlorianH76 (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Please have a look at the introductory note on this board. I quote: “Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).” I asked you two times to do this and you are still here but not notifying Shizhao on his talk page? Shizhao knows the rules, apparently these files slipped through by accident. The decent thing would be to alert them about this on their talk page. This would allow them to make sure that such cases of mistagging are avoided. Your initial post mentioned just two files. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just left the message on his talk page, but I still don't understand how somebody can accidentally put the wrong tag 8 times on very obvious files. Maybe there are even much more such files tagged by him. FlorianH76 (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
But you still failed to make him aware of this discussion at this board. Sigh. You expect others to work meticulously and without any mistakes but you still chose not to notify Shizhao about this thread despite having been requested to do so three times in this thread? Please understand that we have to delete more than 2K images per day as copyvios. Many experienced users like Shizhao are patrolling the huge number of uploads we have every day to look for copyvios. Occasionally mistakes happen due to this high volume. Your notice on Shizhao's talk page was appreciated and they thanked you. We should leave it here at that point. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. FlorianH76 (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

User MalcumSilte

MalcumSilte (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seems to be a sockpuppet of Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Chromjunuor, uploading official portraits of Haitian presidents from unknown source and declaring them as his own work. Pierre cb (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:Crusade Ju vandalised DR list of July 31. 186.172.86.95 23:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done seems to be an honest mistake, and stale anyways. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

illegale Pornografie

An Iranian user who has created several similar-sounding accounts spreads youth pornography here, he is always called something with daniel and dana. If you enter iran nude boy or something else you should find 3 of his pictures, he pretends to be a nude model on one of his accounts, but that can't be true because of pictures of different young people. Please turn this off. Greetings SalleWinter SalleWinter (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done I have reported this to the Wikimedia Foundation at legal-reports@wikimedia.org. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Are you talking about User:Danieltp2002 or are there other files they should not be linked? I do not see deletions by you @Mdaniels5757: ? You should perform a regular deletion along the report to WMF. These files are fine as the person stats to be 20 years old and also looks 20 years old. Per COM:PCP we should require VRT model permission for them but this is nothing for WMF legal. GPSLeo (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@GPSLeo I am referring to the user you linked and one apparent sockpuppet. I did not perform a speedy deletion for the reason you stated (although it looked in one of the files like the model/potential victim could have been younger, or could have been 20), but thought it was best to report to the WMF out of an abundance of caution anyways. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The WMF T&S team does not have the tools to check the model contract. They are in place if the VRT team gets a message that the files were uploaded without permission. GPSLeo (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@SalleWinter: Whenever there are concerns in regard to COM:CHILDPROTECT please do not post anything about this publically at any of the boards. Just follow the instructions on that page. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the question discussed above, the content of the userpage of the above linked account is clearly self-promotional and should be deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted, user warned. Yann (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I requested VRT permission for all photos and deleted them for now. We generally should define a guideline how to handle potential personality rights violations. I think we should require VRT permission for all photos of nude people.(Of course except some cases like demonstrations.) GPSLeo (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Skulljujos

As can be seen in his archived discussions, the user Skulljujos (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded copyrighted pictures in dozens of occasions and has continued doing it. He even got blocked once already because of that. In the past few days, he created a flickr account ([26]) where he uploaded more than 150 copyrighted images and marked them as his own work with a Creative Commons license, just to be able to use the flickr import and bring them to Commons. This feels like a bigger issue than simply marking the images for deletion, so I decided to bring the issue here. In any case, every single image brought from that Flickr account is a copyvio.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: blacklisted the flickr account, deleted the files, and blocked the uploader. In view of the user's creating the flickr account in order to get around our licensing policy, I made the block indefinite. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Mdaniels. Yesterday I had no time and today you already did it. Taivo (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Ahnaf shwapneel

Ahnaf shwapneel (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user is blocked indef on enwiki per "patent nonsense" edits and now continues here by treating Commons as personal playground. He made 700+ OOS edits on his user page and talk page. I reverted and gave him a final warning but he ignored it and continues. He is obviously not here to contribute to our projects. --Achim55 (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done I agree. I blocked this user for 2 weeks. Hopefully this will give time to learn. I also cleaned the talk page. Yann (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Unexpected speedy deletion by User:Ellin Beltz

Since the user's talk page is protected from editing, I'm asking here: what was the sudden reason for a speedy deletion of a file File:Черненко Константин Устинович, партийный билет.jpg while it's recently survived a regular deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Черненко Константин Устинович, партийный билет.jpg and has been kept by User:Yann? 188.123.231.6 18:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I undeleted this file. A regular deletion is needed here if there is any issue. Yann (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Yann, thank you very much for prompt action. Ellin Beltz, making mass speedy deletions without looking at validity of nominations, you force other users to do a lot of unnecessary work: [27]. --188.123.231.6 21:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I would be happy to reply to a person, but yes my user page is locked to non-logged in users. I am unaware of "a lot of unnecessary work" in my years of volunteering here. Thank you, Yann. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: You as an admin should try to ensure that anons who genuinely need to contact you on your talk page can do so. Such could be having a dedicated IP talk page or directing them to Meta. Fully cutting anons from communication is short-sighted at best, and might come across as an attempt to cut off communication, even though it isn't your intent to do so. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
SHB2000, it is an attempt to cut off communication, you can see this from an arrogant response without any attempt at an apology to an indication of clear admin's abuse. --188.123.231.6 06:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I hold no position in this specific issue. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I’m vehemently on Ellin’s side on this one. Unlogged users have no place in a long term collaborative project. Any genuine begginer just toe-dipping should consider creating an account before needing to contact someone’s talk page. There is no safety or security advantage in editing as an I.P. instead of a logged-in user. And in cases such as this one, when the I.P. knows the inner workings of the project, it’s a deliberate spanner in the works. These users should not only be ignored as such, but their exposed I.P. address be given a check and the delinquent username behind it should be sanctioned for abuse of multiple accounts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Tuvalkin. It was done in response to prior unfriendly behavior from anon user/s. If someone wants to be in this project, they can make an account, and work on the project. I had to turn off the link from here to my email because of bot spam. There's bits more to adminning than anyone sees who doesn't do it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Right, but my point still stands: you shouldn't entirely cut off communication from anons. SHB2000 (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
They can come here and ping her, just like this one did. - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
That does not address most means of other communication that doesn't need to be taken to a drama noticeboard. SHB2000 (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Fine, then ping her on your own user talk page. If your IP address isn't stable, and you don't want to log in, then you'll have to keep track of what page that is, but you know what? If you want to communicate with someone, and there is no stable presence for you, they have no way to even know that they are continuing to communicate with the same person, and there is only so much courtesy they owe someone in such a situation. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm one of those users who think that Wikimedia should fully ban IP editing – but the WMF will never get on board with that, and in the meantime, the current system is one that is open to abuse. How should IP editors know that to contact Ellin, they need to ping them on their talk page? --SHB2000 (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
& how will they know that they want to contact Ellin, or that users have talk pages, or whatever? We are only talking here about people sophisticated enough about the wiki to know that they want to contact this particular admin. This is not going to be first-time editors. This is going to be people who have made the wilful choice to edit without opening an account. - Jmabel ! talk 14:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
You don't seem to be convincible, so I'll leave it there. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Like Ellin, I protected my talk against IP editing. Too much garbage for very little meaningful messages. People who need to contact me know how to do it. Others can just post on a board. Yann (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Ydlp19 uploading copyvios

Ydlp19 keeps uploading blatant copyvios after having been warned in october last year. Jonteemil (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Участник, обходящий блокировку

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Валко

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:Проверка_участников/Барабас

Обход блокировки. @Elcobbola, @Taivo. Dmsav (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

И где там итог??????? Барабас (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Какие то глупые заявления позволяют вам вандалить? File:Герб Уфы 1839 года.gif удаляете категорию Уфы. 30 декабря 1839 года утвержден другой герб Уфы: "В верхней части щита герб Оренбургской губернии. В нижней серебряной части бегущая куница".
Использованы материалы справочника А.В.Кудина и А.Л.Цехановича "Гербы городов и областей Российской империи"
цветной рисунок для "Геральдикума" подготовлен Ю.Калинкиным http://www.heraldicum.ru/russia/subjects/towns/ufa.htm http://alsugizetdinova.narod.ru/gerb.htm http://www.proher.ru/RF_Rossia/Bashkortostan_Reg/Ufa_r3.htm Барабас (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Again: User:Allforrous

I'm done with User:Allforrous. Over and over again (s)he keeps:

How can we stop this behavior? JopkeB (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The user:JopkeB is only interested in deleting the categories created and/or completed by me. The categories created by me have sufficient and authoritative references in Wikipedia and Wikidata. He takes the arguments because he tries to confuse me with the English language. Allforrous (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
No Allforrous, it is the other way around: I see a category name that is not in line with Commons policies and guidelines and I start a discussion about it. Only later on, for instance when you add more subcategories and/or files to the discussed category, I see you created it. I discuss categories no matter who created them, also those that are not created by you, and I do not discuss every category you created, only the ones that are not right.
I prefer to be addressed with "she" or "her", not "he" or "him". JopkeB (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Their actions go against the spirit of the Commons project. The user:JopkeB it does not try to add work and effort. The user:JopkeB it does not try to avoid conflicts with those who collaborate and really strive. It should take care of patrolling vandalism, rather than disturbing users. --Allforrous (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The fact that a category can be objectively defined may be a necessary criterion for a Commons category, but it's not sufficient. It also has to be realistically useful for classifying media, and is pointless if no real-world user is ever likely to make use of it. Something like "environmental impact of golf courses" might make a useful gallery, but it is almost certainly not a useful Commons category. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
+2 to Jmabel's comment. Just because something has "sufficient and authoritative references in Wikipedia and Wikidata" doesn't automatically make it appropriate as a category. The main (maybe even the only), meaningful thing here is if the category is realistically useful for classifying media and will be used for that purpose. I'd argue a good portion of the categories created by Allforrous don't meet either of those things. Let alone both of them. There's no consensus to turn Commons categories into a 1/1 recreation of how Wikipedia and/or Wikidata organize things anyway. Nor is there a reason to. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Multiple uploads from Angel jose1247273

Hello All, The user @Angel jose1247273: is uploading the file File:Elvis boss.jpg every time it is deleted. Would it be possible to make it clear for the user that it is not acceptable, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer, warned. Kadı Message 09:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Dmsav

File:Герб Уфы 1839 года.gif удаляет категорию Уфы. 30 декабря 1839 года утвержден другой герб Уфы: "В верхней части щита герб Оренбургской губернии. В нижней серебряной части бегущая куница".

Использованы материалы справочника А.В.Кудина и А.Л.Цехановича "Гербы городов и областей Российской империи" цветной рисунок для "Геральдикума" подготовлен Ю.Калинкиным http://www.heraldicum.ru/russia/subjects/towns/ufa.htm http://alsugizetdinova.narod.ru/gerb.htm http://www.proher.ru/RF_Rossia/Bashkortostan_Reg/Ufa_r3.htm Барабас (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

У него явные проблемы со зрением. Герб Рязани File:Герб Рязани (1858).gif https://geraldika.ru/s/677 не может отличить от герба Рязанской губернии File:Coat of Arms of Ryazan.gif. https://geraldika.ru/s/671 Барабас (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Belhasan12, more copyrighted uploads

Hello All, I would like to pinpoint the user @Belhasan12: , whose uploads have already been deleted in the past year, uploaded more probably copyrighted content this year. Could you please take action so that it does not happen again, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done All files already deleted. User warned. But the issue is more out of scope files than copyvios. Yann (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Pi.1415926535

Hi is continuing wiki-stalking me on my user talk page. The previous issue was here here. User wrote "Please remember to use the most specific categories possible when uploading images, and do not dump large numbers of files in broad categories". I think that isn't a violation to upload some dosens high-quality photos with location category (which may be clarified, in this case, by California citizens, or by another users who may define the category better than me). Since the note I categorize my uploads more correctly. But yesterday he suddenly accused me of "Flickr2Commons misuse", "uploading poor-quality images and files with poor titles, descriptions, and categorization".

Examples (with Pi.1415926535 notes):

  1. File:Huntington Avenue in Sonw (15893346354).jpg: Misspelled title and description, no categories
  2. File:Lost (23713372054).jpg: Uselessly blurry; no useful title or description; lacking useful categories
  3. File:Herd on the march (20677798439).jpg: no useful title, description; lacking useful categories
  4. File:No unlesses (23503392795).jpg: nonsense title and description, no useful categories, and out of scope
  5. File:Why (26818683114).jpg: You added a single, overly broad category that does not actually identify what is in the image. You left a nonsense filename and useless description in place.

My explanations:

1. Title with error, agree, but it takes some seconds to rename the file, much less to write about it. As a location category exist the file will soon re-categorized in specific categories by other users who will do it better than me. Quality is high.

2. In my opinion this is a good photo of woman' silhouette. There are tons of images that have been blurred intentionally as blur sometimes can improve the image. See Category:Intentionally blurred images. I don't understang which title and description do you want to see in the file and which may be considered useful. I guess that it is itself a very simple image and no additional info helps here.

3. Appropriate title and description, not an ideal but not broad category. Quality is high.

4. Althoghts it seems that the title is nonsense, Flickr photographers very frequently name their photos after emotions and title may not be obviously match the file. I don't want to rename them in this case. Also renaming Flickr file may cause someone to upload again this file to Commons (F2C only identifies files with the exact same name). That's why I always rename Flickr files (in F2C tool) only when I can't do without it. Category 2015 in Moscow is more than appropriate in the case. Quality is quite borderline, but even lower-quality files may looks ok for somebody. The file is clearly in scope. Very good idea and composition, shoot a sunset through the trees in a cold winter forest. Looks ok in my screen.

5. It is more than absurd and stalking this your accusation. Category Nature of Queensland is not ideal, but specific. Also, I don't oblige to put all physically possible categories on this file. Plus, I don't understand why "Category Nature of Queensland" does not actually identify what is in the image. About "nonsense filename and useless description" see above.

I have uploaded more than 111,000 files in 2,5 years (currently 95-98% uploads well categorized by me and other users, the rest in my "queue" category) and I have never received any warnings about the quality of my work, except from this user (he give me final warning (!) after simple discussion in last July). Yes, I agree, rarely there are FOP violations and files with poor quality among Flickr downloads, but I check them regularly and mark them with speedy tags. I ask the admins to resolve the situation and I request to forbid Pi.1415926535 to post meaningless messages on my talk page. Thanks. Юрий Д.К 07:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

  1. On at least two of these, I think User:Pi.1415926535 is entirely correct. It is hard to imagine an educational use for File:Lost (23713372054).jpg or File:No unlesses (23503392795).jpg, and therefore hard to see a good reason why you imported them. There is no "prize" for maximizing the number of images we import to Commons. Go slower, weed out things like this: they detract from the usefulness of the site rather than add to it. (Yes, we often leave alone low-quality images by Commons contributors because all things being equal we don't like to tell people "your photograph isn't particularly good or useful," but there is no reason to import useless third-party images.)
  2. On the other hand, for an image worth importing from Flickr, I wouldn't fault you for failing to change the (bad) title on import.
  3. All in all, though, you might consider going slower. There is far more gain to Commons in having even a half-dozen well-named, well-described. well-categorized images than 50 poorly named, poorly described, poorly categorized images. After all, if someone is going to just do some global Internet search that would turn these up, they will find them equally well on Flickr.
  4. This is not stalking. User:Pi.1415926535 is an admin. If he sees you making a number of uploads that he finds problematic, he's expected to look at more of your uploads. That is part of the role. At worst, he sampled a fair number of your uploads but might not have looked at enough to make a fair judgement of your overall work. I see that you certainly have a very large number of very good uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thank for your answer. The main problem that many Flickr authors often delete their photos and even accounts, and then free high-quality photos are lost forever without any chance to restore them. I know a lot of such cases. This is very disappointing to me. So I upload files faster, but then I have to categorize files a little worse. Therefore, I decided that I would put not an "ideal" but an "average categorization" (at least one location category, if possible). This will allow other users who are not engaged in uploading files to better categorize them. About File:Lost (23713372054).jpg and File:No unlesses (23503392795).jpg, for the 1st - I like such kind of photography so I've uploaded it. Also it looks very fine as thumbnail. For 2nd, it looks fine in my screen, and has been very fine as thumbnail in the Flickr page, so I've uploaded it. But any of them may be nominated for deletion if someone considered them useless. However such "borderline" files make up an overwhelming minority of all my downloads, no more than 50-100 of 111000+ uploads Юрий Д.К 17:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons is an incredibly powerful tool, essentially a bot that can be operated without the normal bot approval process. Like any powerful tool, it has the potential to do a great deal of damage if operated improperly. Because of the rate at which it uploads files, F2C requires basic curation of files:

  • Checking to ensure all files are in scope
  • Checking to ensure files are not copyvios
  • Checking to see that all files are not duplicates. This needs to be done manually - the complaint that F2C should do this is irrelevant, as technical solutions will not detect near-identical files such as slightly different scans of the same original.
  • Adding useful filenames to all files. This means that the names are a useful indication of what is in the file (so that the file can be chosen from within a category), and are specific enough to differentiate the file from similar files. Note the guidelines at COM:FNC.
  • Adding useful descriptions to all files. This is the most basic part of uploading files: if the description is not useful, users do not know what the file depicts, and it is not possible to find it in a search. As with filenames, the text used by flickr uploaders is almost never sufficient for the purposes of Commons.
  • Adding useful categories: Again, this allows files to be found. Commons:Categories is policy.

These are the minimum requirements for using F2C. Anything less is misuse of the tool because it adds [large numbers of] improperly curated files that require work by other users to make them useful and findable. If a user is uploading a handful of files that haven't been properly curated, they can be gently reminded. If a user is uploading tens of thousands of files that haven't been properly curated, they are causing mass disruption and need to stop immediately. If uploading uncurated files is too great a temptation to resist, then revoking F2C access is a necessary measure to stop the disruption. Use of F2C is a privilege, not a right, and it is a privilege that is dependent on using it properly.

It is clear that you refuse to do even the most basic curation of your uploads. Every single file you transfer from flickr has the default filename and description from flickr. None of them have more than a single category, and many of those are either very broad categories or intersection categories that don't specifically identify the subject. It does not require scrolling past the first page of your most recent uploads to find another file with a typo in the filename (with the named subject completely out of focus, no less).

If you believe that certain files are at risk of being deleted from flickr, you can upload them into a dedicated cleanup category so that you can curate them on your own time. I do this myself with categories like Category:Causeway Street Elevated etc photos for cleanup by Pi.1415926535. But it is still your responsibility to do all of the necessary curation - that means as close to "ideal" as possible, not merely your substandard "average categorization". Any file that you permanently leave uncurated is a net negative for Commons, not a net positive.

As for your claim that I was stalking you: my attention has been drawn to your uploads previously because you have dumped them in broad categories like Category:Massachusetts on several different occasions. This time, I was alerted by another user adding File:Huntington Avenue in Sonw (15893346354).jpg to Category:Huntington Avenue (Boston) - because you did not categorize it at all. (Both of those categories are among the several thousand categories on my watchlist.) The typo in the filename and description indicated to me that you did not even check the file whatsoever before uploading it, and looking through your uploads confirmed that this was a continuing issue and not a one-off error. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Юрий Д.К.: I do want to point out that Pi.1415926535's suggestion in his next to last paragraph is a good one: one or more hidden cleanup categories, and then taking the responsibility that if these don't get curated by someone else, you will do it yourself. Otherwise, you are effectively placing other people in the position of involuntarily cleaning up after you. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: I will not import files with bad names, descriptions and broad categories anymore. I understand that uploading files with bad names and descriptions and without specific categories causes other editors to clean up them. Sorry. Feel free to close this topic. Юрий Д.К 07:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Yevgen

Yevgen (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) huge amount of copyvios from various external sources after the 'last' warning. Komarof (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, most files deleted. Yann (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Harun akbulut

Harun akbulut (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) uploads copyvios he found somewhere in the internet. Stepro (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Since 2017 again and again periods of uploading copyvios. Webfinds he labels as "own work". Stepro found this and reported his "work" at de:WP, where Harun akbulut uploaded and used the images for. As result Admin Kriddl blocked the account indefinite. Result was, that he came back as IP to insult in a way, that it needed oversight actions. I recommend after these events the blocking of the account permanently on Commons as well. I would do it, but I already deleted his uploads and would like to have a second pair of eyes. Marcus Cyron (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. One month block, because the user was not previously warned, and I deleted all remaining uploads of the user as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I now know that the deleted passages were announcements of legal action. Expressly in relation to the images. I think Commons should be strict here. Such individuals should also be permanently banned without warning because it goes against one of the universal ground rules of our collaboration, I think. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Notem

Notem (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Recent blatant copyvios after a lot of warnings. Komarof (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Taki2006

Looks like a clear duck of Takiva (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (indef blocked for sockpuppetry) to me. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That was what I thought last May when I launched this RCU against Taki2006. The result was Inconclusive. Since, the actions performed by Taki2006 leave me no doubt. The actions of this user are still problematic and mainly concern flags of North Africa or Middle East countries, past or present days. --Poudou99 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Their requested filemoves are also fairly problematic, too, but as if the username wasn't a clear giveaway. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Still waiting. SHB2000 (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_106&oldid=794592695"