Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 108

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

Leonst

Edit war in File:Якутки за обедом, А. П. Курочкин.jpg and personal attacks Revision #806224680 to comment edit 『白猫shiro neko』Обг. 15:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a personal attack. Two reverts during month is not yet remarkable edit war. Taivo (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Taivo don't engage in ukrainophobia isn't personal atack? oO --『白猫shiro neko』Обг. 13:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Naah, not really. Maybe a trace, but unless someone is writing this sort of edit summary with great frequency, certainly not a blockable remark. - Jmabel ! talk 15:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel and what should I do if this violation of the Universal Code of Conduct? Discuss with the editor was on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, where I asked it to be made according to the template documentation, instead of harassing me and writing personal attack. Blockable remark? In Commons isn't user warning for personal attack? 『白猫shiro neko』Обг. 15:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@AlexKozur: How is this, in your view, a violation of the UCC? The user who was being referred to did replace Ukrainian text with Russian text (including replacing the Ukrainian version of a person's name with the Russian version). This might have been a slightly intemperate response, but the UCC does not mean that everyone must constantly be completely anodyne or they will be blocked.
If you want to add Russian text to something currently in Ukrainian, the correct way to do that is with {{Ru}} + {{Uk}}. - Jmabel ! talk 17:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel according to UCC normal say ukrainophobe? 『白猫shiro neko』Обг. 21:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I would say it's not a big deal, certainly not any bigger than, in the current international climate, overwriting Ukrainian with Russian. And with that, unless specifically addressed (and maybe even if specifically addressed) I'm done. - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Tu investigador

Tu investigador (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has continued to upload non-free images after the warnings and the previous blocking of the user account. --Ovruni (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. One month block (second block). Taivo (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

User: JuliusMassius

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neo-Geo Arcade Stick Pro.png. This user is wasting time by making the same deletion request for a third time in very short order. I suppose it's possible that he doesn't understand English, but that's no excuse for not using Google Translate. I'd suggest warning him to desist. He should get the ping from this thread title, but I'll inform him of this thread by posting to his user talk page right away. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw this thread because he is offering a different reason the third time - that the photo is not actually his own, as claimed on the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
After a last warning, that admission is grounds for blocking.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The last warning was almost 10 years ago Trade (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
8 years ago. A block, if done, doesn't have to be a long one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Users Ijbol and GopalT1

Ijbol (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded official governmental photos the president of Nepal from a website (https://president.gov.np/photo-gallery_en/) that is copyrighted. Therefore I have asked its deletion. GopalT1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has reintroduced the same picture and some others from the same or similar site but claiming to be the author without META data to prove it. Both seems to be sockpuppets uploading {{Copyvio}} and their photos should be deleted and account blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. Both are warned, I will their delete last remaining uploads. Taivo (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

LTA

This LTA account fell off the wagon again and created this account:

Can it be bleached, please? (@Antandrus: am I a bad person because this makes me laugh?) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Lol, on the contrary, laughter is one of the healthiest ways to deal with long-term harassment. I like to read his more colorful threats in the voice of Big Bird. Antandrus (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. (Aptly, he later when to add nonsense to my la.wp user page…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Flipturn69

This user uploaded File:Klete Keller.jpg, which I tagged for deletion because it appears to be a screenshot of a copyrighted YouTube video. During the resulting discussion they have repeatedly and disruptively asserted that the photo is their own work despite obvious evidence to the contrary and made personal attacks against myself and the discussion's other participants ([1] [2] [3] [4]). They have also made comments on the image's talk page and the deletion request talk page. A little while ago, they sarcastically asked myself and Elizium23 on our talk pages when the discussion would be closed, and continued to harass me after I warned them that their conduct was unacceptable and that I wasn't interested in further interaction with them. In my opinion, one of two things is possible: this editor is not here in good faith, or they have such a poor understanding of copyright that they should not be allowed to contribute to Wikimedia Commons. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

wow now you are threatening me and attacking me. When you point a finger at someone else you point 3 at yourself. Flipturn69 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I never made any "personal attacks" against you - and in fact you threatened me FIRST. the other guy attacked me first! I responded in kind. Read all and you will see the facts. Flipturn69 (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
poor understanding of copyright - yes that would probably be accurate. Maybe if you could direct me on how to upload it as my own artwork it would be helpful instead of attacking me. Flipturn69 (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
how is 9,10,11 and 12 a "personal attack" - Is that the definition of a "personal attack" on this website? maybe a little sarcastic but in no way shape or form is it a "personal attack" in my language. Is sarcasm considered a "personal attack"? Flipturn69 (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
you have a pretty low bar for "harassment" when you threaten me first and I respond with facts. Flipturn69 (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Indefinite block. The account's only contributions are disruptive behavior. I'm not convinced that it raises to the level of harassment, but I am convinced (by their flooding DR, user talk pages, admin forums with farcical arguments and obviously false statements) that they're not here to be constructive. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Spam

This user is adding what seem to be his name as Tagalog captions to disparate images pretaining to Catholicism and to the Philippines:

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@WayKurat: You reverted some of this nonsense — any comments? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 Not done. As vandalism stopped after Yann warned him, nothing should be done at moment. I thank WayKurat for reverting vandalism. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. Now globally locked. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User Viii23dawari

Viii23dawari (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads photos and then demand to delete some of them as coming from an Instagram starlet account (https://www.instagram.com/alxfrolova/). None of those photos seems to come from that URL. I do not know if the photos are legitimate or not but this user seems to make publicity for that starlet website and should be warned. Pierre cb (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted them all. Uploader's request. Maybe the alleged source was incorrect, but per metadata they come from Instagram anyway. Taivo (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

37.73.21.132

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

2 edits, 2 x vandalism (2 x deletions of texts for no identifiable, reasonable reason). -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 06:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As the IP hadn't been warned, I've done that as a first measure. --Túrelio (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Whitun

Vandalistic deletion requests. See user contributions, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Liljeholmskajen, Årstabron 2.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Puente del Sena.jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, everything closed/reverted. Yann (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. User confessed, that (s)he does not understand, what's going on in Commons, such user cannot be unblocked. Taivo (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Xdfdvgxcf

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

Alias Sefxczvcsd (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Alias Wrg6jcstbwtcu (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Alias Jung Jin-Hyuk (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

is back again, performing non-sense reverts on CoA images

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 8:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Indef per nom. --Achim55 (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Да будет цвет

Да будет цвет (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) makes mass overwrites of old b&w and sepia images by self made artificial colorization. Please stop them. Another question - if they would upload those colorized versions as separate files and replace them in wiki articles - would this be acceptable? My opinion is - no way. Komarof (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It does not look like anyone talked to them and explained to them what the problem was. Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Komarof: For the second point about uploading separate files and replacing the versions used on other Wiki sites, that isn't a problem for Commons. Our role is to store validly licensed files. It is a decision for each Wiki to choose which files to use. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Photos uploaded by Lesson1

Lesson1 (talk · contribs) was found for introducing lots of hoaxes into folks and cultures articles in Chinese Wikipedia, their main account is Qqqyyy (talk · contribs), an LTA on that project. More discussion is on zh:Wikipedia:傀儡調查/案件/Qqqyyy/存檔.

Please be careful when using their photos, some of them maybe totally hoax. Lemonaka (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I deleted a few files copied from FB/Instagram, and one derivative work. Other files need to be checked by someone who knows the subject. Yann (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Yann I purpose to tag {{hoax}} on all the images they uploaded. Lemonaka (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

KazyKazyKazakhstan and Nazi symbol template

Hi. KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk · contribs) started putting the {{Nazi symbol}} template on logos of Ukrainian organisations that are clearly not Nazi symbols. An attempt to discuss the issue at User talk:KazyKazyKazakhstan#File:Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.png was not really helpful, the edit war continued on File:УССД Герб.svg with a rather uncivil argument Go ahead and walk around wearing this symbol <in Germany> if you are so confident that it is legal.. For the reference, the symbol in question is a propaganda for an independent united Ukrainian state (Українська Самостійна Соборна держава) which was absolutely not a Nazi idea. I am pretty sure that putting this template on files that are not Nazi-related is not what it was intended for, because it becomes quite a propaganda instrument. Thanks — NickK (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that they were symbols of the Nazi party. I only said that they are "organization closely associated to it" exactly as the template said. The article about the OUN in english wikipedia says it "accepted material and moral support from Nazi Germany" so it qualifies as "closely associated with it" - unless you want to challenge that sentence in the official wikipedia article. So it is safe to assume that the symbols are banned in Germany or at least possibly the subject of legal challenges so we need to have the legal dislaimer template because people in Germany. They did not deny that the OUN was an "organization closely associated to it [the Nazi party]". They insisted I bring up a court case to prove it was forbidden in Germany but most banned symbols are not subject of individual court cases. It is important that Wikimedia be on good terms with Germany escpecially since Germany has such generous Freedom of Panorama. Personally though I think the simple extremist symbol in Russia tag will suffice though, but it is better to be safe than sorry with legal disclaimers, just like it is better to be safe than sorry with copyright laws. NickK does good work categorizing things but there is no harm in putting a little legal disclaimer on a controversial symbol just in case. Ukrainian independence is not Nazi but receiving financial assistance from Nazi Germany is something worth putting a little warning tag on especially with German law being very strong on symbols of banned and possibly banned organizations. If there is even a 10% chance someone could be arrested for using the symbol in Germany then we should put the tag on it just in case, just like we should nominate something for deletion if we suspect a copyright violation but aren't 100% sure. But if Wikipedia says that an organization got material help from the Nazis, then we should add a legal disclaimer for their symbols.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to note here that Ukrainian Wikipedians in general seem to be a bit overly paranoid. In my mass jihad against copyright-violating statues I nominated a statue of Bandera for deletion because it was not clear based on information provided that the statue itself was free (it looked like the release was for the photo part only) but a Ukrainian editor just called me a vandal and insulted me instead of simply clarifying that the release was for the statue itself not just the photo. Ukrainians have a right to be paranoid due to being at war but lashing out at everyone just trying to protect Commons and go by-the-book is getting extreme. I want to start another round of purges on FoP violations seeing as I've gotten pretty much every violating Kazakh statue nominated for deletion I could find but I'm worried the Ukrainians will not be civil about it.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry but Commons is not a battleground. Even on a normal day mass jihad is not an appropriate description of any activity on Commons, but using it today and then writing that there are concerns about people being civil towards you is another level.
And writing about go by-the-book on one hand, and then putting a clearly controversial disclaimer just in case is just strange. There is also a big difference between closely associated and accepted support (which does not make closely associated because OUN and the Nazi Party had clearly different goals). Even more so when the symbol in question File:УССД Герб.svg is declared Nazi-related while in practice it is related to something Nazis strictly opposed (Ukrainian independence) — NickK (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
By the book means adhering to the precautionary principle to the fullest extent, which means when in doubt, put a legal disclaimer on it. I don't understand what you want to accomplish by dragging this out here after the template issue has been solved. Bring your complains about the labels of the organization to the talkpage of the English Wikipedia article if you wish to continue to discuss. But there is literally nothing here that admins are needed for, we debated the templates and settled on the extremist symbol template. Do you want me to be banned or something? What the hell do you want now? The issue is already settled.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The Jihad thing aside, which I agree was in bad taste, if a group has "accepted material and moral support from Nazi Germany" then it kind of inherently follows that they are closely associated with Nazis. Although you could nitpick the semantics of "closely related", but then nothing would qualifu for the template because someone could claim the group in question was only %99 associated with Naxi Germany so its not close enough because of the other one 1%. So accepying material and moral support from Nazi Germany seems like a reasonible place to draw the line. The real question is where would German court draw it and we don't have an answer to that from what I can tell. So its better to air on the side of caution. The fact that someone might use the existence of the template on a Ukrainian group as propaganda to claim all Ukrainians are Nazis or some nonsense isn't Commons' problem. Nor do I think its KazyKazyKazakhstans. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: The issue is that Nazis supported really a lot of stuff at least once. I can give examples of two groups who accepted documented material and moral support from the Nazis: Soviet Union (via en:Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the three German–Soviet Commercial Agreements) and BMW (via en:Forced labour under German rule during World War II). Still there is clearly no evidence that either Soviet Union or BMW were ruled unconstitutional in Germany, on the contrary, there is an evidence that post-war Germany accepted functioning of both. Putting a {{Nazi symbol}} template on Category:Symbols of the Soviet Union or Category:BMW roundel logos would be obviously disruptive. However, in exactly the same situation for the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and File:УССД Герб.svg this is somehow fine, despite two obvious facts: that (a) Nazis opposed the very concept of УССД (Ukrainian United independent state) and could not possibly support it, and (b) that the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists openly operated in post-war Germany without any ban — NickK (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I assume the law and by implication the templete mainly (if not exclusively) is concerneced with political organizations. Not just any company that had some kind of relationship with Nazi Germany. Since obviously no one is going to become a neo-Nazi if they buy a IBM computer just because the company was involved in the Holocaust. Whereas the same can't be said for an organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. There's obviously a difference. To such a degree that its ridiculous I'm even pointing it out. Are you really going to argue that a symbol for the Aryan Brotherhood shouldn't have the warning because Hitler drove around in a BMW or that the logo for BMW should have the warning because it's essentially the same as the Aryan Brotherhood? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

How about you both ask WMF legal counsel for advice instead. This arguing is unlikely to go anywhere any time soon--Trade (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Getting lawyers involved? You think we should sue? Are you insane? This is not something to get lawyers involved in this wasn't even a 3-revert editwar! I am absolutely sick of this discussion. Nick can put or remove whatever template he wants, I don't give any fucks anymore, this debate has been so stupid and overblown. I don't want to argue about this anymore and I have no interest in this matter anymore. Close the discussion this is resolved already. Do not reply to me again. Unless you want to ban me I won't speak about this again but if you do ban me I will appeal it until people stop blaming me for just repeating what the English Wikiepdia article said. Maybe I also should be banned for trying to remove the link to a pro-Herbert Cukurs blogspot from Latvian Wikipedia, is it defamatory to call him a Nazi too now?--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I assume Trade meant in relation to finding out exactly where the legal line is in Germany whrn it comes to which symbols are legal and which aren't as that is something they might be able yo answer, not anything having to do with law suits or whater. I understand your frustration over the whole thing as I've been there a few times myself, but a word of advice, maybe just let it lie for now, both here and on Wikipedia. There's really no point in pushing the issue just because your upset about it. This will be archived with no action in due time. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
We do not need to discuss the political orientation of the organizations. The definition of the template sates that it should be used if the organization was banner under certain laws. This does not apply to these organizations. Yes we do not have a guideline on how many countries need to ban an organization to add the {{Terrorism symbol}} on the file page (this would also affect the current flag of Russia). But the specific {{Nazi symbol}} does definitely not apply. --GPSLeo (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Le Boréalien

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

I request a temporary block of this user per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 107#User:Le Boréalien and their restarting of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Doonau.jpg with a non-reason for deletion that was already rejected. They are wasting too much of our time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe courtesy deletions like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tallinn2019.jpg that honored absolutely invalid deletion reasons should be reverted, too, if the photos are usable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done User warned, DR closed. I don't think a block is warranted at this time. Yann (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This user is a repeat offender. How many times do they have to continue this kind of behavior before you all start blocking them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Also note Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Danube river separating Pest from the Buda side.jpg and check their other recent activity, notably including their unrepentant response on their user talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I closed this. Honestly, there are many contributors with a much worse behavior still around here. Yann (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Bullying from Perceval42

Hello, I would like to bring to attention the upload of @Perceval42: . He uploaded a picture for a joke or bullying on the qrticle about dwarfes on the Wikipédia in French : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_le_naingui.jpg. I would support a complete block of the account. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Image deleted, and given that they have no constructive contributions, account blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

User Rourib.2004

The user apparently unhappy with an undeletion request (1) removed comments he didn't agree with (2) tried to canvass the discussion, (3) called me liar, unscrupulous (i.e. person without morals), West Bengal hater among other things (3) had similar behavior with Sbb1413 insulting, and shamming him or her (4) ignoring the requests from Yann, Jmabel and Sbb1413 to be more civil (5) and moreover disregarding openly these requests. I included a few references, but one can look at his history in the previous days to see his general pushy behavior. Günther Frager (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sumitsurai, Bodhi, Nahid, do any of you know this person and could you talk to him and get him change his behaviour? Otherwise I fear we have no choice but to block the account. I can understand why that person feels so agitatet, but this is no behaviour we can tolerate. Kritzolina (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Kritzolina: , I do not know him at all. Feel free to do what is appropriate. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Kritzolina: I am sorry for this behaviour.
But the person who caused my agitation is the one who has filed this complaint. A 8 month old Wikiuser (the person mentioned) will now teach a near 8-year old Wikipedian?? I have never seen such bad behaviour from any Wiki user all these years who was hell bent in causing problems in my work.
Whoever, this person is: Keep in mind I will make those files return.. This user is now tracking my account activity and causing disruption in my personal privacy. I will block you soon. I don't want any contacts with you.
Nevertheless, I once again apologise to other admins for this bad behaviour. I will never repeat this again. Rourib.2004 (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Rourib.2004: when you say "I will make those files return" are you saying that you will track down the actual copyright-holders and get permission (fine) or you intend simply to re-upload copyvios (another matter entirely)? - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Ofcourse, the former one.
I will re-upload the files with proper licensing info and get permission from the Government of West Bengal, even though all their intellectual properties are free-use. Or, I will try to get those files undeleted with more proper arguments and with official permission of my government. Rourib.2004 (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Ithink the more important question is.. will you treat other users with respect going forward, even if you think they are mistaken and not as experienced as you? Will you stop accusing people of bad intentions and stop being so aggressive? Kritzolina (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Kritzolina I was not in a correct state of mind during the UDR debate. I once again apologise for my aggressive behaviour. You know, actually Indians get hostile when someone raises questions on their motherland (since the topic of the UDR was regarding the symbols of my home state: West Bengal), and due to continuous humiliation and rude behaviour by a single person in not letting my request pass made me furious. I never lost my cool in Wikipedia all these years.
From now on, I will make sure to be cool myself and treat others with empathy and respect. My sincere apologies to the admins here. Rourib.2004 (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I am happy to hear that you will try and be more friendly and polite in the future. I accept your apologies for my part, but I am not the person you offended in your agitatet state of mind. You are still calling this person rude - which to a neutral reader is not true. They held a different opinion than you, but they brought it forward in a collegial, respectful way. Perhaps you want to take some time to think about how you want to interact with them and other Commons users who disagree with you on important topics in the future. And think about what steps you could take now, to make future collaborations less stressful for all.
I am closing this complaint now with a stern warning to you, to keep your cool in the future and to not take up you aggressive behaviour again. I will put this as a formal warning on your talkpage. Kritzolina (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 Comment so in his apology he blames his uncivil behavior on me, really? When was I disrespectful? Was giving arguments (good or bad ones) in a discussion bad behavior? How could I logically make him insult and intimidate Sbb1413 due to my bad behavior 2 hours before I added my first comment to the UDR? I get it is upsetting when images get deleted and that we likely didn't manage to get our point across during the debate. I was expecting a bit of self reflection on his side. Regarding his accusations of invasion of privacy: he linked his conversation with Sbb1413 on the UDR and he pinged me (by mistake?) on the talk page of Abzeronow. The latter tried my patience and prompted me to open this complain. Günther Frager (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Closing with a stern warning, similar behaviour in the future, especially continued harassment of Günther Frager should lead to a block. --Kritzolina (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Simdro

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

Persistent uploading of copyvios with no evidence of any useful contributions. TommyG (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

JuliaWilliam73

A weird one here. JuliaWilliam73 (talk · contribs) has just created an account, searched for content "Neerman" or some variant of "John Neerman", or else scatter-gunned the category Category:Rail vehicles and infrastrucure designed by Johan Neerman and tagged 11 of them for deletion, with a rationale of The file/page violates the licensing guidelines in some other way than being a clear copyright violation. or (for portraits) "Advertising or self-promotion." and one of "wrong description belongs to another author".

Also prodded en:Johan Neerman, a Belgian architect.

I've no real idea what's going on here, but it's not anything useful that I can see. Yet another grudge deletion? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

A stale account at en:User:Julia Williams123 too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I added one more warning, and closed all these DRs, which are clearly not following Commons policies. Yann (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I blocked. I'd be quite willing to unblock (or anyone else may) if there is a reasonable explanation and they don't intend to continue sowing chaos. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Amnesty for LivioAndronico2013

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

So now that my head is clearer, and feeling the guilt 10 months after relentlessly persecuting a very fine photographer, who is in fact my brother, I've thought of a few things.

  • Perhaps Livio doesn't understand the license. It seems his goal is widest use of photos.
  • Share Alike requirement limits the reuse of photos, because people may not be willing to use the same license.
  • Livio currently claims authorship under sock puppet names, and so he's robbed of real credit for his work.
  • Being problematic in the image quality contests, he could agree not to participate in those.
  • A license such as CC0, PD, CC-BY would better suit those uploads if I am reading this correctly.
  • Claim authorship under one single name for all uploads so that he is properly recognized.

I have no problem with him returning under these terms, you know, it was just being so sneaky about it; plenty of other Wikis loved his photos and kept them. Elizium23 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you 151.57.109.127 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
An IP sock of Livio, I presume? No amnesty can be given for someone who continues to sock. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose, Livioandronico2013 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is globally locked for cross-wiki abuse, and additionally is blocked on 3 wikis for sockpuppetry, having no apparent willingness to participate in encyclopedic work, and abuse of TPA.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Just to know, what does the acronym TPA mean? Thank you 176.201.145.187 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I hope Livio could get back and to have chance with photos again. People change with time. --Mile (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@PetarM: How has Livio changed with time? His latest detected sock ("1municipio") is as recent as from September 2023. --A.Savin 11:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Elizium23 They are confirmed as LTA, with no chance of being unlocked. Lemonaka (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Just to know, what does the acronym LAT mean? Thank you. 151.43.157.5 18:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, very kind. 151.43.157.5 19:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Nothing to be done here. Permanently unwelcome user, LTA. Global (un)lock is not Commons' job, by the way. --A.Savin 22:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TPA means Talk Page Access, a privilege of writing to the user talk page assigned for communication with them, only allowed to users who have not abused it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

クラカグループ

All uploads of クラカグループ (talk · contribs) are from https://kuraka-g.com/recruit/part.html and related site, please block and nuke their contributions. Lemonaka (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and mass deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Lil elitechong

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

Keep uploading files that the copyright status is unknown, make false ownership claims. 0x0a (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I can`t create CategoryːVideos from Melitopol

I don`t understand why? I need this for my . ̴̴ RG72 (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@RG72: : I'd say you are apparently not using a proper colon symbol (:), but this one: ː. Strakhov (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Ufff, thanks dear, I got it. ̴RG72 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

91.160.111.29

Vandal IP Dronebogus (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the IP. Taivo (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Rhfems

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

Alias Xdfdvgxcf (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Alias Sefxczvcsd (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Alias Wrg6jcstbwtcu (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Alias Jung Jin-Hyuk (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Alias Spaceworker2 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

is back (performing non-sense reverts on CoA images etc.)

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Henrique Checchia

Henrique Checchia (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Persistent copyvio, even after final warning. This account keeps uploading File:Anna Albie.jpg, an image taken from IMDb. The image was deleted several times already and on Oct 15 I gave him a final warning. Yet, today they reuploaded the same image. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 16:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, file already deleted. Yann (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Postage stamps of Adamant1

Hello! I have a complaint against member Adamant1 because he is renaming postage stamp categories without prior community discussion and in violation of consensus. An example of this is renaming Template:XXXX stamps of country to postage stamps. Please consider blocking it in extreme cases. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much to say about this except that I left you multiple comments on your talk page about it that you mostly ignored. Including one where I linked to this discussion, which again you seem to have ignored, where multiple people have agreed with allowing "Postage Stamps of X" categories. Including two administrators. So your insinuation that hasn't been prior discussion about it or that I'm making the edits against consensus is totally ridiculous and false. More so since you were aware of the conversation before you opened this and apparently couldn't even be bothered to participate in it even though you clearly disagree with the conclusions.
And as an FYI, I intentionally left the discussion open past when I could have closed it with the result I wanted so that people like you and another user who thought there shouldn't be "postage stamp" categories could give your opinions. I've also mostly stopped creating "postage stamp" categories since then to give people time to comment if they want to. It's not my problem that neither one of you have participated in it or that you don't think it's a legitimate discussion for whatever reason in the meantime though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Verdy p

Yes, it’s him again:

Here this user presumed to “correct” the word "tittle" to "title", misrenaming Category:Ornamental tittles and then renaming it again to Category:Ornamental diacritics (see discussion), affecting several hundred files and causing a big problem for anyone wanting to untangle this later. Please make him stop. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you ever try to contact me once before sending immediately this notice? And reverting everything? May be we could explain what was being done and find an agreement before. I've n,ot done any thing that cannot be explained and discussed.
Note that I know the term "tittle" but it is very uncommon and unknown by many, and the content of the categories crealy showed that there existed confusion (and "tittle" is not the only word, we more commonly know "tittlo(s)" (or "titlo" also used in some categories) :
So you don't want "Ornamental diacritics". What is the issue or the behavior problem here? May be you could ask yourself about why and how you overreact here....
There's a generic category for various ornamental diacritics affecting not just this diacritic (or its uncommon forms). verdy_p (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
You raid through several categories and hundres of files like a pidgeon on a chess board and you demand to contacted? Address the matter at hand in the cats’ talk pages, and I’ll see you there. Right now too busy undoing some of the mess you unleashed. Once the statu quo ante is (more or less) attaned, then we can discuss what you think are errors. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
To be fair, this one file was edited by Verdy p in a way that was not wrong. That’s among several hundreds edits affecting this tree. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Resolved? hopefully…
I should say that Verdy p is a very knowledgeable, talented, and hard working person — but boy, it’s not easy to work with him. He’s routinely unaware of his own limitations, unable to admit others may be right, unable to consider that he might be wrong, and prone to go on endless tangents to show off his knowledge instead of just saying "oops" and carrying on (see the tangent above about "titlo" — which he also got wrong this time). I hope this matter can be mended in cat discussion pages, though. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I gave reason, but you should have discussed first before complaining here immediately. And I see no reason why I would have said "oops", because I still don't think this was an error, give nthat that category was already a mess that I cleaned up, and that is still badly named with a title that already confused others. And you have even restored various things you reverted by recategorizing files that I had already placed elsewhere, and then reverting yourself on various ones (did you say "oops" for your own errors made by your automated assumptions?). Now you think I made an error an a single page, if that was the case, this board is not the place to complain. The ~100 files were not moved randomly but really selectively, patently and manually. You started reverting everyhing automatically and complaining here instantly without any form of discussion, so you have a problem of behavior, even if you don't admit it, because you don't respect the normal rules on Commons (including your last comment here, where you really give me a "bird's name"). verdy_p (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

User:RblxFunkyGamer (again)

User:RblxFunkyGamer does not appear to be taking the guidelines of Wikimedia Commons seriously–please see his talk page and deleted requests; he proceeded to reupload a file that had been previously deleted. 118.148.86.134 22:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No RblxFunkyGamer (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

To which I will add: making vacuous responses, like the "no" here or the "but" at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RblxFunkyGamer&diff=prev&oldid=810138820. These are not onstructive contributions. - Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus

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

It is one thing, if Dronebogus act like this. He apparently has a penchant for keeping as much bad pornography as possible on Commons, so what. The fact that a regular discussion was made impossible here and he cleared an objection to it - all for free. But what I find seriously problematic is when a user decide on deletion requests for their own works or their own uploads. Happen:

I consider user who make decisions in their own interests to be a truly great problem. How can you expect the participants in a volunteer project to stick to the rules when there are admins who are so in charge? It doesn't even matter whether the processing was correct in terms of content (even then I have doubts), but it's simply not possible for an user to decide on things in which he himself is involved. In any case, I find it difficult to trust such users who, in my eyes, act arbitrarily in their own interests. I've also been waiting for decisions for years - but that's how it is in this project. Some things need their time.

And now the funny point. I never wrote "Administrator", always "User". Because this user, who thought he can decide delettion request, some without any discussion as speedy keeping, others for his own sake, is not an Administrator. But Commons:Deletion requests are very clear about this: In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days. Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier. Problematic or complex requests (such as highly used templates) can wait longer – even for several months if necessary. Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. If in doubt, don't do it. A speedy keep for a pornographic video can not fall under this. Keeping your own uploads can not fall under this.

All in all, I see a pattern in Dronebogus's behavior, and in the end it's not all for the benefit of this project. I recommend at least permanently banning Do make deletion decisions. If he wanted to do that in the future, he would first have to undergo a RfA. Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

1. I am not waiting around to call something with two independent keep votes and zero support for deletion, even if it’s mine.
2. I am not waiting around for stagnant discussions of in-use files to close, even if it’s mine.
3. I am not considering “explicit pornography” from a drive-by IP a valid request, even if it’s “bad pornography”.
COM:INUSE and COM:NOTCENSORED are unambiguous policies. So yes they’re uncontroversial. And an admin would’ve made the same call at the latter two. These are all discussions at minimum a week old, some over a year old, so re-opening them because you think an admin needs to re-close them in very likely the exact same way smacks of W:wp:notburo Dronebogus (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Dronebogus, what's the hurry? It engenders bad feelings, is against the spirit and somewhat the wording of the policy, and does not solve any problems. It's not up to you to decide whether a drive-by comment is a valid one when it's about your own file, and diregard it out-of-hand. Stop it. If we're pulling enwiki standards, then an admin there would know better than to act when W:wp:INVOLVED. DMacks (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The drive-by comments were not about my own files. They were clearly just random people bluenosing without concern for policy. Dronebogus (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Please note that the catalyst for this report is me reverting this comment and asking Marcus Cyron to file a proper request if he has a problem. Dronebogus (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
About the deletion requests:
  • I am more than willing to revert Commons:Deletion requests/File:Citizendi-tan.png as improper. I did not think anyone cared enough so it was a good faith attempt to speed things up a little even if it was slightly out of process.
  • If someone has a problem with the file I would recommend a new request be filed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porno.webm because merely being “explicit pornography” isn’t a valid rationale by itself and the closure can be considered procedural.
  • the other requests fall under COM:INUSE and some are very old. Re-opening them seems like a waste of time.
That being said, I will no longer speedy close deletion requests unless the reasoning is patent nonsense like “uhhh poop lol” etc. Dronebogus (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree that "explicit porn" is not a valid reason for deletion, any more than "I don't like it." But I also think it's probably best not to close DRs about your own photos. Nothing is really lost by a DR sitting unresolved for a week or two. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
+1 to this comment. Dronebogus, it's probably for the best if you refrain from closing DRs that concerns your own files in the future. 15:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abzeronow (talk • contribs)
  •  Comment If anything, closing one's own nominations is really bad practice (unless it's a withdrawal), irrespective of what it's about. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
    Are you saying that “closing AfDs you started” is bad practice or “Closing AfDs on your own files” is bad practice? Because I’ve never done the former. Dronebogus (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
    The problem is defenitely the latter. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    Personally I'd say doing either one is bad practice. Although I've seen plenty of people close their own RfDs without anyone caring. Admittedly I haven't seen anyone do the other one, but if the first is fine then I don't see why the second one wouldn't be. And it's not like there are guidelines stating not to do either anyway. But even if there was, in one of the examples of closing an RfD for his own image it was clearly bunk to begin with, had a keep vote, and hadn't been closed for a couple of months. So I don't really see what the issue is. There's no reason to keep an RfD with a clear outcome open indefinitely just because the only person keeping track of or willing to close it at that point is the uploader. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    Personally I think RfDs need a hard deadline of a week for uncontroversial cases and a month for controversial ones. If there’s no consensus then they could be closed as “no consensus” like on WP. Dronebogus (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    That would be my preference. Otherwise there's zero incentive to close RfDs in a timely manor. Let alone if it's an even half controversial one. Although any kind of hard deadline could (and probably would) just be ignored. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    Making a deadline mandatory means nothing unless there is some individual required to do the action. And there is no way to do that here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    Individuals required to do it? Hmmm, maybe admins? Dronebogus (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Dronebogus: So, which admin would you like to make responsible? Because making a group of over 100 people responsible for something still leaves no one actually responsible. Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    Several admins are working very hard to close old DRs. The backlog is shrinking very slowly, but it is a lot of work. A few thousand per month. The oldest, from Category:Deletion requests June 2023 are 1300 today. Only june. A deadline won't help. Ellywa (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    At least for me I was purely talking about recent DRs that have clear outcomes. I don't think anyone expect years old DRs with unclear consensus' to all be immediately closed, but there's no legitimate reason recent, non-controversial deletion requests can't or shouldn't be procedurally closed after a week. Especially since we are dealing with something as serious as possible lawsuits if infringing images aren't taken down. So there really shouldn't be such a laissez faire attitude towards the DR process to begin with. Like there's multiple DRs I opened months ago that are still open even though they are clearly COPYVIO, which there's really no excuse for. I don't think that equates to dealing with the backlog as much as it does just consistently closing recent DRs in a timely manor though, which would have a much better chance of happening if there was an actual deadline. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    Why aren't "clearly COPYVIO" being tagged for speedy? DMacks (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    I probably should have been more concise and said "clearly COPYVIO after a discussion." Although at least from what I've seen a good portion of files that are tagged as F1 violations just get converted into normal deletion requests. Plus, it seems like people will just nominate files for deletion through the normal process regardless of if they are clearly copyrighted anyway. I know that's what I do because I don't want someone to throw a tantrum about me using speedy deletions as a way to circumvent the "normal" deletion process or some nonsense otherwise. Really though, a lot of DRs (including ones in the backlog) probably could and should have been dealt with through speedy deletion, but unfortunately that's just not what happens most of the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we need a way (template that applies a maintenance category?) for people to mark a DR as being ready to close as a copyvio, even if they are not comfortable closing it themself, for whatever reason. That would give some admins something much smaller to monitor than the full set of pending DRs, and might speed that part of the backlog. - Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
      Everyone has made great suggestions on this issue, but I think this should be moved to Commons Village Pump. As for my inappropriate closures, I think they can be kept closed as “out of process but ultimately correct” with the understanding that I acknowledge their wrongness by current best practices and will not make similar closes in the future. Dronebogus (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
      Thanks, wise decision. Ellywa (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Altat2021

Altat2021 (talk · contribs), repeatedly uploaded copyright violations. Lemonaka (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. All contributions are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Stream of abusive insults

Tatiana Matlina (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) See [5] (translation) Komarof (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. One month block. I understand Russian without translation. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

JMRDA

The user JMRDA (talk · contribs) insists on uploading copyrighted images despite the warnings in his userpage, it has been receiving notices for 8 years and has not been sanctioned. Taichi (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 month block, all of their files are either deleted or nominated for deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

陳寅恪

陳寅恪 (talk · contribs)'s recent uploads are all derivative works, but without source and precise permissions. Please have a check on their contributions. Thanks.

Taking a look on their talk page, there should be a final war about copyright issues. Lemonaka (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: I sent them a final warning. You could have done that before posting Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 100#陳寅恪.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

MArya..880

User has been blocked by User:Yann --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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

MArya..880 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Re-uploading copyvio image after it was deleted, and also after final blocking issued in their talk page. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 19:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I was coming here to create the same report. I've started a deletion discussion for all of their uploads at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MArya..880. The user should be blocked until such time as the indicate an understanding of and willingness to abide by our copyright policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting mass rollback

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mercyjamb123

Highly disruptive editor who mass-tags already adequately cropped images for further cropping. The editor has already been contacted on the talk page by another user. Requesting a mass rollback of all of the user's edits since 17 October. --FMSky (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky: ✓ Mass rolled back and warning sent.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Malik Nursultan B

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Currently no activity after you gave him the last warning. Taivo (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

User keeps adding Missing Permission templates to photos that are clearly mine

user:Günther Frager has added missing permission templates to my photos of Bille Eilish, which I took in 2022 [6] [7] [8] It makes no sense as the photos have been on here since March 2022, and now all of a sudden they're not mine? They have now done the same thing with the Hozier photos I added a few days ago [9] [10] These photos cannot be found anywhere else online. I was in the audience when I took the photo of Billie in 2022 and for Hozier in October of this year. It just makes no sense as to why they would put these on my photos when they are clearly my photos. And just in case, I connected this account to an email and emailed the Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team proof that these photos are indeed mine. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, the strange thing is that all 5 mentioned uploads have the term "screenshot" in their metadata, which suggests that you might not be the original photographer. Why didn't you upload them with the original camera (meta)data? --Túrelio (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
It was videos that I took on my phone and I then screen shotted the images. I also have no idea what meta data is. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Metadata or camera data here means the technical data and settings when the image was created. They are created by the device (digital camera or camera phone) and embedded into the image file. To see it in practise, go to File:James Murray visits Peterson & Schriever Space Force Bases (7997048) (cropped).jpg and jump to the last paragraph/section.--Túrelio (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I get that "Screenshot" in the metadata raises suspicions, but given the low quality of the images I think that Shoot for the Stars' explanation that they are screenshots from videos they took perfectly plausible and I would accept them, @Günther Frager: If there is no indication that these images appeared anywhere else on the web prior to the upload to Commons, "own work" is plausible enough and no VRT permission is needed (I see that in the case of File:Hozier performing 2023.jpg, apparently an E-Mail to VRT was sent, but in such cases where "own work" is plausible and no external source exists, I think that's overkill and only unnecessary hassle for the team). Gestumblindi (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Realistically how is anyone going to know if "screenshot" means it's from a video taken by the uploader or say YouTube? It's better to air on the side of caution by requesting the person file VRT permission then just allow screenshots of videos to hosted on Commons in a de facto way just because we don't want to inconvenience the Volunteer Response Team or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The best here is to make the whole video available under a free license, either here or on YouTube. Yann (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
That is obviously not possible, given that Shoot for the Stars obviously have no rights to release the music which has also presumably been recorded on the video. TommyG (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I think we just need to make non-VRT options more prevalent in the "no permission" user talk notice. Here, for a previously unpublished photo of not extraordinary quality, a simple statement by the uploader that they are in fact the photographer will suffice per COM:AGF. Some cases will require uploading the original photo with EXIF metadata, but again it should be done on-wiki whenever possible instead of going through VRT.
Ideally, "no permission" should be split. Currently we are using it for two different purposes: 1) the uploader claims that someone else is the creator, but has not supplied proof that they have agreed to the license; 2) the uploader claims to be the creator, but we just don't believe them without further evidence or clarification. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
"Here, for a previously unpublished photo of not extraordinary quality, a simple statement by the uploader that they are in fact the photographer will suffice per COM:AGF" - exactly! For the majority of uploads, we simply believe plausible "own work" claims, and don't need to create unnecessary hassle for the uploader, VRT team and admins if there is no evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 says Realistically how is anyone going to know if "screenshot" means it's from a video taken by the uploader or say YouTube?, but now we have the uploader's statement, and that's good enough for me - from any picture uploaded here as "own work" we don't really have proof that they are the uploader's own work anyway. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Sure, we have the uploader's statement now, but there was clearly a reason for Günther Frager to doubt the own work before then and I don't think "but the hassle" is a good justification to not question the uploader or have them file VRT permission when there's clearly doubt as to their claim of ownership. COPYVIO is rampant enough on here already without expecting people who do their best dealing with it to worry about if they are inconveniencing anyone in the process. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I completely understand Günther Frager's original doubts, but these should be settled by now. A VRT permission, after all, is no magical proof of authenticity and is mainly useful in cases where there is a known third party (cases where the uploader isn't the author) that needs to give permission, or where the uploader has published the picture elsewhere previously. In a case like this one, on the other hand, the uploader can't really do more than tell the VRT "yes, I'm the author" just as they did here, such confirmation is also possible on-wiki, and yes, not burdening the VRT with unnecessary workload is important. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Trottapiano

Trottapiano basically continues what the currently blocked User:GMatteotti did. Should that be considered a block evasion? --Rosenzweig τ 10:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

User:RichKiwi, (names looks like my username), since 2014 only uploaded copyright violation. I can see two on the en.wiki en two here (the same file). See: File:Image.remini-enhanced - 2023-04-22T134050.149.jpg. User:Belbury requested the same filename (File:So You're a Man.jpg) for renaming as (the name of) an earlier upload from this RichKiwi. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Only 2 uploads, now deleted. Warned. Yann (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

none of these [11] are own work all taken from google image or websites and also licenses are fake. please delete all


https://www.hamshahrionline.ir/news/282211/%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D9%85%D9%87%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%86-%DB%B1%DB%B3%DB%B3%DB%B8-%DB%B1%DB%B3%DB%B6%DB%B3

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fd0%2F51%2Fd4%2Fd051d4bf7e8ade7caaa467e0cead9da1.jpg&tbnid=etNo2gDmJXg2lM&vet=12ahUKEwjo37aF6JKCAxVfwMkDHQM_DXsQMyhBegUIARDmAQ..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F820851469574936802%2F&docid=Yr81P_jpaL7G1M&w=600&h=736&q=%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%85%20%D9%87%D9%85%D8%AA&ved=2ahUKEwjo37aF6JKCAxVfwMkDHQM_DXsQMyhBegUIARDmAQ

Luckie Luke (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Luckie Luke Thank you for flagging these. I have noted that permissions are required for some. I have nominated copyright violations for SD and warned the uploader. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 10:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Taekhosong

This user incessantly uploads extremely obvious porn copyvios. I think any positive contributions they produce are clearly outweighed by the negative. Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 month. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Butdream

Another extremely unsubtle stolen porn user. Only two upload— one’s a watermarked scan of the wildly popular manga Berzerk and the other’s Touhou futanari hentai described as “sex during marriage”(!) Dronebogus (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Both uploads were four days ago. But now that they've recieved warnings, if they upload any more copyvios, I'd be more than happy to block 'em. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Refactor11

Refactor11 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) All uploads are copyvios. Some re-uploaded after deletion once and even twice after the admin's 'last warning'. Komarof (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Sudiana98

Abuse, profanity, expressed anger. See this diff. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 09:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done I've already blocked this user for a day after noticing the talk page message. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Reblocked for a week for copyvios. Most files deleted, except one file from Flickr. Yann (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:ColorfulSmoke

requesting file renames repeatedly over 2 years. been declined before. continues after being warned. 3 examples links are listed, but there're a lot more. RZuo (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months (3rd block). Yann (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:2406:3003:2002:4E80:68F9:A881:8841:A0AF

2406:3003:2002:4E80:68F9:A881:8841:A0AF (talk · contribs) is adding bogus depicts.... Glrx (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, doesn't look ill-intentioned, just clueless. - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

UA0Volodymyr

UA0Volodymyr (talk · contribs) edit warred with anyone on File:Forms_of_government_2021.svg, a block may bring them a shut down and reboot. Lemonaka (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Just a couple of days after they earned an indef block on the English Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I know each project's administration is supposed to be independent, but it's a real bad sign that someone gets blocked for edit warring and then moves over here to continue edit warring. I'd support an indef block here. We're under no obligation to give problem editors a safe haven to continue causing problems. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done? I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Manojkvanjara

Manojkvanjara (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Return of a spammer that was blocked in August and return with more selfies. I marked his uploads for deletion but he should be blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Blocked by Wutsje for 3 months. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Nourerrahmane: adds superfluous informational references to files, falsely claims they were used by the uploaders + personnal attacks against me

This concerns the user User:Nourerrahmane.


1) Nourerrahmanehas falsely claimed that the upoader, @Goran tek-en: , used a Lulu.com book as a source for File:Banner of the Moors (1212).svg by adding this book as a source used by the uploader. Goran tek-en clearly did not the use this source, for proof see Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/2020#Convert Almohad banner to SVG. When confronted about them falsely stating this book was used by Goran tek-en, Nourerrahmane reverted the removal and stated: He should have added it then to precise that this is an andalusi flag, and please don't viable remove sources

For information, w:en:Lulu.com is for self-published books and those books are not considered as RS by enWikipedia (see w:en:WP:SPS and more specifically w:en:WP:LULU).

When told to stop otherwise I would start and admin intervention against them, Nourerrahmane stated: Please do, and one more time, stop removing viable sources.

2) Nourerrahmane has, in another instance, falsely claimed the uploader of File:Almohad flag.svg, @M.Bitton: , used sources they obviously did not use (see [12] and [13]). I removed those sources. Nourerrahmane then reinstated them and stated: You will stop this now.

3) I tried to reach out to Nourerrahmane at their talk page (User talk:Nourerrahmane#Stop adding informative sources!), but to no avail. They simply reinstated that what they did was perfectly acceptable. They even added that I see[m] to be a push POV (sic).

Nourerrahmane has shown no understanding nor will to communicate about their misbehaviour. Thus, I think a sanction is needed. Veverve (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

1- Never claimed that any other user used the sources I added, I said they should have added the source since it specifies it was an Andalusian flag and not just « a moorish flag », Also I never mentioned that M.Bitton added anything.
2- you didn’t provide any proof prohibiting the addition of viable sources to existing files, you said « this is not Wikipedia ». Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Never claimed that any other user used the sources: are you arguing the books being in the "Source" section and below "Own work based on:" does not indicate those books are the source material of the images? I think you are refusing to get the point and are grasping at straws. Veverve (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Still, never claimed that any user added those sources beside me. That’s the point.
also, you haven’t given any proof that prohibits additions of scholarly sources to existing files. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a w:en:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT if I have seen one. I have nothing to add. Veverve (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
You’re not WP:AGF.
the point is clear, I added sources to two files, also I never claimed other users used the sources I added.
until now you haven’t given any proof that this was prohibited, « this is not Wikipedia » as you said is not a proof. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I never claimed other users used the sources I added Then you have gravely misunderstood what the Source field is for. It is for original uploaders to state their sources, not for you to say where it's from. If the original uploaders listed a source that they used, you should not add other sources which they did not. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry but i didn't knew this was not permissible, my intention was to make the file more credible with more sources. I'd rather have this explanation for deleting my additions rather than "This is not Wikipedia".
In that case, is it possible to recreate the same file with my sources added to them ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd say no. The purpose of Commons is to be a repository of images, not sources. We don't need duplicate images just so someone can create an exhaustive list of references to places people can find the image. That's not the purpose of the project. It's not like one or two sources out of the seven that are already listed in the images description are somehow magically going make it more creditably anyway. At that point it just looks like references spamming to try and make something look legitimate through by adding a bunch of weak references when in fact it's probably fake. Not to say the images in question are, but the adding on more references to something that already has 7 seems questionable to say the least. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The thing is regarding muslim flags is that they are tricky, you might need multiple sources to make them credible, i also saw that many flags were created by sockpuppets of deleted accounts were unsourced and usually used to push an ethnic or nationalist agenda. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane The sources are NOT there to make an image more credible or thru, they are there so I as a graphic worker can show that I haven't copied from or used a source which I'm not allowed to copy from or use.
So only the graphic worker/uploader can know and add the sources which are used.
An uploaded image to commons doesn't even have to be thru, it just has to be within the scope: Commons:Project_scope#Scope_part_1:_Files. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I’d say that what Nourerrahmane added would be perfectly acceptable anywhere else on the filepage (or in the talk page), except in the source field of the information template. That’s reseved for the author to indicate the exact source(s) of the exact file at hand and nothing else. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Quick disclaimer: Nourerrahmane pinged me previously ([14]) about this discussion, as we've collaborated on Wikipedia.
Comment: I think there's some confusion here over Nourerrahmane's intentions versus their understanding of the purpose of specific fields on the file page. Similar to what Tuválkin said above, in my understanding, adding references is fine as part of the "Description", which can be broad in scope and could include references and/or further explanation for users looking at how to use an image, but it should not be in the "Source" section, which on Wiki Commons is purely about the origin of the file itself, including for copyright attribution purposes. Nourerrahmane's addition should be OK in the former, but not in the latter. @Nourerrahmane, is that clearer for you? R Prazeres (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
As clear as it should be @R Prazeres, Understood. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: reverting all edits of this type that you have done would be a very clear way to show you have understood your behaviour was inappropriate. Veverve (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
While I was planning to my additions in the description field in the files, I sure won’t take any advices from an edit warring user that equally ignores the rules, so next time please don’t revert sources content, and if you do tend to give better explanation than “this is not Wikipedia”, thank you. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Nourerrahmane, your latest answer to me is a clear w:en:WP:PA worthy of a sanction, attacking me for the second time (I have noted above you have said I see[m] to be a push POV), on top of the next time please don’t revert sources content part showing you do not seem to have understood how I was the one in the right by reverting you. Veverve (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I’m not interested in having any back and forth with you, since I don’t find it useful nor worth my time anyways. I will displace my additions to the description field section as agreed here. Please don’t ping me. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@R Prazeres and Tuválkin: just to be sure: was your advice to Nourerrahmane to move put list of books (including an unreliable Lulu.com self-published book) in the file description, as if the description section was a w:en:WP:FURTHERREADING section? Because this is the user's take on your advice ([15], [16]). Veverve (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's permissible and within the scope of image descriptions. Whether each file actually needs these additions, or whether the purpose of the added content is clear enough for visitors, etc, is another matter. I assume that in cases of disagreement, en:WP:EDITWAR rules still apply and editors should move to the talk page instead. R Prazeres (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@R Prazeres Regarding the Old Almohad Flag, i'm seeing it's hung to jealously in a suspecious way, please check the French Wikipédia, as you might already know that flag is fictitious and badly sourced ( source are pretty much a blog of flag amateurs and a misinterpreted primary source ), so i' m planning to ask for a removal of this flag from Commons, since the White Flag is attested in a couple of secoundary sources, not to say we should put a white flag in the infobox, but it should be understood that the unanimously mentionned White flag had significance for the Almohad ideology as the sources point out. So for the sake of not misleading readers because of Nationalist POV i think it's better to remove the red one from Commons. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
That’s not how Commons works. That’s not even how flags work. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
How so ? If you have any links in commons I would like to have knowledge about this. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I can say have a couple links in Commons, a couple hundred thousand, even. Oh, look: here’s three more: -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This was a genuine question, but I will have my answer elsewhere.
thank you Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Seems good to me. If any of the indicated links is problematic, then the discussion should be moved to the talk page. (But is Ian Heath unreliable…?) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The user has accused me on their talk page of being a POV-pusher (I see[m] to be a push POV). They have later stated in this very thread that I am an edit warring user that equally ignores the rules who should not be listened to, doubling down on their stance that they were right in adding fallacious sources (next time please don’t revert sources content). When confronted about those attacks and their editing behaviour, they stated, again in this very thread: I’m not interested in having any back and forth with you, since I don’t find it useful nor worth my time anyways. Veverve (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Richiek Rakesh

Richiek Rakesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Uploading copyright violations after final warning. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richiek Rakesh. Yann (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

WayneRay (talk · contribs) likely back as Photo Archives (talk · contribs)

This user was globally blocked from Wikimedia. See metawikipedia:Requests for comment/Global ban for WayneRay. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And for what makes me say this, both users upload pictures of the same topics with the same cameras: Category:Photographs by WayneRay and Category:Photographs by Photo Archives. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
metawikipedia:Steward requests/Global#Global lock for Photo Archives Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
OK Bye. Was trying to do better but failed again. See ya and thanks for all the help and assistance. Not trying to do any harm just continued dissemination of information. Bye Bye ̴̴ Photo Archives (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
BTW all of Category:A Short History of Japan, Category:A Manual of Parliamentary Law and other files uploaded by Photo Archives have the wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

ThecentreCZ

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Real life use applies. False request on here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ThecentreCZ was already reviewed and checked on 4 October 2023 by Commons Administrator Abzeronow as false reporting, which was already in review for months. Thank you, ThecentreCZ (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
It still seems like the files aren't sourced to actual flags regardless of the outcome of DR, which I think as you've been told they should be. Plus it looks like your stil having the problem from doing a quick glance over your recent uploads. For instance the author of this flag is supposedly Sociální demokracie. But then looking at the sources they don't seem to be where it came from. Sure, they reposted an image of some protestors waving the it on their social media accounts, but that doesn't make them the "author" of the flag. And that's just from a simple glace at your recent uploads. I'm sure I could find more examples. The ones that have already been brought up in other discussions and still aren't dealt with not withstanding. Plus ones that haven't been brought up yet, like File:Czech Youth Union emblem.svg from a while ago where your the source of the emblem and there's zero evidence of it being used anywhere else aside form Wikipedia and another site that got it from here. File:Flag of the Czechoslovak Youth Union.svg which again your the author of and the links for where it supposedly come from are either dead or don't show the "flag" to begin with. You've clearly had enough time deal with issues like that, but apparently you couldn't be bothered to for some reason. Even though you went on and on ad nauseam in the original discussion about how they are "real flags" that you could provide sources for. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
You misunderstood my meaning by "in use". I meant the files were in use by Wikimedia Projects. I deleted the ones that weren't sourced and unused as they would be considered out of scope. For some files, the only reason why they'd be in scope is their use, which local projects would have to decide if there are actually "real". Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This person Adamant1 is again here. He's already been bullying my uploads for 1 year and hasn't accomplished anything, he again broughts up new things he invented. He's doing this for months. He already written like 5 normalized A4 pages with about 5000 words just to justify already disproved by many, including experienced administrators. ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I started one DR for some of your uploads in May around the same time someone else opened the original ANU complaint, but I haven't had anything to do with you outside of that except for this, which again, was started by someone. So in no way have been bullying you for a year or at all for that matter. I'm not really sure what your talking about with the 5 normalized A4 pages with about 5000 words either. Your clearly trying to make this about me to deflect from the fact that you never fixed the sources for the files alike you said you would and are continuing to do the same things that led to the original ANU complaint in the meantime. I'm not at the point of suggesting a block myself, but your behavior really needs to be dealt with in some way. Be that you acknowledging it and fixing the problems like you've been asked to by multiple people ad nauseam at this point or some kind of sanction. I don't really see the first one happening though considering your continued refusal to admit there's an issue or deal with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Change of source; odd disclaimers; edit warring

User:SchroCat recently changed the source parameter of an image I uploaded, File:Edward Oxford tries to shoot Queen Victoria in 1840 by JR Jobbins.jpg. On checking, I could easily see that, while the image on the newly-stated source page depicts the same artwork as my upload, it is not the same as the image I uploaded. I therefore reverted], with the edit summary "restore actual source".

SchroCat has chosen to edit war and revert my edit, without discussion, again restoring the bogus source.

In my edit, I also removed SchroCat's rather unusual note:

* [https://www.alamy.com/english-lithograph-by-j-r-jobbins-of-edward-oxford-attempting-to-shoot-queen-victoria-1840-j-r-jobbins-180-edward-oxford-tries-to-shoot-queen-victoria-in-1840-by-jr-jobbins-image188271420.html?imageid=C06DFA9A-B96A-4E37-BA8B-539EF58BF852&p=650648&pn=1&searchId=f551f5d4176ebc4bfdd58ef7994190cf&searchtype=0 Classed by Alamy as a public domain image]

as I believe we are not reliant on Alamy (not any other commercial agency) for decisions about copyright. That note, too, was restored.

I also removed a similar notice from another image. These notes were apparently added to address concerns raised about a featured article candidate on the English Wikipedia.

I was again reverted with the edit summary "Run along now, little man"

Is this set of behaviours - addition of bogus source, Alamy statements, edit warring, abusive edit summary - acceptable? I'm sure that the latter pair is not, and can find no policy basis for the first two. Should they remain?

I note that this page encourages discussion prior to opening a section, but past experience and the edit summary quoted lead me to believe that the assumption of good faith is not warranted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

How tiresome. The source you insist on using leads to a dead page. It was also not archived at any point, so is useless as a source of a historical work of art. If you insist on retaining the source we can always delete the image as being unsourced, while at the same time uploading the exact same image from the source I provided. Such overly bureaucratic steps are a complete waste of time and effort, but as you're not bothering with good faith, then I presume you're up for the least constructive path of having a decently sourced image? I would say please enlighten me, but when you've accused me of edit warring when there is none, I'll leave you to it without bothering to post here again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Original source in a case like this generally should be noted, even if additional information should be added. And an image from 1840 would be in the public domain even if its online source were unknown. - Jmabel ! talk
Good call, but what about calling another user «little man»? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Obviously out of line, but not worth a block unless there's a pattern of such things. I've heard worse. I've had worse directed at me. - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I actually asked about how to deal with dead links to sources on the village pump a few months ago and sadly never got a meaningful response outside of a few users telling me dead links aren't an issue and that I should just leave them alone. It's something that really should be clarified though. Not only to avoid issues like this one, but also because link rot really doesn't help anyone. Be that users wanting to verify licenses or random visitors who would like to find more works by the creator. Although linking to a different image then one that was uploaded isn't optimal, but there's no reason someone shouldn't be able to change the source to a site containing an exact copy. There's no reason it should matter anyway if the original is PD to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Andy brought the matter here (ANU) on behaviour grounds. How to deal with dead sources should be discussed elsewhere. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Justifiably of course. I just brought it up because I can understand why SchroCat made the mistake to begin with. Even though how they handled it in the interim was clearly lacking. As you were though ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Me too. On the other hand, I had dour admonishments directed at me on this page for much less uncollegial quips, so good thing that SchroCat now understands that’s not A-OK. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
They do? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

[restored from archive]

Do we restore the actual source, nor not? Do we keep the reference to Alamy, or not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Redux

[restored from archive]

The above having been archived I restored both pages to their longstanding form, and have in both cases been immediately reverted.

I see no consensus above, either to change the source of one image to one for a different image, nor to include in each image text deferring copyright determination to Alamy; nor any argument as to why we should do so for only two of the many thousands of images which can be found on both sites.

I also note that the Alamy text is not used on the page for the Tiff version of the second image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I left your precious dead link on the page (although it is an utterly pointless thing to have, given it helps neither man nor beast), but also kept a live link to the image. I'm not sure how you see this as backward step, but each to their own. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Indo British Wikipedian

Indo British Wikipedian (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  won't stop uploading fantasy/fake election diagrams and has already been warned by N Panama 84534 in September. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for 3 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Raphael.concorde and Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory

"Chris A Hadfield Rocket Factory" appears to be a prank/hoax - supposed US facility named after living Canadian astronaut on the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. Zero results for "Hadfield Rocket Factory" from any government websites. There is a facebook group for it [17], which seems part of the hoax, including clues that it is deliberately dubious like references to its "underground shopping center" (New Orleans is known for not having extensive underground structures due to high water table). See also recent en:w:Talk:Michoud Assembly Facility#"Chris Hadfield Rocket_Factory" does not exist. User:Raphael.concorde seems to be major promoter of the hoax on Commons and en:w. Some of the user's Commons uploads have already been deleted (note in particular Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chris Hadfield interview at CAHRF.jpg; clearly a manipulated photoshop (edit:) same photo seen on Flickr at [18]) but a number of others remain. I think this merits serious looking into. I suggest user's uploads without verifiable 3rd party sourcing be deleted (please note that at least 2 Flickr accounts seem to have promoted the hoax as well - "Daniel Molybdenum" (!) [19] and "Daniel Steelman" [20] {...edit, found a third: "John Chryslar" [21]}). Possibly further action is warranted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Update: User has been indef blocked on en:w by Tamzin [22] - "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term logged-out sockpuppetry (Special:Contributions/147.197.250.54, Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:4872:8600:8DE2:2E64:110C:FFFA/64, https://w.wiki/7tZt—including at least one case of backing yourself up in an argument) and hoaxing (Talk:Michoud Assembly Facility § "Chris Hadfield Rocket Factory" does not exist)." I shall now block them here as well. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I shall now block them here as well. Sounds like a good idea considering the circumstances. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Updates: Suspect the 3 Flickr accounts, since blacklisted here, are all socks of the same person as "Raphael.concorde" here. Note on other media goes by "Raphael Cryslar" and other variations. Most or all of the obvious hoaxes have either already been deleted or are currently listed for deletion. However there is more cleanup to do - probably the rest of the uploads from the Flickr accounts should be listed for deletion, even when there is no obvious problem, as unreliable users. Perhaps some users experienced with NASA image uploads can help further looking through some of the Commons user's uploads credited to NASA where links are dead? From context and metadata, I suspect many or most are legitimate NASA images - but in at 2 cases the Commons user created a false dead NASA link for a hoax image. Some that I *suspect* are OK I have not been able to find verifiable NASA links either via archive org nor reverse image searches, but people with more experience with NASA images may know better where to look. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User Meteum

Meteum (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Reinput the same screen capture of a copyrighted website after being warned. Furthermore, by the name, it seems a paid editor for https://meteum.ai/ Pierre cb (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. User is warned against copyvios and advertising, all contributions deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User Tardjuli

Tardjuli (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads historical photos of Haiti presidents and other dignitaries, claiming they are his own work. The copyright is therefore doubtful and I signaled some already. Furthermore, some photos claiming to be of the same named person seem to be from different ones (e.g. File:President Joseph Lamothe Haiti.jpg and File:Joseph Lamothe President Haiti.png). Could and administrator checked those images and decide if they have to be deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

With the exception of File:Portrait équestre de l'empereur d'Haïti, Jacques Dessalines.png and File:Jerry Tardieu, député de la République.png, all of their uploads appear to be too old for copyright to still apply. In Haiti that's 60 years after the death of the creator. The issue is that the uploader hasn't provided an actual source for most of these. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Prel1h

Prel1h (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is adding some odd strings of letters to various files. Why is he doing this? --トトト (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all reverted. I wonder if this isn't a bug? Other edits need checking. Yann (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Subject: Request for Permanent Block of A1Cafel

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.
It's clear that there is not currently a consensus to permanently block A1Cafel (or to ban them from using the tool). However, I would encourage A1Cafel to use this as a wake-up call, as they are frequently brought to this noticeboard, and if that continues to happen, eventually enough people are going to lose patience with them that a ban request will stick. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear sysops,

I believe that the actions of User:A1Cafel are inappropriate, contrary to the collaborative spirit, and demotivating for other contributors. I request that the possibility of an indefinite block be discussed, as this user has received multiple warnings and has been blocked four times in less than a year for reasons related to the concerns I am raising [23].

Specifically:

  1. Excessive and Unwarranted Deletion Nominations for Images: User:A1Cafel has been excessively nominating images for deletion, often citing reasons related to Freedom of Panorama (FOP) or the lack thereof in a specific country. This includes not only legitimate nominations for images but also nominations for items like plaques affixed to sculptures, which may not be justified.
  2. Stalking Contributions: I have noticed a pattern of User:A1Cafel closely tracking my contributions, with deletion nominations appearing in reverse chronological order based on my recent edits. This behavior, apart from being unsettling, contradicts the Wikipedia principle of "Assume Good Faith." I am not the only contributor affected by this problematic approach; prominent contributors like Chabe01 and to a lesser extent Romainbehar seem to have faced similar situations, and there may be others I have not yet documented.
  3. Intensity of Nominations: The intensity of User:A1Cafel's actions is also a concern. Aside from acting as a self-appointed watchdog, the lack of discernment is evident. For instance, the nomination of both a legitimate sculpture image and an accompanying plaque for deletion highlights a lack of careful consideration. The contributor in question does not allow for sufficient time for analysis and response, with new deletion nominations coming in daily in my case.
  4. Contributor Demotivation: Lastly, User:A1Cafel's behavior has a demotivating effect on contributors. In my own case, I have fallen behind on uploading nearly a thousand photos from three or four countries due to User:A1Cafel's recent conduct. I had maintained a daily upload rate until these disruptions. While this is a personal experience, it is likely that this negativity affects others as well. In any case, User:A1Cafel's actions do not align with the fundamental principles of collaborative work.

Thank you for your attention, --Benoît (d) 13:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

First, photographing sculptures and statues is a kind of derivative work. You need to either obtain the permission of the artist, or they have been dead for 70 years, especially for those countries with no FoP, or their FoP applies to buildings only. Your country, France, has a non-commercial FoP, but that is not accepted on Commons. Second, I didn't stalk anyone on nominating DRs. I just found the information of the sculptures using French Wikipedia. Lastly, I don't think this is a demotivation of the project. As an user, you should confirm that your uploads are complying with COM:L. If there is any violation of that, they cannot stay here and need to be deleted. I understand you may feel frustrated to see some of your valuable images were deleted, but copyright is copyright, we must respect it. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Read me attentively, I don’t complain about COM:L, I don’t feel frustrated by images deletion when they must be deleted. I complain about your behavior. Your answer consolidates my opinion you don’t get the issue, or don’t want to understand, and you are not able to call yourself into question regarding your behavior here. It is my 5th point: unability to reconsider his/her own behavior, is an aggravating factor. ----Benoît (d) 15:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
If you think I make too many nomination that may hinder other's attention, I can slow down the nomination rate. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  • As an user, you should confirm that your uploads are complying with COM:L.
OK, so why don't you do that? I see two regular sorts of edit from you here, both in great bulk. Tagging others' uploads for deletion under FOP claims, and uploading images yourself which have just the same issue (from your talk: page right now, File:Floralis Genérica (20964656646).jpg & File:Floralis Genérica (16429027530).jpg). Why are you so adamant at enforcing a rule on others when you won't follow it yourself? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
They are uploaded a few years ago. At that time, I think that they can fall under de minimis. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree with the nominator here. A1Cafel's actions overall are a nett negative to the project and they've been told about this repeatedly, for as long as I've seen them here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Admittedly they had some problems early on, but I deal with them a lot myself and at least from what I've seen recently their DRs are usually pretty spot on. They also seem to know the relevant copyright laws and guidelines well. I guess there isn't a way to check what a nominators DR success rate is on Commons like they have for Wikipedia, but IMO to justify a block there would have to be clear evidence of them repeatedly opening DRs that were closed as keep. Including ones related to the person who opened this complaint. I haven't seen either one myself though. And at least when it comes to the person who opened this they clearly have had a problem with uploading COPYVIO in the last year. Their accusations that A1Cafel is somehow intentionally stalking them and excessively nominating their images for deletion in the process is also clearly spurious since A1Cafel has only nominated 15 of their uploads for deletion in the last 4 months, isn't the only one doing it, and the amount of nominations is directly related to how much COPYVIO someone uploads anyway. But so far it seems as all of their nominations have resalted in delete. So this is clearly an issue with Benoît Prieur not knowing or following the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
+1@Adamant1 I think on average I close around a dozen of their DRs every day, and besides very few cases where I came to a different conclusion, I think 99% or more end in "deleted per nomination". I also don't see any "attitude" in the DRs, and the rational is mostly above average. Is anybody of the opinions that we should silently ignore FoP violations? Krd 15:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Krd here. I close usually 6 to 10 DRs a day and FOP cases are something I frequently close. I don't notice any particular attitude as far as the user's nominations, and I just added an Undelete category because the user brought it to our attention at UNDEL. I definitely don't think we should ignore FoP violations, and I look on with interest to efforts to bring FOP to countries like the Philippines and South Africa. Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Seems to me that remark from Krd and assent from Abzeronow) should settle the matter. I'm a little surprised to see a claim of "99% or more" in terms of anyone's DRs, though. Do we never (or almost never) end up with anyone getting the relevant permission from the copyright holder, or deciding that something is de minimis where A1Cafel didn't think so, or discovering that a building or sculpure is a older than A1Cafel thought? - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

̈*@Adamant1 Since I need to justify myself, I must clarify that I have an excellent knowledge of the rules related to Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in all the countries where I have had the opportunity to travel. To the extent that I have my own process, allowing me to store images that may be uploaded someday (due to changes in the law, or whatever). I have a personal storage for this, as well as a Flickr account. I am also a contributor to non-wiki projects where I always try to adhere as closely to CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) as possible and use them as secondary storage until the upload is possible on Commons. Examples include [24], [=icreator:%22Prieur,%20Beno%C3%AEt,%201975-....%22], among others.

Of course, I am not infallible, and sometimes photos slip through this initial personal filter (lack of information about the artwork, etc.). What is statistically puzzling is that A1Cafel has identified around fifteen copyright violations in the past four months, given that I typically take an average of ten photos per day for Commons:

  • Lille, France (two days spent, late 2020)
  • Paris, Panthéon, France (one day spent in August 2023)
  • Cibeins, France (20 minutes stopover in 2017)
  • Nice, France (1.5 days in March 2022)
  • Monaco, Monaco (2 days in November 2021)
  • Bourg-en-Bresse, France (I go there often, but these are photos from 2016)
  • Cannes, France (two days spent in April 2023)
  • Dagneux Cemetery, France (an afternoon in 2016)
  • NYC, June 2023
  • Paris, 2021

All these copyright violations are effective and have been rightly removed. the laws of statistics being stubborn, I only wonder how A1Cafel managed to identify all of this in such a short time, unless through stalking me. I am very interested, assuming there was no stalking involved, in learning about the modus operandi (parent category, etc.) that led to such a "coincidence." ----Benoît (d) 17:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Benoît Prieur: Sorry if that de-motivates you, but I would hope you are not saying that we should retain copyvios to keep you motivated, or that your work should not be subject to scrutiny despite someone finding some actual problems. If you can point at half a dozen specific examples in the last year or so where A1Cafel nominated your images for deletion but the consensus was to keep them, I might see this differently. And, if so, then Krd and Abzeronow should reconsider their remarks. But right now, I'm inclined to take their remarks at or near face value. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The deletion is not demotivated me at all. I'm clearly happy to see deletion of pictures which must not be on Commons for copyright reason. I'm demotivated by the obvious stalking (I can provide similar studies for others stalked contributors) and by the way of considering it a good behavior as long as it detects copyright violations, whereas I find it completely creepy and in contradiction with our values. Please try to understand that what depresses me is not the deletion of photos (for valid reasons). It's a behavior that I personally identify as toxic. ----Benoît (d) 17:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Just an FYI, but if I'm reading A1Cafel's edit history from the last few days correctly they have nominated upwards of 500 files for deletion just since yesterday. Of which you uploaded like what, 3 of those? So the accusation that they are singling you out in some way is clearly baseless. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel, These are some examples of DR's by A1Cafel on my uploads in the recent 6 months *** All were "Kept":
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nathalie Orozco.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua Kevin K. Sullivan welcomed 222 individuals who had been imprisoned by the Government of Nicaragua for exercising their fundamental freedoms- U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on March 31, 20
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Foto Martin Lätt
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Photo by Gaurav Dwivedi
Which is similar to this still open DR from June - Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Photo by Milburn Fernandes
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Photo by Rakesh Malholtra
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bucha Summit, March 31, 2023.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Attorney General Merrick B. Garland met with President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy, United for Justice Conference, Lviv, March 3, 2023 - 52744852495.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Attorney General Merrick B. Garland met with President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy, United for Justice Conference, Lviv, March 3, 2023.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Jan. 27, 2023.jpg
and this most recent DR for alleged COM:OOS of the now burned famous Lahaina Banyon Tree (largest in the US) Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Maui_-_Shawn_-_5462362804.jpg. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@Ooligan: I'd say that looks like someone who might be too inclined to start DRs, but certainly also indicates that he wasn't particularly stalking Benoît. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Firstly, I would like to second Krd and Abzeronow that stress that the nomination of FoP violations is not a problem per se. Hence, I do not see here any reason why we should admonish or even block A1Cafel as, so far, we do not have any proof of a practice of abusive nominations by A1Cafel. Secondly, I would like to add that we should take some care in FoP nominations, i.e. naming the relevant country and, if possible after some research, identify the artist and their life span. This makes it easier to undelete these images when eventually the artwork is in the public domain. I asked recently A1Cafel to improve their FOP-related DRs in this regard and my impression is that A1Cafel's nominations got better. Finally, I would like to ask A1Cafel to review their own older uploads in regard to FOP and to make sure that the focus in nominations is not on selected users. If we run across an image that needs to be nominated, then nominate it. But nobody should run systematically through all contributions of an individual user if there is no good reason for this. I do not know if this has actually happened here but I mention it as Benoît got this impression (unfortunately without evidence to evaluate this further). --AFBorchert (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A1Cafel has a long history of cross-wiki sockpuppetry, that's all I know about them. Lemonaka (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@AFBorchert I don't agree! A1Cafel has been recently abusing of the DR tool (recently = September 2023), when he repeatedly, and continued after being warned, to nominate WLM files. This is disruptive for the project, because it gets in the way of the main photographic competition on Commons that implies many local chapters besides WMF. These files have regular permissions that are made public by the organisers, thus nominating the files for deletion discourages potential new users, attracted here by the competition.
I fully support Benoît Prieur's request. A1Cafel is here to "delete the project", not to contribute to make it grow. If undef block seems too much (but I wonder why), then I propose indef ban on DRs, so to force him to contribute positively. (of course, any sockpuppetry would imply a full block without having any AN/U, from my point of view). --Ruthven (msg) 14:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ruthven: you don't provide any links there, so I have to ask: were these WLM files deleted? Or were these things that shouldn't have been DR'd? - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Jmabel There are links in A1Cafel's talk page, but also, e.g. Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Biblioteca_Sandro_Penna, Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:The_Infantryman_Monument_(Salsomaggiore_Terme), File:Piemonte (174).JPG, etc. To have them deleted or not is not important, because it stresses the users, kick them out of the project, and reinforce the fear that, "whatever is done, on Commons they'll delete our files". It depreciates WLM in the same occasion. The best solution to prevent this is a block.
    @AFBorchert I reckon that, if there are no issues in his tending categories, he should do that, and no other activity on Commons. Note that I warned him in the past about repeatly requesting file deletion, even after an undel. This is to persist in a negative activity for the project. Ruthven (msg) 07:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Ruthven, naïve question of mine: why don’t WLM files have to adhere to FoP policies? RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    @RodRabelo7 That's exactly the point. WLM have permission from the copyright holders for publication under a free license. Ruthven (msg) 12:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    • @Ruthven: " WLM have permission from the copyright holders for publication under a free license." Could you clarify that? There's no mention of any special arrangement like that in en:Wiki Loves Monuments nor in Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments. I see that in most countries with little freedom of panorama, we simply don't run WLM. But are you saying that there are countries where there is limited FoP and WLM has permission from copyright-holders to publish photographs of (at least some) subjects that would normally be excluded by lack of FoP? Or have I misunderstood you? - Jmabel ! talk 15:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
      The whole work behind WLM, implying local chapters and volunteers, in countries where there is little FoP is to obtain the permissions for the monuments (photograph and publish under a free license). These authorizations are usually put online by the organizers. When a monument is "free" for WLM (or even outside of the competition, if the authorization is wider), there is a little template materializing it in the File page. This is true for Italy, for instance (which is the local version that I know the most, and where there are no copyright rules for many monuments), but the concept is similar for other countries. Monuments that are in the public domain, usually do not need a permission (Italian do have them, because of the no copyright rules above that we can ignore on Commons, but that the local chapter wants to avoid). Maybe some organizers from different countries can explain their workflow. Ruthven (msg) 08:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I guess by "no copyright rules" you mean the it:Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio (COM:Italy#Additional restrictions for cultural heritage assets). But aside from that, I've seen several times now the claim that "WLM have permission from the copyright holders" (or similar). From what I have seen, WLM has authorizations by various Italian cities, regions etc. to photograph various buildings, monuments etc. As I gathered, these cities etc. are allowed to give such authorizations accd. to the Codice mentioned above, but this is not about copyright, but about non-copyright restrictions. The codice explicitely says such authorizations must adhere to copyright. Also, the cities might be the owners of the various buildings and monuments listed in these authorizations (though I have my doubts if that is really true for every single of them), but does that really make them the copyright holders? I've seen various theories that Italian copyright law (some article or paragraph 11) gives them the copyright in various cases (for works made "on their behalf"), but I also have my doubts about that. The WLM authorizations I have seen did not mention copyright at all. You might want to participate in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Il Grande Ferro R, Alberto Burri, pala De André, Ravenna.jpg (which was not started by A1Cafel).
All of this WLM Italy business is rather unclear, and frankly, I am not convinced that everything is all right as far as copyright is concerned. And I'm an admin here and do know a thing or two about copyright I think.Maybe I'm missing something, but if that is the case, it should be thoroughly explained how everything is in order then in these WLM Italy cases. COM:Italy isn't very helpful here. And if people like me and JWilz12345 (who started the DR mentioned above) don't see it, it must be explained better, and it's unfair to hold it against A1Cafel. --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: thanks for mentioning me. Regarding the very-unique case of WLM-Italy authorizations from Italian comunes or cities (from Ravenna to Assisi) over copyrighted buildings and monuments, the best place is actually at COM:VPC. All involved users must be pinged there for participation, and the deletion requests with mentions to the WLM-Italy MiBAC permissions or city (comune) permissions must be tagged with "on hold" templates pending the finality of the discussion. Or do you want me to start the (nth) thread? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Please do start the thread, I can't right now (but will participate later). --Rosenzweig τ 09:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig The general idea is that the organizers contact the copyright holders (the City Council for monuments, and the Diocese for churches, generally) in order to have a permission to publish photographs under free license. This solves both FoP restrictions, and the Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio.
As far as I've checked so far, these permissions are correctly stated and OK for Commons purposes.
Then, somewhere it has been asked to validate them via VRT. This is honestly not doable, and we must trust the organizers, simply because VRT hasn't the number of agents sufficient to perform such a large verification. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Where is this about WLM and permissions documented? It's news to me, and I'm a 20-year veteran of Wikipedia, have been on Commons almost since it started, and an an admin both here and on en-wiki. If I haven't heard about it, and can't find it anywhere, it almost certainly should be more prominent. And I certainly would not have expected any particular user to be familiar with it, or to sanction them for not having known. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC) I see that a separate discussion has been started at COM:VPC, I will ask there instead. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I was unaware of the sockpuppetry. That's very troubling. But in terms of A1Cafel's nominations under their own username, I speak as someone who took great exception to their earlier work as slipshod and uncollegial and say that from what I've seen in the last several months at least (and while I didn't see everything, I do look through COM:DR frequently), their work has generally looked quite good, competent and well-justified, and I've had no objection to their tone, either. In a few cases in which they were shown to have made a mistake, I've seen them accept it without trouble. So at least in terms of their work under their own username, I oppose any kind of block beyond existing limitations. If anyone wants to propose some form of discipline for the socking, that would be different, and I would bow out of a discussion on that basis and defer to the judgment of those who know more about how severe or minor it is, but I have no objection whatsoever to A1Cafel's deletion requests for photos of French art and architecture on the basis of a lack of commercial FoP, although they could probably sometimes be more careful about what might be de minimis. So consider this a qualified vote of confidence for A1Cafel at this point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@AFBorchert. Above I wrote a response to @Jmabel-
"These are some examples of DR's by A1Cafel on my uploads in the recent 6 months *** All were "Kept":" (Please, see all recent DR links from my talk page in my above reply).
I offered those examples of failed Deletion Requests as an example of a pattern of behavior that I personally experienced by this User. My response was to Jmabel writing,
"If you can point at half a dozen specific examples in the last year or so where A1Cafel nominated your images for deletion but the consensus was to keep them, I might see this differently. And, if so, then Krd and Abzeronow should reconsider their remarks. But right now, I'm inclined to take their remarks at or near face value."
So, a dozen DR involving me that have all been "kept." Jmabel wanted "a half a dozen specific examples in the last year..." I gave a dozen specific examples in the last six months.
I suggest this is the proof you asked to have provided. It is not specific to @Benoît Prieur, however it does answer respond to the behavior related to your question,
"... we do not have any proof of a practice of abusive nominations by A1Cafel."
and you further wrote,
"Finally, I would like to ask A1Cafel to review their own older uploads in regard to FOP and to make sure that the focus in nominations is not on selected users. If we run across an image that needs to be nominated, then nominate it. But nobody should run systematically through all contributions of an individual user if there is no good reason for this. I do not know if this has actually happened here but I mention it as Benoît got this impression (unfortunately without evidence to evaluate this further). "
Lastly, I want to thank Benoît Prieur for taking his time to make this submission.
Sincerely, -- Ooligan (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ooligan: COM:AN/U is not a board to submit requests for further research. Convincing evidence needs to be presented here including diffs. See also this comment (first paragraph) by me on Benoît's talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@AFBorchert, Did you see this diff (my 3 consecutive earlier edits) further above? -- Ooligan (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I completely agree with Benoît Prieur. A1Cafel indeed stalks contributions and harasses users. Take a look at these absurd deletion requests: [25], [26], [27] etc… If you still don’t believe the opening of those deletion requests was pure harassment, let me explain: minutes before they were opened, I removed from this category some duplicates uploaded by A1Cafel. In fact, the whole category was duplicated. (Funnily enough, A1Cafel has some obscure fetish uploading everything they can regarding the coronation of Charles and Camilla, while nominating to deletion everything they had not uploaded themself!) Not to mention this sort of harassment: [28], [29] etc… I don’t have much time available for this, so I won’t spend the little I have left collecting more and more evidences.
    Honestly, their POV-pushing behavior is tiresome, and it was one of the reasons that made me decide to take a break from Commons (in addition, of course, to personal problems, such as a tumor). I always try to learn with mistakes, some of them being sort of childish, but A1Cafel seems not to. I don’t know if a permanent block would be a solution (I am permanently blocked on ptwiki, and I don’t think that is something nice), so I would suggest something like a three- to six-months block. That would have helped me there, I suppose… RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
     Another comment: I haven’t read the whole discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I suggest a permanent ban for the user from opening whatever RfD. Maybe is beyond their intentions but their actions are disruptive, not helpful at all. -- Blackcat 15:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban of A1Cafel from uploads with Flickr2Commons

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by A1Cafel, yet again. Also Commons_talk:Flickr2Commons#Duplicates_2

A1Cafel has been requested over and over to stop doing batch uploads with Flickr2Commons that duplicate batches which have already been imported. This is a time-sink for other editors, they clearly have no intention of changing their behaviour over this.

Accordingly, they should lose access to this tool. The project does not need these uploads, they are just a source of extra work for others. No other measure, i.e. requests to A1Cafel, seems effective.

Their access to the Upload Wizard for doing similar uploads should also be considered (I express no opinion on that point as yet) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  •  Support Yes! Yes! I entirely support that. A1Cafel must stay away from Flickr2Commons, because he does not care for due diligence. The Upload Wizard on the other hand is a much surer tool, it is duplicate-proof, and anyone should be allowed to handle it. --Edelseider (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Edelseider, New duplicates by A1Cafel today. Here: Special:FileDuplicateSearch/Eclipse anular 2023, Edzna, Campeche (53266776761).jpg and here: Special:FileDuplicateSearch/Eclipse anular 2023 (53267245920).jpg -- Ooligan (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ooligan: What can I say? He's incorrigible. Edelseider (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I sadly see no other way of them changing their behaviour. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It appears that there's been a discussion on Commons talk:Flickr2Commons about it allowing people to upload duplicates since at least 2015 and there's been no response from the dev after multiple comments, new threads about it, and 8 years. So my suggestion is to block access to the tool until the developer feels like solving the issue since it's clearly a bug and isn't something only A1Cafel has an issue with. I don't think it's fair to block someone for something that is clearly an issue with Flickr2Commons though. More so since the developer is apparently unwilling to fix it. If uploads of duplicates are really that much of an issue then Flickr2Commons just shouldn't be able to upload images until it's resolved. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No ban or site ban. Per previous sockpuppetry, they have many methods for circumventing the rules. Lemonaka (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but if they're a problem here, but they also sock to get round blocks, then we shouldn't bother to ban them? How does that work? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley Banning a people sitewide meant that more eyes will be on them if they use socks to circumvent their ban, topic-banning is less noticed when circumventing by socks. Lemonaka (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose, the issue should be handled from the root, not from the leaf. I agree with @Adamant1: 's input. See also this discussion where I commented. I once imported a single file from Flickr, until the file description page begins to claim about an already-existing file on Commons, prompting me to add {{Duplicate}} immediately. Strangely it used to detect duplicates before, until at some point it failed to detect duplicates. At least all batch uploading using that tool should be disabled for all users, including me, until the tool developer fixes the technical issue. Yes the boilerplate notice on top insists users to direct technical concerns on the developer's website, yet I cannot immediately see a button or link on that website for messaging of concerns. I do not want to click any of the links there that appear to be technical in nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose topic ban for the reasons stated by Adamant1. I'd be inclined to support blocking access to the Flickr2Commons tool until the duplicates bug is dealt with. Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: I may agree provided that Flickr2Commons is disabled for all users, including you and me, until the issue is resolved. Though Edelseider mentioned this discussion on the Flickr2Commons discussion page, and that discussion seemed to suggest a low probability of the tool being fixed. A possible suggestion is a semi-manual way of uploading using the regular UploadWizard, but it is not ideal for users who may have some erratic real life schedules or things to do like me, because descriptions as well as {{Flickrreview}} may need to be manually added. I agree to a possible replacement of Flickr2Commons that would be maintained by the community instead of a single user. I may have made an off-topic comment but this is one input that I wanted to say regarding this issue on widely-used Flickr2Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I strongly oppose disabling Flickr2Commons. I use it quite a bit, and would find it very inconvenient not to have it. - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: {{Flickrreview}} is added automatically when Using Upload Wizard, and yes, the descriptions have to be added manually with that toll where there is none, but you have the option to "copy all informations to the other files", i.e. it is enough to write the description, add the categories, supply any tag etc. once. --Edelseider (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
of these two files; here (now here) and here
This could have been prevented by using Upload Wizard.
I use Upload Wizard, because Upload Wizard shows a warning for each individual file, if that exact same file already exists on Commons. When I see that warning, I do not upload that file. That is why I prefer to use it. Also, minutes ago I checked on this file on Flickr using the Upload Wizard. Upload Wizard shows both duplicate files by their different file names. --Ooligan (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 Comment - @Andy Dingley, @Abzeronow, @JWilz12345 and @Adamant1
See A1Cafel's talk page for a discussion started in late September about duplicates before this pages's discussion of a "topic ban": User talk:A1Cafel#More duplicates uploaded.
A1Cafel admitted on September 30 that he uploaded 31 duplicate files to Commmons from just one Flickr album. This is the diff
Please, note that is a rate of 36% of the 84 uploaded files from this one Flickr album were duplicates of already existing Commons files. --Ooligan (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Clearly both users need to be banned from using the tool instead of just blocking it /s --Adamant1 (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 Probably a bug caused by Magnus's unfair tool settings, see above for issues linked. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Thanks. Going by the issues it looks like this has been an on going problem for years and one that he is unwilling to fix. So all the more reason to just block it IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Probably this is also a signal that whether we can still hope and trust Magnus to focus and resolve our concerns on using F2C tool, somewhat potentially, it might be a time that there should elect a new maintainer to take over the F2C source codes. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 Question Does Flickr2Commons run a duplicates check before files are uploaded? If so, why isn't it catching these cases? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk: Flickr2Commons does run a duplicate check BUT it does not recognize files that have been uploaded with another tool (for instance the Upload Wizard), and it does not recognize files when their Flickr name has been modified by the Flickr user. This makes its duplicate check quite worthless. Edelseider (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
That's odd. My understanding is that the upload wizard will give warnings broadly for if the file is on Commons already, regardless of how it was uploaded. Is there an API for this that could be easily incorporated into the Flickr2Commons codebase to improve the existing duplicate check? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk: Sadly, Flickr2Commons can only act on files it is used to upload, and I have come to the conclusion that @Magnus Manske doesn't care enough about the problem.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I just had to nominate 40 duplicate files for deletion that were uploaded using Flickr2Commons. I can understand where Jmabel is coming from, but the tool should clearly be blocked regardless of if it might inconvenience a few people. It's not like dealing with duplicate images isn't a massive hassle anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk: As I originally wrote, "Sadly, the Upload Wizard can only act on files it is used to upload".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but there are bots that (used to) put out regular outputs of duplicate uploads. I'm not 100% on how resource-intensive this is, but I feel like a duplicate check against the database might be feasible in a way that doesn't restrict the scope to merely those files uploaded via the Upload Wizard (think of files uploaded with Special:Upload, for example). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose From the above investigation comments, it looks like the initial poster of this thread does also have bad behaviors on Commons, so probably we need help from Growth team to seek if there's a way to teach both parties not to conflict eatch other anymore. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: Perhaps? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Fix the tool - A1Cafel is the not the only person to upload duplicates Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose If you dont like to clean up duplicates then push for the tool to be fixed--Trade (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 Support. if users had used f2c properly, that is, if they would add the proper categories, it's hard to miss that some files have been uploaded. they'd arrive at the categories to be added to the files while working on f2c, and see that some files are already in there.
it's possible to sometimes miss it, but long term behaviour and cases like uploading "a duplicate of his own upload on the same day just a few hours apart" shows this user is abusing this tool. RZuo (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@RZuoSo, you're guaranteeing that you won't do such behaviors by the current F2C settings? That said again and again, there are bugs within that tool, which may lead many users to easily make unwanted spam uploads, we need to fix it by pull requests, not fish someone by a bug. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
"long term behaviour" (misuse) including but not limited to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:West Virginia government's COVID-19 press conference (2020-08-28) (10 700 photos like https://www.flickr.com/photos/govjustice/albums/72157715970584281 ). RZuo (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 Support +1 to what RZuo just said. I use this tool a lot. I believe the one or two times I've made this mistake I caught it myself within minutes and was able to correct the situation almost immediately. - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Probably, it's the time to let someone to takeover source codes of Flickr2Commons tool?

As above opposition comments pointed, there are several bugs within that tool, that Magnus, probably read or not, has placed up for several years, even though some may lead Unbreak Now bugs (by our Phabricator's jargon), and by re-looking up that bitbucket, these are either unanswered, or answered by other bitbucket users who may probably not understand how to make pull requests to fix, thus, I'm currently in doubt on whether Magnus is still competent at maintaining its source codes, should there have a new programmers, that has JS professional, to takeover this tool and start a new working-able issue tracker? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support As Nom. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The ability to upload duplicates needs to be fixed regardless of the current issues with A1Cafel and I don't see that happening any other way then getting someone else to maintain Flickr2Commons given Magnus' lack of response in multiple issues having to do with it over the years. It's not like dealing with A1Cafel's chronic issues and fixing the tool are mutually exclusive either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • And that attitude towards tool developers is why no-one wants to work anywhere near the Wikimedia community. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
And what's your solution? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Even in voluntary open source projects there are still an expectation for developers to reply to reports about major bugs within several years Trade (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Information}} This year the Flickr Foundation has adopted the f2c tool. This has been annonced at VP or HD or somewhere. The WMF people can surely give more info on that. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn Please fullfill the description, source and author fields for your templates provided, otherwise your comment will be itself problem. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh, sorry , i mismatched informtation template for comment template. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Template disabled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
"This year the Flickr Foundation has adopted the f2c tool." This is not the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User Bergamota7826

Bergamota7826 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads copyrighted website (https://b2b.meteum.ai/api). He is doing the same uploads as warned Meteum (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and therefore a likely sockpuppet. Both should be blocked indefinitely. Pierre cb (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Both blocked as a precaution - they can request an unblock and explain their actions Gbawden (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

User:SHB2000

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.
Please colleagues, this thread is closed as  Not done. Thanks --A.Savin 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear admins. I have a grievance against User:SHB2000 and their persistent and repetitive harassment on the wiki. After considering this for several days, I believe the moment is finally appropriate to end my silence. This user has consistently opposed me out of all three (123) of my rfrs; why me? You have no idea how unbearable and unwelcome it is; they have made me very angry, and as a result, I hardly update Commons anymore—I'm miserable and sad right now. In addition, I submitted a request for AWB on the Simple English Wikipedia. Since they don't even edit that wiki, they went there to inform the administrators of a recent RFR failure. Since then, they have been monitoring my edits in the hopes of discovering more ways to disqualify me [30]. For the entirety of my Wiki career, they are the only user who has done this to me, and I am devastated and angry about it. No, it highlights your extreme carelessness when using AWB was the response they gave me for an incorrect modification I made on the English Wikivoyage, which they properly restored. To begin with, I was unaware of the rule's existence, and if I had, I would have followed it. They also accused me of "background behavior". They went on to claim that because of the one modification I made incorrectly, all of my edits were painful, which is completely false and shows poor judgment (see Commons:Requests for rights/Denied/AutoWikiBrowser access/2023#20 upper 2). I was upset by those statements at first, and then I became angry. I'm not sure who grants them the authority to treat people in this manner. In addition, they disapproved of my proposal on FPC Talk simply because I proposed it and I should be disapproved of and silenced at all costs. Finally, the majority of the nominations I make on FPC, they almost always go against it. I rest my case. 20 upper 14:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your lack of ability to follow even the very simple protocol of posting on this page kind of shows that SHB2000 was indeed correct in not trusting you with any additional permissions on Wikimedia Commons. TommyG (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@TommyG: What simple protocol? 20 upper 04:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Leaving me a message on my talk page notifying me of this discussion. I am only aware of it because of the ping. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@SHB2000: A ping is a perfectly good way to notify someone of something. I would certainly presume that any reasonably active user gets their pings. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
In the notes on top of the page: Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this. A09 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough – I only mentioned so because of the note at the top of this page, mentioned by A09. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Any kind of action. The cross Wiki stuff is kind of silly, but you've been acting super demanding about getting the patroller right here on Commons and SHB2000 isn't the only one who thinks you shouldn't receive it. I was actually going to oppose the request myself. So I don't think there's anything to deal with or see here in that regard. Although there might be on another Wiki, but that's kind of out of Commons' remit. I will say though that you clearly need to learn some patience and how to not be so demanding. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Why were you going to oppose? And what do you mean by I will say though that you clearly need to learn some patience and how to not be so demanding? Have I not waited 30+ days? And how am I being demanding? Please provide evidence before making such accusations. 20 upper 04:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but in this sort of matter, 30 days is pretty much nothing. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Why am I not surprised with this ANU request the slightest? I don't think I need to defend myself for simply opposing your requests when you cannot be trusted right now with those perms. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
    SHB, regarding your RFR behavior, can you please keep your comments to yourself. Please don't interfere in what doesn't concern you. What is so hard about leaving me alone? This is wiki hounding, and I won't take your behavior anymore. Why can't I be trusted with those permissions anyway? Can somebody please tell me what I did wrong. SHB, I got one last question for you and I need you to answer : Why are you targeting me? 20 upper 04:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    1. Anyone is allowed to comment in RFR; asking me to "leave [you] alone" on RFRs is a way to rack up one fewer oppose vote and does not constitute as wikihounding.
    2. For your second question, I am not targeting you, and never had the intention to, so I'm not sure what you're on about when you say "I'm not sure who grants them the authority to treat people in this manner. In addition, they disapproved of my proposal on FPC Talk simply because I proposed it and I should be disapproved of and silenced at all costs.". --SHB2000 (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Telling us that your mental health is suffering because this community doesn't trust you with advanced permissions isn't the argument you think it is; you are in fact confirming our suspicion that you're badge collecting and can't be trusted with said permissions. Your continued failure to read and follow instructions also shows that you can't be trusted with said permissions. SHB2000 is not the common thread between all of your failed applications, you are. No action is needed here, at least against SHB2000. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    @The Squirrel Conspiracy: What is badge collecting? And what instructions are you talking about? If there is anything I did to make you doubt my ability to use these permissions, I apologize and assure you that I will do all in my power to win your trust back. All I want is information to be clear and transparent. 20 upper 06:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    w:WP:HATCOLLECT is the relevant essay, if you want more info about what badge collecting is. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry for the offense SHB2000, I just want you to know how your behavior is affecting me, and I want us to understand each other and come up with a consensus. You see, I'm not here to collect hats; when I ask for rights, it's because I actually need them. According to the essay, there should be enough proof before accusing someone else of collecting hats. First of all, since I don't have any rights on any wiki, it seems reasonable that I would wish to acquire any when I need them for upkeep or, in this case, patroller permissions to reduce the backlog. Patrolling pages has always piqued my curiosity, and I've even grown rather passionate about it. I'm not lying; I'm telling the truth. Recently, the Squirrel Conspiracy has acted in a very unprofessional manner. They were really impolite to me, calling me a hat collector and said I had severe issues with maturity—a very nasty statement. Their behavior leaves me unsure of what to think. The thing that most irritates me is that, aside from the baseless charges of hat-collection, they don't seem to have any valid or reasonable explanation for refusing my request. 20 upper 09:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    Well, if multiple people are complaining about you, maybe it's not us [myself, The Squirrel Conspiracy, TommyG and Adamant1] who are the problem. SHB2000 (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    Then who is? 20 upper 11:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    You. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    Didn't do nothin wrong, but receiving so much hate for something I'm not. It's giving "You'll never receive any rights no matter how well behaved you are or how good your reasoning is, because you're a problem and nothing more than a hat-collector". Where's the evidence...that's right, there's none. Plus, Squirrel Conspiracy is so disrespectful, & u gon ignore that. I'm asking what I did wrong, but u guys keep runnin away from that question. I didn't follow the rules once, but u guys keep saying the word "repetitive", when it only occurred once, like what's that for?
    TL;DR — Why can't I receive permissions if I did nothin wrong? 20 upper 11:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    Permissions are not anyones rights - the community has to trust you to give them. Trust needs time to grow. If someone distrusts you, insisting that you should be given that trust will not bring the trust around. Try to step back for a bit and really think about what you could be doing to build trust. If you want to discuss this in more detail, feel free to message me via Wikimail. Kritzolina (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. There is nothing to be done about it. There is no "legal claim" or sth to receive a flag after a certain number of edits, after months of certain activity etc.pp... 20 upper, if some people continue to vote against you, harassment is seldom the reason. Reconsidering your own behaviour and waiting a while before re-nomination is probably the best way to go. --A.Savin 12:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, as I would never want to interact with such persons, I kindly ask for at least an interaction ban between myself and them. This user is merely a waste of my time and energy; I wish to edit Wikimedia Commons in a calm manner. Many thanks. 20 upper 08:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I would  strongly oppose an IBAN – once again, it comes out as a snarky tactic to prevent someone who largely disagrees with you from commenting. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Your viewpoint is irrelevant in this case, in my opinion. I want you to quit communicating with me; this is not a tactic at all. I'm rejecting you. I genuinely don't understand your desire to communicate with someone who has explicitly rejected you. You are not entitled to interact with anyone, and interaction is never forced. You are not required to reply to this comment; it is for you to view. I don't like to argue, so I think it's best argumentative people like you stay away from me. I'm no longer interested in RFRs at this point; I just want a peace of mind. 20 upper 13:15, 9 November 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:Shrimpdick

As much as it pains me to report such a great username this is clearly a violation on account name rules as well as a pure COM:PORN user. If they want to contribute productively they can create a more appropriately named account. Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef Gbawden (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Pamulab

In January he received a warning on his talk page User_talk:Pamulab#You_may_be_blocked_soon, but he still uploaded photos that violate copyright. Special:ListFiles/Pamulab. Many of the photos have fake licenses, even though in many cases the copyright notice is clearly mentioned on the websites. 37.109.147.39 19:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files need checking. Yann (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Noahbecksleftab

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

Persistently uploading of copyright COM:FU materials. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Warning given per COM:BP Gbawden (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Marking as done because I don't remember if this is one of the channels where the archive bot looks for checkmarks or not. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

File:1930 Ford Model-A 2022-09-03.jpg

Hello,

because of personality-topics (numberplate) I ask, if you can remove the first version this file. Thank you very much. Regards Wikisympathisant (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Wikisympathisant - I've also uploaded a version with the license plate pixelated out instead of being a fake number. If you prefer your solution you can revert my upload. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thank you for your fast realization. I prefer the plate with the numbers, but really safe is your version. What do you think? KR Wikisympathisant (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikisympathisant I don't know how plates and plate laws work where you are. Is the fake plate a valid number (I know you just changed some things to 8s) that could belong to someone else? Does that actually matter, as long as it's not another Model-A? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I had a discussion in German Wikipedia. Owners of such cars are afraid the pict is seen and people can ask for example at a insurance or authority and find such car and steal it. I can say, this idea is still strange for me, but it was told. In this case car may be very rare and if it appear in the market it would be easy give it back to the correct owner. Regards Wikisympathisant (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User Gaalkhalifah

Gaalkhalifah (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  repeats uploading images of a Saudi scientific from copyrighted site. By the user name, it seems that it is self promotion. Pierre cb (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned per COM:BP Gbawden (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Gagherman

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

Some of this user's uploads and edit summaries are wildly inappropriate, particularly Revision #820802874. (They also seem to be in some sort of strange cycle of uploading inappropriate images, then immediately nominating them for deletion.)

Omphalographer (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Username appears to translate to "gag her, man!"   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Indeffed. I'm not sure what they're actually up to, but they're clearly not here to contribute to Commons. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Joshbaumgartner’s cat renames

At Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/09#Bad category-renaming you can see how the user was called out about renaming categories in a way that’s not only terminologically subpar but also politically prurient. One full month later, Category:Brown women's eyes still exists, populated with more than 300 elements, let alone grandchild cats and other such cousin cats. This user seems to have stopped editing two weeks ago (last edit: 2023.10.17, 22:09:53), but apparently and against his promises in the ducussion, little was done to repair the acknowledged damage in the two weeks before that. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

    • @Tuvalkin: We can't really sanction someone for failing to edit, so I don't really see any possible useful action to take other than addressing him.
    • @Joshbaumgartner: I would certainly hope that if/when you return to Commons in any substantial, you make it your first order of business to clean up these categories. If I remember correctly, at our last interaction over this, you not only said you would do so, but seemed somewhat offended that I raised even the slightest doubt that you would. - Jmabel ! talk 01:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Meanwhile, crickets… And we keep unearthing further treasures in this vein, such as "Category:Gray girls' eyes". This is not just a bad case of Engrish (with a side serving of Ufology…): this is also a bad case of chutzpah, as Josh created this ridiculously inane catname by renaming/moving correctly named "Category:Girls with gray eyes"… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: as you presumably know, this is AN/U. Can you explain what sanction you are seeking against Josh for complete inactivity? I have already addressed a comment to him above. Are you suggesting that we block him for not editing? That seems a bit perverse: "You haven't edited, so we won't let you edit." Or do you have some other administrative action in mind? Yes, these are bad category names. - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Josh should have his paycheque docked for not clocking in on time. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Alright, so we just gotta move the cats ours self Trade (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley , indeed, I hereby surrender my entire year's salary for wasting time on a Mexican beach for the last few weeks instead of diligently fixing categories. But have no fear, I am back on the clock so I can make the big bucks again! Josh (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, didn’t mean to be annoying. Yes, this is AN/U, for user problems — not just for sanctions against users. Admins should be aware that this human eye color cat renamings done by Josh is even wider than it would seem and that admin action is needed:
  • Right now to revert said renamings: They all have renamed redirects, so an admin action will make reinstating the status quo much faster and simpler.
  • And futurely, as a caveat against Josh’s often seemingly good ideas which might later on fall apart due to his limitations and stubbornness.
(It’s easy to feel sorry for him over this kind of pile-on, true, but then one comes accoss yet another absurd catname…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe you could ask Joshbaungartner to move (for instance) Brown adolescent girls' eyes to Category:Brown eyes of adolescent girls?
(How are those category names rendered in other languages, anyway?) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
No need to overcomplicate — just revert this. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I would be happy to make such a move (to Category:Brown eyes of adolescent girls), if there were a consensus that was the naming format we want to go to. I'm not saying there isn't, but a lot of the calls seem to be 'return to the status quo' but the 'status quo' was already a mess of inconsistent category names and structure, so that doesn't make much sense as a real consensus. I certainly think there could be a great discussion about what these really should be named, but that's not what's happening here (nor is this the forum for such a discussion). For now, I have fixed most of the categories already, and there are still a few left for me to get to. If there is a future CfD that settles on some consistent naming or structure, I'll help implement that consensus at that time. Josh (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Josh, you know enough English to understand that phrases like "brown girls" are extremely problematic, or don’t you? The «mess of inconsistent category names» you boldly decided to add to was at least innocuous.
(I would challenge anyone to present one single of Josh’s cat renames in this subtree that constituted a net gain in terms of gammatical and terminological quality, or at least not a loss thereof, but his unwillingness to even acknowledge the main issue and immediately avoid an explosive situation pushes those concerns to a backseat and sadly justifies the choice of venue for this discussion.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh wow, I just noticed that Josh is an English native speaker. I had in my mind that he was being mislead into stringing in a row all sorts of disparate adjective nouns (to the crass results quoted above) by his native other-Germanic language with its sublte differences when it comes to word derivation and concatenation. As it is, I don’t know what to think… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated insults and bludgeoning by User:Friniate

I recently nominated some images related to Italy for deletion, which User:Friniate decided to use as a platform to repeatedly insult me, lie about what I was saying, bludgeon the conversations, and otherwise derail them an unconstructive manner.

Just a few examples of the many insults

There's also more then a few examples of them repeatedly bludgeoning discussions, even after I asked them multiple times to drop. The conversation on the Village Pump being one example, but there are plenty more. As well as more examples of insults and patently false comments.

Adamant1 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Your third link is broken. Yann (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. It should be fixed now. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The following on your part (User:Adamant1) were not the best either:
and possibly more but I haven't the patience to keep looking.
So, if you really want, I can give you both a topic ban and/or an interaction ban, but I don't see much else I can appropriately do here. I'd rather not do either. I'd rather you both try to focus on content, keep the personal issues out of the matter, and (I know this is probably too much to hope for) each make a clear statement of your case and let the other make a clear statement of their case, and after that confine yourself to good-faith questions about what the other has said/meant, rather than (1) insult each other, (2) impute motivations, and (3) both keep trying to have the last word, while often repeating yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 19:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I was going to provide a thorough answer with links and all, but I'm willing to let it down in order not to escalate further. I object an interaction ban since Adamant would clearly profit from it, not allowing me to comment on the multiple DRs that he is opening. Friniate (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I said those things multiple days into him lying, insulting me, and derailing my DRs. In no way is me saying he was repeatedly derail the discussion, which was exactly what he was doing, comparable to him repeatedly lying about and insulting me for multiple weeks. You can read look at this back and forth from 11 September. I wasn't even the one who opened it. Nor had I interacted with Friniate or opened any DRs related to Italy at that point as far as I'm aware and he started calling me a troll right out of the gate. But sure, it's totally equal and I should be topic banned because I said he was hell bent on debating strawman 2 months into him bullying me. Whatever. The fact is that Friniate's been coming after me for months now and I'm not the one instigating things here. It's totally ridiculous to act like our behavior is at all equal or that I should be sanctioned just because I got a little defense months into it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the behaviour of Adamant1 falls under the Commons:Disruptive editing guideline, more precisely the point 5 of the examples section: Creating multiple deletion requests. He is clearly abusing this privilege, and he's not new to this. He has already been blocked in Commons two times (first and second), both times regarding discussions about requests of deletions. And he was blocked precisely for trolling. I see complaints about his behaviour appear regularly and quite often on this noticeboard (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). He started since many weeks to target pictures from WLM Italy, causing a lot of damage to the website contents, damage that spread to sister projects. He do not have any knowledge of Italian law, and of Italian language either, but claims tha Wikimedia Italia, an official Chapter, contributed to upload tens of thousands of images in copyright infringement. Now I do not want to discuss the topic here, but if you think a Wikimedia Chapter is doing this massive law violation, the right way to address it is through general discussion, not opening deletion request about thousands of single pictures. Pictures which already had been authorized by copyright owners through WLM, with dozen of people working on those permissions. I can understand people losing their temper reacting to this massively disruption behaviour and trolling way of discussing. Relevant to this report is also the fact that Adamant1 was repeatedly blocked also on English Wikipedia, for disruptive editing and, how ironic: "badgering and bludgeoning". And no surprise, again, concerning deletion requests. Actually Adamant1 is indefinitely topic banned from all deletion discussions on English Wikipedia. This record is quite impressive, and as an administration myself on another Wikimedia project, I have to say I'm quite surprised such a user is left to continue freely with this behaviour. I think we need to protect Commons file from him, so a block or a topic ban it could be appropriate in my opinion. --Phyrexian ɸ 12:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment, agree with Phyrexian above, this guy is here just to play at “Deletion discussion: The Game”. Once banned from deletion discussions on en.wikipedia he basically semi-retired from there and moved to play the same game here. He's currently doing a mass-deletion after another, nominating whole categories without checking the items in them (otherwise I should assume he considers pics like File:Bangkok Panorama (2287990977).jpg not in scope, which would be even worse), on the grounds that "I'm just never sure where the line is and some clearly aren't. So I thought it would be easier to nominate them as a batch". And, based on the links above, there is not a single case where he accepts a "keep" vote without bludgeoning the discussion. It's the same pattern which led to his en.wikipedia ban, and, while I wish everyone the best, I suspect at some point it will ends the same way. --Cavarrone (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment totally agree with Phyrexian above. I also noticed many mass deletions, IHMO very distruptive. Sometimes not even not informing the author, for example in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sant'Anna (Champoluc) MrKeefeJohn (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@MrKeefeJohn: Admittedly I don't recall the situation with that particular DR, but I usually use VFC when I nominate multiple images for deletion and it should inform the uploader about the request. It's not really my issue if the tool fails to do that once in a while though. Sometimes if I nominate an image for deletion using the "Nominate for deletion" link on the side panel, it will either not add the deletion request template to the file or post it twice. So this clearly isn't an exact science that works 100% perfectly all of the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I think that you are not doing a good job for Commons. That's my opinion, I can be wrong.MrKeefeJohn (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@MrKeefeJohn: That's fine. I just wanted you to know that the specific complaint about me not informing the author about a deletion request was probably due to an error on VFCs side. I could really care less about your opinion outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with Phyrexian as well. This is a classic case of over-zealousness, apparently seldom compensated by commons-ense. Adamant, at some point, even came to affirm that the long-term solution to this would be for the people involved to follow the guidelines, not have such un-realistic expectations about what the purposes of Commons is, and to police themselves when it comes to dealing with copyright violations. Instead of treating this like a glorified pirating website... I infer from this statement that his DRs (from his viewpoint) are always correct (while they're controversial, to say the least) and the poor fellows that uploaded their files are to blame. What to think then of the instances of mass DRs opened by Adamant ended with a Keep or bogged down in theological debates, in which he, for instance, mistakes museums for private houses? Looking at this DR one doesn't know wether to laugh or cry. His over-zealousness is dangerous. He's not a lawyer, he doesn't understand Italian, he messes with lots of assumptions and throws his uncertainty as tar over other people's voluntary work. Here he shows how over-zealousness doesn't match with accuracy. DRs are a service among others, not a mission to destroy over limited knowledge of foreign laws. One doesn't *request* deletion on the basis of assumptions. Voluntary work is important as much as supposed copyright. --pequod ..Ħƕ 00:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Олег Черкасский

Олег Черкасский (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) makes confession after long history of copyright violations (both discovered and not yet): If I designated some other people’s photos as my own, it was because of laziness, it would be faster. I repeat once again: I absolutely do not care about US laws. Komarof (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. User has not uploaded anything since 8th of July. And I believe, that most of his uploads are his own work. Please nominate the rest for deletion, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Joluxx1

Joluxx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Continued uploading of copyright violations and false license attributes (claims of own works, no proof of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licenses) since previous block in August 2023. PizzaKing13 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. One month block (second block). Taivo (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Nordic9

Looks to be a Category:Sockpuppets of Oatsandcream, uploading blatant Beatles copyvios and possible hoax images of lost 1920s films again, same kind of material as earlier sock Sir Robert PerPaper (talk · contribs). SPI also opened on enwiki at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oatsandcream. Belbury (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User has since been blocked on enwiki. Belbury (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked as a precaution Gbawden (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Marchio Ephesi

Marchio Ephesi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been creating a bunch of dubious articles on en.wiki (see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquess of Ephesus and en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign House of Nicaea) and has uploaded a bunch of files here to use on en.wiki. The problem is that I doubt they're free images. Take for instance File:Coat of arms of the Count of Prousa.jpg (a typical example). Its author is listed as "Italian Heraldic Council" or, in Italian, "Consiglio Araldico Italiano" and there's no indication that the council produces and releases free images. In fact the description reads "Coat of arms of the Count of Prousa The blazon is described in a private document, deposited at the Italian Heraldic Council and protected by the applicable trademark laws." which is a pretty strong indication that the image and many uploaded by the same user are not free. Pichpich (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done I warned this user, deleted 3 copyvios, and tagged most files for missing permission. Yann (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Pichpich and @Yann. I actually have permission, but how can I provide proof of that? Sorry for being such a newbie Marchio Ephesi (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Marchio Ephesi: Please have the person who gave you permission send it directly via VRT with a carbon copy to you. Is that "oscarannunziata"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
It's the Italian Heraldic Council, I'll file an inquiry immediately and report back to you. Thanks! @Jeff G.@Yann Marchio Ephesi (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Please see the answer on your talk page. Yann (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should just see how the VRT goes here. It looks like this is someone well-intentioned, new to Commons, and confused. They could probably use some help in doing things correctly, but nothing more. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marchio Ephesi: if it is all right with you, it's probably best that you refrain from doing more uploads until we can sort this out. And don't worry about what has already been deleted: if the correspondence via VRT pans out, they will be restored. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I much appreciate @Jmabel Marchio Ephesi (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Kylie Miley

Uploads non-free content Kelly The Angel (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

ː @Kelly The Angel Please note that if you bring someone to COMːAN you are required to alert them on their talk page
ː✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Diogo Barcelos

Hello Team, I would like to highlight the behaviour of Diogo Barcelos. He is uploading obvious copyvio, but is continuing as of its upload, as of its yesterday upload : File:Capa Raimundos Acústico.jpg. Would it be possible to put a stop, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning sent, all files deleted. @CoffeeEngineer: You have to inform the user you report here. Yann (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Danielg532

Hi, User:Danielg532 is uploading image files to en:wp from where they are being cross-loaded here. Although warned previously for copyright issues, his last five uploads are all self-attributed but were actually the work of someone else. Several (most?) of these images were also originally posted to the internet with non-compatible image licenses. Not sure if this is best pursued here, CCI, or on en:wp, but suspect a deeper look at their past contributions is warranted. See:

Loopy30 (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the sources say pobably none of these images are original enough to be copyrightable and as you point out one of them already freely licensed. Although the user shouldn't be attributing the images to themselves, but that's a different issue that at least IMO doesn't warrant the complaint. People will pretty routinely attribute themselves as the author of an image that they uploaded on here. Which is probably more due to confusion about exactly the "author" field is for to begin with then intentional nefariousness on their part. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Four of these examples are unambiguous copyright violations and the fifth example contravened the sharing conditions of the Creative Commons license (failure to give attribution). Why should we consider that these images are not original enough to have been copyright-able by their original authors? Loopy30 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The sources can say they are copyrighted, but the threshold of originality is a thing. What's original about these pictures? Like what makes this image different from any other one of sea slug out there and what exactly makes it "complex enough to receive copyright protection"? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I disagree. I believe that in the U.S. those are probably eligible for copyright, unless they were taken in such an automated way (equivalent to a security camera) that no individual can take credit for them. - Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Photographs of 3D objects are almost always considered original works by the photographer. There are some exceptions but none of those seem likely to apply here. Omphalographer (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Hasn't there been several discussions on here about things like images of greek coins or other artifacts from museums and the like where the photorgraphs were determined to be PD because the object in the photograph was and it wasn't original enough on its own to retain a copyright? I don't see how this would be any different. Its not like the sea slug is copyrighted or the photographer even posed it in an unusual way or anything. So what exactly is copyrightable there? The black background? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 All these cases are obvious copyvios according to our long time use and policies, including the COM:PRP. If you disagree, you may continue your argument at the copyright VP or the undeletion requests. Darwin Ahoy! 02:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm good. Thanks for the suggestion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Persistent copyvio uploader. Final warning sent, all obvious copyvios deleted. There may be more undetected ones, though.-- Darwin Ahoy! 02:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@DarwIn: Even if the other images are COPYIO, File:Cuvierinaatlantica.jpg was CC licensed to begin with. So you can undelete it and I'll just add the proper attribution? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 That one is still not OK for Commons regardless, it's a copyvio too. Darwin Ahoy! 02:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I see now that it's licensed non-commercially. My bad. I wouldn't call that copyrighted, but still not OK for Commons regardless. Thanks anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
A permissive license is not the absence of copyright. Omphalographer (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware. I was actually saying the exact same thing a few days ago in another conversation. I just misread the comment I was responding to. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Darwin, it is File:Diacria.jpg that had the shareable license, not File:Cuvierinaatlantica.jpg as Adamant suggests. The original file source location can be found in the deleted file (I had changed the file source info and authors name in the meta info earlier today). Loopy30 (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Loopy30 ✓ Done Darwin Ahoy! 02:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: "I wouldn't call that copyrighted": CC-BY-NC, like CC-BY-SA and CC-BY, is only relevant for images that are copyrighted. Just speaking for myself, I've probably got 50,000 CC-BY images here on Commons that I shot. Clearly, I still own copyright on those images. So I'm not sure what you are meaning to say here. - Jmabel ! talk 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Honestly, me neither lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_108&oldid=824967095"