Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 113

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

User:PieterDS

Persistent copyvio uploader. Warning at their talk page had no effect. Jcb (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jcb: I notified the user on their talk page as required per the top of this page. Please remember to do so next time. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Iyassu2008

Iyassu2008 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user is uploading copyvios from Getty Images via crosswiki upload. Stepro (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

File:2024-05-01 Karmann-Ghia-VW Heckansicht.jpg

Hello,

I uploaded a version of that Karmann-car with a fake-numberplate. Could you please delete the first version?

same topic here: File:2024-05-01 Karmann-Ghia-VW.jpg , please delete the first version, too.

Thank you very much in advance. Regards, Wikisympathisant (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wikisympathisant ✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I still see the plate number here... Yann (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

problematic uploads by User:XxakixX

[1] We can leave the debate over whether Commons should be hosting creeper shots of possibly underaged girls for another day, as these are all clearly watermarked with a copyright notice and therefore should not be hosted on Commons. Just Step Sideways (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: They appear to be correctly licensed on Flickr. Are you saying that you have reason to think the "NiteLiter" account on Flickr is not legitimately the account of the photographer? the account's URL (https://www.flickr.com/photos/joe-merritt/) matches the name on the watermark. There is no contradiction between a copyright-notice (watermark or otherwise) and a CC license: you can issue a CC license only if you have a copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself: if we delete all copyrighted photos on Commons, about 55,000 of my uploads need to be deleted, because I absolutely own the copyright on them and certainly reserve the right to sue anyone who uses them without proper attribution and won't fix that when contacted. I don't use watermarks, but a watermark like this is a perfectly valid mechanism to make it nearly impossible to fail to give credit. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The scope issue is a whole different matter, but that would be a normal DR. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with Jmabel about the watermark and statement of ownership being no reason for deletion. (Creative Commons licenses are a form of copyright. While the "c" symbol more commonly indicates all rights reserved, in context it is clear that is not the photographer's intention, since a more specific cc license is specified.) From a quick look, both Commons user XxakixX and the Flickr photographer mentioned seem to have good in scope contributions combined with what seems blatant voyeurism. I agree that "creeper" shots are a problem, though off hand am unsure of the best way to minimize them beyond deletion requests. ("Don't be a creeper" seems a good guideline, but may not be very useful without specific definitions.) So I *do* think there should be some discussion "over whether Commons should be hosting creeper shots", but the issue is wider than User:XxakixX -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose any action per Jmabel (the DR can be dealt with separately). I do not think there is any specific behavioral issue that needs to be discussed here any further. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I just started a mass deletion request for some of these images at Commons:Deletion requests/Creepshots uploaded by User:XxakixX (I don't think that descriptor is unfair here) but there's hundreds if not thousands of these images, most not included in the DR (as I have not gone through hundreds of the uploads) and they're still going. I left a message on xakixX's user page but the uploads have thus far continued unabated. David Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for that David, we can go that route. I admit I apparently jumped to certain conclusions upon seeing the watermarks. Just Step Sideways (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Iyassu2008 (2)

Iyassu2008 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

The user uploaded a copyrighted billboard, despite having been informed copyrighted material uploads are not acceptable on Commons. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@CoffeeEngineer: I think you were looking for the word "warned".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Jgannon03

User:Jgannon03 uploads lots of pictures of persons (presumably ASUW students) which are not in Commons:Scope and not necessarily published under commons-compatible license. GeorgR (de) (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@GeorgR (de)  Not done Warned. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File:2024-05-01 230SL-Mercedes closed.jpg

Hello,

first I have to apologize: I uploaded the pict named above from wrong folder, so ot does not have an anonymous numberplate. Please remove the first version. Thank you very much in advance. Regards, Wikisympathisant (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wikisympathisant: FYI, this is the wrong board, as there is no user issue here. In such a case, nominate the file for deletion. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes and no: If I nominate for deletion, as far as I know, that takes much time ... And the new file need's a new name, doesn't it? Yesterday Mdaniels5757 16:17, 2 May 2024 (see above) deleted the wrong version quite fast. So from my point of view it is the right place. And ofcourse I will try to avoid such mistakes, this is not a habit. KR Wikisympathisant (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Speedy deletions with G7 as reason are normally processed very fast. If you add that you only want the old version hidden and not the current version deleted this is also possible with a comment in addition to the G7 statement. GPSLeo (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I still see the plate number here... Yann (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: looks like he made up a fake but plausible one. - Jmabel ! talk 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
exact, a fake. Regards, Wikisympathisant (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Right, suggested personalized faux nameplate for the future: FAUX.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Billy Hathorn

Context: [2]

This user is the subject of both a community ban and a checkuser block at en.wp, and the account has probably been compromised, according to en.wp checkusers. They are importing issues from en.wp to Commons and deliberately violating copyrights. In short, a troll. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Already done globally locked. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
that was fast. Just Step Sideways (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism and edit waring by User talk:Broichmore

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

A while ago I had added several categories related to postcards and where the picture was taken to File:Restaurant Ship 'Cabrillo' and Venetian Gardens, Venice, Cal. Pc-002-832.tif. @Broichmore: subsequently removed the categories with the changeset message "Tidying up." Which I then reverted, leaving them a message on their talk page asking them to not remove the categories again since they are perfectly valid. They ignored my talk page message and then reverted my edit with the comment that they can remove the categories if they want to because they uploaded the image, which I don't think is a valid reason. Removing categories from images whole cloth for no reason and then continuing to do so despite the other person trying to discuss it is clearly vandalism, regardless of if the it's being done by the original uploader. So I'd appreciate it if an admin could tell @Broichmore: that they don't own images they upload, other people are allowed to put them in relevant categories, "tidying up" isn't a valid reason to edit war someone. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Normally, if an image is in Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs, we don't add other topical categories to the TIFF, only to the corresponding JPEG. That's the whole point of this category: avoid having the image appear twice in each category, make the JPEG highly visible to be used, keep the TIFF to something editors, etc. can find if they need it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
And while you were both edit warring, no one here was vandalizing and, @Adamant1, I expect you to withdraw that accusation. - Jmabel ! talk 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs is useless. It should not have existed in the first place. How are we to know that these TIFF files exist if they are not categorized? I have discovered many by luck, left alone, not linked to anything. Creating this category and uploading files without any other categories was a very bad idea. Yann (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I have to agree with Yann here. It doesn't make sense or follow the guidelines to have files in a single category. We don't do it with other file types either. For instance it's perfectly fine to put PNGs in the same category as JPGs. So I don't really see what the difference is. Maybe there's an extremely small benefit when it comes to "visual duplication in other categories", but that's far out weighed by people not knowing the images exist to begin with because they are essentially hidden in a single category no one is going to look through or cares about. As to the accusation of vandalism, I could be miss-remembering but I'm pretty sure I was blocked a while back for "vandalism" due to making similar types of edits. If it was vandalism when I did it then I don't see why it wouldn't be here. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: we know because they are linked from the respective JPEGs. There are relatively few reasons someone would need a TIFF unless they wanted a master version to manipulate, or a maximally accurate copy for print. It is a much less web-friendly format. - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Was there ever a discussion about it? If I look up "Tiff and JPEG" on the Village Pump there's upwards of results and none of the ones I looked at seem relevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I don't know where this was originally discussed. I think it was originally specific to a large import from the U.S. National Archives and then the principal was expanded.
But I'm more concerned here about you accusation that this is vandalism, because you brought this to COM:AN/U, not some place appropriate for discussing categorization policy. And I still think you ought to back down on that, quite independent of the categorization issue. I might or might not have bothered to do anything if this file crossed my path, but if I had then it would have been more or less what Broichmore did. So as far as I'm concerned, you've as good as called me a vandal. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: OK. Broichmore had said at one point that it was discussed somewhere before and that there was consensus to do things that way. That seems wrong if it was originally specific to am import from the U.S. National Archives. I think your to hung up on the "vandal" thing though. As I said, I was blocked for doing similar edits a while ago due to them being "vandalism." So that's how I characterized it when I opened this for lack of a better description, and again, because an administrator said it was vandalism when I did the same type of edits myself.
That said if it's not vandalism, fine. I was simply phrasing it how an administrator had characterized similar edits in the past. I could really care less about what specific word you use to describe things though. I still don't think the categories should have been removed regardless. Although it at least makes more sense now at least for files from the Library of Congress, but I don't think every TIFF file with a corresponding JPEG image needs to be uncategorized. I certainly don't see how there's a consensus to do it that way more broadly if it was original only for the files related to the Library of Congress. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
An earlier discussion from 2011 onwards, for handling tiff files is at Category talk:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs.
There are probably other threads. This strategy of what we do with tiffs and jpegs is meant to resolve universal problems we have with all similar files, not just those from the LOC.
Here's a village pump note from 2013 by Tony Wills that puts the most important extra dimension to the discussion. (The problem of "duplicates" is not one simply of wasted storage space, or even of wasted resources in terms of time and effort that goes into describing/categorizing each one - these are only problems for us maintainers of the database entry. It is the logical problem of having two separate, probably different sets of descriptions, licensing and categories for exactly the same image - a real problem for users of the image (If both images have identical description pages then it makes no difference to the actual users of the image that we have two copies).)
I notice that you are continuing this edit war by reverting again my original edits, while this discussion which you started is ongoing; containing escalating accusations of ‘’borderline vandalism’’ within a few minutes to clearly vandalism. If you want to change things here, why, is this the forum chosen if your intent is not malicious. Broichmore (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not defending duplicate files here. I think they are a problem as much as the next guy. That's a separate issue then dealing with them by putting the files in a single category where no one can find them though, and like I've said, that's not how we handle duplicate images in any other instance. I don't see any consensus in any of the discussions you've linked to for only putting TIFF files in Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs either. The discussion from Category talk:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs seems to be mostly unresolved and several people said they don't see why both TIFF and JPG files shouldn't both be in the relevant categories.
So I'll ask you again, where was it discussed and agreed on that TIFF files can, or should, only be categorized in Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs? And maybe skip the side point about duplicate files in general this time since I don't even disagree they are a problem, but it's tangential to your solution of only putting the images in one category and then edit waring me over it.
Also, I'm not sure what your talking about when you say I'm continuing it. Your the one who continued reverting me after I left you the message on your talk page instead of replying. All you had to do was reply, provide a link to were it was decided that TIFF images should only go in a single category like I asked you for, and there wouldn't have been an issue. The whole process on here is to "revert and discuss," not ignore the second step and continue reverting. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we can close this in terms of COM:AN/U, in that there is no problem with Broichmore's conduct, certainly not one meriting administrative sanction, and certainly nothing here amounts to vandalism. If someone want to open a discussion in an appropriate venue about either raising this approach to Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs to a general guideline, saying it applies only to files from certain GLAMs, or getting rid of it entirely, fine, but that is not an administrative matter.

One last thing in terms of "vandalism": it is one thing to say that someone's edits, for example, "have the same effect as deliberate vandalism" or "might as well be vandalism," but when you accuse someone of actual vandalism, you are saying that they willfully and knowingly made edits with the intention of damaging Commons. That is a major charge. If sustained, and if there is any reason to think the account will edit again, it almost always means a block, usually means an indef block, and (if done by an admin) would probably be sufficient grounds for de-adminship. It is not a charge to be thrown around lightly. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point, I have no problem with the practice for something like GLAMs where clutter and organization is clearly an issue. I don't really see the point in it applying more broadly to every instance of someone uploading a TIFF and JPEG of the same image though. In this case there was only a couple of images in the relevant categories to begin with. So "cluttering" was a none issue. My main problem was Broichmore's refusal to discuss things and instance that they were right simply because they uploaded the images, which ultimately has nothing to do with the broader subject. Although the whole thing also just super petty and benial to begin with. So I'm not going to push it beyond this last message either. Good to know that all I have to do to get my way if I ever get in a disagreement with someone is ignore their messages and continue reverting them while claiming I own the files though. Duly noted. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE FURTHER EDITS TO THIS SECTION. If you really have some truly relevant AN/U matter to discuss here, start a subsection. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Continuing Copyrights violation

even after receiving warning for uploading violating copyrights rules by user Behnam9395 still act continues. Main theme are art works such as Tangetikabkazerun15.jpg / Tangetikabkazerun11.jpg and needs admin acts / also files added delete tags. [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Shams948 (continued)

Copy from the last page:

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shams948 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues with his disruptive behavior regarding the opening & renaming proper categories, despite friendly advises and warnings. The issue is summarized on his talk page:

  1. In March 2022, I asked him not to change the names of categories. He obeyed only for a few months and then continued as before.
  2. In December 2023, I repeated the request that he not play with categories, elaborated on the individual problems he was doing, and friendly offered my help in further categorization. His response shows that he considers the Commons a battleground as he threatens that the edits must be returned to his desired state, and he even indulges in crazy conspiracy theories about being stalked by the Ministry of Intelligence (Persian text).
  3. A few days ago, the same story again: he opens meaningless categories, changes correct category names to wrong ones, adds unnecessary parent categories, mixes cities, villages and counties, etc. Everything as before.

It is obvious that the user is beyond repair and will continue to do damage regardless of warnings. IMHO, deserves either a penalty or at least an admin warning. --Orijentolog (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: Please remember to notify the user in question next time. I've done it for you this specific instance. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
با عرض سلام و ارادت؛ اینجانب فقط در حوزه سرزمینی خود فعالیت می‌نمایم و قصد تخریب یا خرابکاری ندارم. این صفحات حوزه سرزمینی بنده است و مایل به ارتقاء و تقویت آن هستم. اما به نظر می‌رسد از داخل ایران برخی اماکن دولتی مایل به درز اطلاعات به جهان نیستند و در این باره کارشکنی میکنند مانند این مدیر عزیز. Orijentolog
طرف ما در ایران، مدیران ویکی‌ها نیستند. طرف ما نخست جمهوری اسلامی، سپس دولت، و بعد از آنها مدیران فرهنگستان زبان ایران، و بعد وزارت اطلاعات و بعد سپاه پاسداران که همه می‌خواهند از درز اطلاعات واقع به جهان ممانعت به عمل آورند. با سپاس از همه دوستان ضد سانسور. Shams948 (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Again w:Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory accusations that I'm "an agent of government" which is allegedly "trying to censor something". --Orijentolog (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No admin reacted, so user continues to open baseless, illiterate categories. Can someone please help? --Orijentolog (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done? One week block. Next block can be longer. Last edits are reverted. Taivo (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Korishoulddie99

Vandal. 186.174.134.132 04:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Their single upload should probably be deleted since it's clearly a selfie. I don't know if that alone would qualify them as a vandal at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This comment shows you look superfically at things. Look at user name, file history, how it was used (in Wikidata and Wikipedia)... 186.174.134.132 04:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the user name is about, but the file isn't being used on Wikidata or Wikipedia. So I don't see an issue there. You really should have been more descriptive when you created this if there was actually an issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
At least notice that the file describes "penis", "pig", "monster" etc! 186.174.134.132 04:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Also learn to check the global contributions of vandals, including those deleted within minutes... 186.174.134.132 04:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know "penis" isn't a banned word on here. So I'm not sure what your point is. You clearly having an issue describing the problem though. BTW, it seems that you didn't notify the user about this ANU complaint. I'll spare you the comment about how you should learn to file an ANU complaint properly next time before opening one, but please do it in the future. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the account indefinitely, because it was created solely to harass somebody. In addition username: for me every username with "should die" in name is very bad. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree about the user name. For some reason I read it as one long word that made no sense. Totally inappropriate user name though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Manchanda Realtorss

Manchanda Realtorss (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - Spam account. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, page deleted. Yann (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Requesting mass deletion of @DeepstoneV: 's uploads.

I have nominated their recently uploaded pictures [3][4] for deletion due to ambiguous copyright information. And a cursory glance at their contribution reveals that almost all of their uploads are copyright violations in one form or another.

For example:

  • This is a zoomed in version of this file [5]
  • This is a higher contrast version of this [6]

To save the community's time i believe any willing admin should scrutinise their uploads. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Gerwin171717

Gerwin171717 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Upload Copyrighted Video game files. メイド理世 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Jinmez23

Jinmez23 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. Yann warned the user once more. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Dronebogus name calling and bad faith comment

Dronebogus reported my post as porn. I point out images that are more obviously porn and he started name calling in bad faith NuManDavid (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Just an FYI, but COM:PORN is a thing and at some of the files in that DR clearly seem to cross the line. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
BTW, you should also notify @Dronebogus: about this on their talk page per the text at the top "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s)." Although I'm sure they know about it now since I just pinged them, but it's still good practice regardless. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Literally all I said was “I don’t know why you’re citing the only two quality videos of gay anal sex on Commons in contrast to your low-quality heterosexual pics, unless it’s to come across as homophobic.” (Emphasis retroactive) Instead of refuting or at least just respectfully disagreeing with them, you report me. This is a frivolous bad-faith request; if you don’t want your posts nominated for deletion as porn, or people to think you’re homophobic, don’t post porn or make comparisons that obviously could be read as homophobic (which I never called the user or even thought the user was). Dronebogus (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 Not done No admin action needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I warned NuManDavid and deleted the files. Yann (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed User:Yann's previous notice on their talk page, and it seems like they are continuing to upload the same copyrighted images seemingly for advertisement purposes, see Special:Contributions/Mipagolf. Palemeditation (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files were already deleted by Jonatan Svensson Glad. Yann (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, sorry - forgot to block. Thanks Yann! --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Hatomizinko3 Hatomizinko3 insults using photo description ＋ Multiple account operation

This is a story in the Japanese version, but I wasn't sure where to report it, so I decided to report it here.Hatomizinko3 used the photo description to insult me ​​for posting a photo taken with an old camera. I warned him in a user note on the Japanese version of Wikipedia, but he not only recruited me, but also insulted me by saying that the quality of the photos was poor. While we were discussing how to respond, he threatened to find me and told me he didn't care if I was blocked because he would keep posting pictures on the commons. He runs another account on Commons called Hatomizinko. ジョンドウ (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@ジョンドウ: when you posted here, you should have put a notice at User talk:Hatomizinko3. I have now done that for you. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
At File:ジャスティンミラノ 皐月賞 優勝時.jpg, according to Google translate, the original caption "EOSKissX4ごときでとられた写真を貼るんじゃねーよ" means "Don't post photos taken with something like EOSKissX4." @ジョンドウ: I'm not immediately sure why that is supposed to be an insult to you in particular. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "recruited," that word makes no sense here.
The remark here seems a bit out of line, especially the apparent obscenity of "クソ面白いです, " which I suspect is more extreme in Japanese than its English equivalent. But that is on ja-wiki, not Commons. Similarly for the last link: again, a bit rude, probably particularly unacceptable in Japanese, but I don't see anything that amounts to a threat to "find you." - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The word "ごとき" is a word that looks down on the subject and has the meaning of discriminating against old cameras.I don't think it's acceptable to make comments that discriminate in editorial policy because the camera is old. Intimidation refers to the part where both parties "meet and talk" knowing that each other will be at the racetrack. He feels that a person can be identified by the camera model. ジョンドウ (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User:PoundinMyCock4U

Inappropriate username. Dronebogus (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Blocked per Commons:Username policy. --Túrelio (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Now globally locked + hidden. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Alice0815

Alice0815 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Indiscriminately mass-nominated a bunch of files with the same rambling, incomprehensible rationale; mostly posting this here so someone with more patience than will see this and speedy close all these frivolous, invalid nominations. Dronebogus (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Not the first problem from this account. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I concur, seems to be a rambling form of en:WP:IDONTLIKEIT. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive_22#Alice0815.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: same link I posted.
However, it looks like these are all pictures of one person, a cross-dressed man or MTF transsexual (can't guess from images how someone identifies), many with potentially disparaging file names, and this person seems to be saying it is them, that these were accidentally given free licenses on Flickr, that they are scrubbing them from Flickr and would like them scrubbed here. If I understand correctly, that would be a reasonable courtesy deletion request.
@Alice0815: if I have understood that correctly, please say so here and I would support a courtesy deletion request. Since these are all the same issue, this really should have been done as a Mass deletion request and you certainly should have written the rationale more coherently, but those aren't enormous issues.
I will ask Alice0815 not to make any further edits before replying here. If they abide by that, no need for a block. - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this user is the person appearing in those photos, some of these files need to be renamed. Regardless of how the Flickr uploader originally titled the image, a filename describing the subject of a photo as a "sissy prostitute" (for example) seems inappropriate. Omphalographer (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Amaterasu_1-1

After releasing from block, this user restarted uploading copyvio or unfree logos and these files were removed; File:Logo workman.svg, File:Logo Far Eastern Federal University.svg and File:ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs Emblem.svg. Netora (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. 3 months block (third block). Taivo (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Malttew9983 and socks

The three accounts are the same user, focused with uploading the same political flags, there are requests and speedy deletions but the user creates new accounts with the same objective (changing slightly the name of file). Taichi (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked them all. Taivo (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Malversation

Bonjour, Un contributeur juge une personne d'extrême-droite alors que c'est une liste citoyenne composée de 81 personnes. Sachant qu'il y a des personnes de tout bord politique à l'intérieur. Gauche radicale, gauche, communiste, droite, centre, etc...

Il ne s'est même pas renseigné sur toutes les personnes présentent mais affiche que tout le monde est d'extrême-droite. Pourriez-vous y remédier ? Car c'est de la discrimination pour les 80 autres personnes.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_listes_aux_%C3%A9lections_europ%C3%A9ennes_de_2024_en_France

Je vous remercie Archess Ney (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  • @Archess Ney: what, if anything, does this have to do with Wikimedia Commons, let alone a problem with the behavior of a specific user on Wikimedia Commons? I don't see the connection. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Archess Ney: Bonjour, Cela ne semble pas avoir de rapport avec Commons (ce site-ci). S'il y a un problème sur fr.Wikipédia, il faut vous adresser à fr.Wikipédia. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

A.I. generated "enhancements" by Riad Salih

I have noticed and encountered a number of files related to Algeria were overwritten with watermarked "enhancements" (colorization, upscales) showing clear A.I. artifacting from User:Riad Salih in the past few years, some of these also have doutable sourcing information (they seem like Flickr washing, but they are all PD from what I know). This raises obvious concerns per COM:OVERWRITE, COM:AI, and COM:WATERMARK. I am unaware of the full extent of these "enhancements" and I can't revert this myself (I am not autopatrolled) so I deemed this worth raising to the noticeboard, here are some instances:

File:Colonel Amirouche.jpg - overwritten with upscaled, watermarked, and colored, used as infobox photo

File:Mustapha Ben boulaid.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, used as infobox photo

File:Arrestation de Larbi Ben M'Hidi.jpg - colored, upscaled and watermarked, used in Wikipedia

File:Ali la Pointe-bennacer.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked

File:Une délégation du FLN au Caire.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked

File:1975 Algiers Agreement.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked

File:Amar Ouamrane.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, infobox

File:Taleb Abderrahmane.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, infobox

File:Krim belkacem.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, infobox

File:L'arrestation de Zohra Drif en 1957.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, infobox

File:Fatiha Bouhired.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, infobox

File:Mohamed Lamouri & Amirouche Ait Hamouda & Ali N'mer.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, wikipedia

File:Mohamed-Larbi-Ben-M'hidi-avant-l'exécution.jpg - upscaled and watermarked

File:Danielle Michel-Chich (guerre d'Algérie).jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, wikipedia

File:Benkhedda 19march62.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked

Thank you very much. NAADAAN (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

While probably any of these would be acceptable as derivative works, absolutely none of them should overwrite the originals. I'll revert them all; someone else can address User:Riad Salih about this. @NAADAAN, I don't see anywhere on his user talk page where you notified him of this discussion. Am I missing something, or did you skip a required step? - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Notification got reverted. NAADAAN (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel No rush, I will provide an answer. Thank you. Riad Salih (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Reverted all except File:Mohamed-Larbi-Ben-M'hidi-avant-l'exécution.jpg, which is Riad Salih's own upload (for which he appears, unfortunately, not to have provided the original documentary photo). - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I think this is settled now unless I find more instances of overwritten "enhancements". NAADAAN (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Or, no need for a full explanation; it's just a waste of time. Thanks, Jmabel, for the revert, even though it happened a year ago. I have already reverted most of the pictures, except for the ones I overlooked.
I restored over 100 pictures without using AI, (01, 02, 03) as it requires significant effort to restore them. Most of the pictures were not processed by AI, with only a few exceptions. I don't want to receive any more notifications; one notification is sufficient. The background of this nomination revolves around the Algeria/Morocco war.
If the person who initiated the nomination genuinely cared about authenticity, they could have kindly asked me to restore the pictures. It seems they are more interested in scrutinizing my account for potential issues, as we regularly engage in editing on the English Wikipedia.
Wishing everyone a pleasant day Riad Salih (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I notified you because it was a requirement for this message board. I am not aware of any "Moroccan-Algerian war" happening since 1963 so I have no clue what this is about, this has nothing to do with English Wikipedia. Please COM:AGF rather than portraying me as someone who "[does not] care about authenticity", neither of us are autopatrolled, so I did not think it would be possible to revert them without any intervention -- I commend you for having reverted some photographs before. Hope this clears up some things NAADAAN (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Affandy Abdul Rahman Saleh Lee Ully

Affandy Abdul Rahman Saleh Lee Ully (talk · contribs) contributions appear to be all spam. - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him indefinitely as spam-only user. Taivo (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

The user included the whole PDF file OCR-ed content into file description page File:William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir.pdf. As Commons is not intended to host document texts nor such content is permited by out guide, I removed the OCR. And this action was reverted by the uploader. I consider this revert to be vandalism. Please, resolve the dispute between us. Ankry (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not it's within policy, I really struggle to understand why you think this is vandalism. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Because it is reverting proper action without discussion. Ankry (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
That's not vandalism. You could call it a revert war or an edit war, but vandalism is an attempt to deliberately damage/disrupt the project, and that doesn't describe RAN. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • At Commons:Village pump no one could point to a specific rule banning the combination of text and image of a document. We have over 100,000 djvu and pdf files with embedded text, as I pointed out prior to the reversal. Ankry directed us to Commons:Guide to layout but has not quoted a specific rule. We are currently migrating older formats for books (jpg pages or pdf for a multi page document) to the djvu format because it contains the text. --RAN (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Should we delete all the text contained in Djvu files too? I don't see the difference between storing on the page and storing it within the Djvu file, they take up the same amount of space. We also have over 1,000 news articles with text that are not at Wikisource, not every document is welcome there. Can someone point to a rule that demands deleting transcribed text? Eventually we will have a tool at Commons that allows us to create Djvu files directly, and the text and image can be merged. Calling it vandalism is just silly. --RAN (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Not to take a position on it either way at this point, but what's the actual benefit to it on our end and how do you think it fits with this mainly, if not exclusively, being a media repository? Because it seem like from reading through both discussings is that your only justification amounts to "other stuff" or "but there's no rule against it." --Adamant1 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. Assuming this is, indeed, in the public domain, I think this belongs on WikiSource, not Commons, and the text content probably should be moved there. They are much better set up to handle content like this.
  2. @Ankry: in what sense do you consider this "vandalism"? What has been damaged, let alone willfully damaged? I certainly do not believe RAN should be sanctioned for having done this on Commons rather than WikiSource. (Continuing to do this against an apparent consensus might be another matter.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    I agree, RAN didn’t do any vandalism. It is a content dispute. No block is required. Only if as Jmabel said, if there is a consensus that states this should be only on wikisource or if there is a disruptive edit war (in which case both parties would be possibly blocked or the file protected), but we are not anywhere near that. Bidgee (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: I doubt if this text is in scope of Wikisource. They require clear information about publication. I doubt if distributing few copies privately can be considered publication (per Wikisource standards). Maybe, I Indeed misuse the term vandalism. I consider reverting a proper action to be disruptive. Ankry (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    If it is allowed on Commons, then the text should be in scope for WS (and vice-versa). I mean if it is not considered published by WS standards, then it should not stay on Commons either. Yann (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • If there is no section on the user talk page, and there is no discussion page on the file talk, the dispute shouldn't be here. GMGtalk 14:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that RAN has been actively trying to disrupt the project, as I have stated on the deletion request of that memoir. The file is doubtfully in scope. Well, then, a remedy was put into effect by RAN so that the file was used in another Wikimedia project: they created a Wikidata item describing the memoir. Wikidata items are in scope of that project if they are linked within the project or from other Wikimedia projects. As a result the item and the file is in scope in both Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. If that isn't an intention to deceive the rules, I am the biggest fool of all. --Bedivere (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Intentionally uploading an unpublished manuscript to Commons against the wishes of the person's heirs and by lying about being related to them has to go against some guideline to. It doesn't that aspect of this has been sufficiently addressed or dealt with on RANs side other then just ignoring it while deflecting either. Regardless, I think the IP editor made it clear in their last email to RAN that the document was private and that they didn't it republished anywhere, which RAN seems to have ignored. So this whole thing clearly goes against at least the whole "republication and distribution must be allowed" thing in Commons:Licensing if not other guidelines. I find it hard to believe RAN didn't know that before uploading the file considering how long they have been an editor for either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. I think some sanction is warranted but I'm not the one issuing it. Bedivere (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
They have also uploaded several (I've run across many) copyright violations, which I have deleted. Many, tons, of files correspond to irrelevant people and if you look closely, RAN has been using Commons and Wikidata as a FamilySearch-esque repository, creating items for completely irrelevant people, also by stealing and claiming as own work photos that aren't actually his. This is very disrupting behavior. I am nominating a very large number of files for deletion, and while there may be some exceptions, most correspond to these non notable people. What a waste of time and yet they claim otherwise! Bedivere (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
(responding to Adamant1) As pointed out multiple times, an unpublished manuscript enters the public domain 70 years post mortem auctoris under United States copyright law. This document entered the public domain in 2010. Commons:Licensing involves releasing a document or image that is under an active copyright under a creative commons license or voluntarily releasing a document that is under an active copyright into the public domain. You continue to misrepresent United States copyright law. Both Bedivere and Ankry are harassing me in tandem, my single edit was not "vandalism" nor should I be blocked for a single edit: "Stop disrupting the project. Do not readd the text or you will get blocked". This is a huge amount of drama over a single edit. See entry below concerning punitive nominations. As to: "against the wishes of the person's heirs", I am sure every book that has entered the public domain is opposed by the heirs, who wish to continue to monetize it. See for example. --RAN (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
(responding to Bedivere) Sorry, but I beg to differ about scope. We all have our own pet subjects. I don't see any issue if RAN uses Commons to document history of some (obscure) families. IMO anything historical is within scope, whether it is famous or not. Please do not reduce Commons scope because the subject doesn't interest you. Your deletion request was inappropriate, and I thank you for closing it. Copyright issues should be addressed separately. Yann (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Yann, I think we can agree to disagree on this one. :-) btw could you please reformat RAN's comment above? I didn't respond to that as it would seem like it Bedivere (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I had responded to Adamant. Bedivere (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
RAN has a rather tendentious habit of replying by starting a new line and then vaguely appealing to a third person instead of actually responding to what the original user was saying. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The most fundamental tenet of our Commons:Scope is clear: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose … if it is in use, that is enough ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope." (my emphasis added). Please see evidence below of Bedivere retaliating against me/harassing me by nominating a huge tranche of my uploads for opposing him in this debate. --RAN (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

See the talk page of User:Kedar.pawarr. This user has uploaded multiple image that have been deleted as copyright violations. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning sent, file deleted. Yann (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. After warning the user re-uploaded content deleted per community consensus. One month block. No good edits from the user. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Socks > Millat Ahmad

Here you can see socks. Can admin here take action based on Meta's CU? AntanO 06:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked two accounts (another is unregistered here). Tagged. Bedivere (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

TornadoLGS Is trying to sabotage my page

He or she claims the photo I’ve uploaded is in violation of copyright. Which is false, the image is my sole property. You guys allow bullying on this app? HaterSlayer357 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done TornadoLGS correctly identified that HaterSlayer357 uploaded an image previously published on Twitter and tagged it as a copyvio. (It's also very likely out of scope). See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Sharissa_2024.jpg for more details. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Booooooooooooooo!
Thank you! HaterSlayer357 (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Mike Littlejohn/Garfield Fan 2005 sock

Globally blocked user trolling userpages. [8] Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done indefblocked, reverted Bedivere (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:RandomGamer6029

Likely sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Finals123 (cf. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 95#Finals123), given similar editing patterns. Omphalographer (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Obvious DUCK. Blocked and reverted. Tagging as socks. Bedivere (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

TA-2023

TA-2023 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user's uploads need investigation. Unlikely to be own works, and this account might be a sock of S-M-T-AA (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), now globally locked, for reuploading File:Ali Ahmadzadeh.jpg. Knowledge of Farsi might help. Yann (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Hello, I checked the files uploaded by this sock account and added the required tags to those images that were in violation of copyright, but the IP address 5.127.34.163 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) which is most likely S-M-T-AA sock removes them. Please revert the edits of this IP and lock the files so that the deletion process can be done correctly.

The above accounts are all related to the "S-M-T-AA" account, two of which have been blocked on Persian Wikipedia for this reason, and the rest have the same contributions as the main account.CaesarIran (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks a lot. All accounts blocked or locked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@CaesarIran: I reported the new ones to m:srg#Global lock for S-M-T-AA socks and they were locked and the IP was blocked thanks to EPIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
What about Mohsen Mousavi 1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)? He also uploaded a picture of the same person. Yann (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to you, this account is most likely the "S-M-T-AA" account sock. Also, the mentioned image violates the copyright. Because the IRNA site has copyright.CaesarIran (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked too, files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
... and locked.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Hello, thank you for your help, please request the global lock of these three user accounts above, which are actually S-M-T-AA accounts and have been closed in Persian Wikipedia for this reason. Thank you again.CaesarIran (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@CaesarIran: Have you tried doing this yourself? @EPIC: Do you take requests like this from outside Meta?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Done, all locked. Yes, it does not matter much, but requests for global locks can be posted at m:SRG for transparency. EPIC (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikidude2243

User:Wikidude2243 is adding numerous images claiming they are his/her own work. I have identified 3 already that are clear copyvios: [9], [10] and [11] and there are a number of other photos which they clearly did not take, but which I am unable to find the original version for speedy delete purposes. Mztourist (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done I deleted almost everything, and warned this user. Yann (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
sad moment Wikidude2243 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. After warning Wikidude uploaded more copyright violations. I blocked him for a week and nominated one more image for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan el Yoni arenas and Jose de plata

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, everything is deleted. Yann (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Eldin Comic welcher nie online kommt

This user is conducting an uncalled för edit war, see Category:Rudi Dutschke (hist • logs • abuse log). Here he writes (in German) that he will f*uck me. Please, block Eldin Comic welcher nie online kommt (talk · contribs) for utter profanities. Disembodied Soul (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The user Eldin Comic welcher nie online kommt has been permanently blocked on German Wikipedia, see [12]. Disembodied Soul (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done by Aka. Yann (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Denisjcroux

Denisjcroux (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Uploads some thumb photos without Meta data of French personalities, many of which have been deleted for copyvio and have been reloaded in some cases. All his uploads should be checked and deleted if not conform to GDFL. Pierre cb (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:BMarGlines

User indefinitely blocked for disruptive behavior. All files deleted, but some have since been restored per the request of the user who first reported BMarGlines, as they were used on the English Wikipedia and seem to be legitimate. --Bedivere (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2024 (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.

This user appears to be uploading homemade TV station logos, particularly for CW affiliates. These logos are not used on air or on the stations' websites. I have nominated these logos for deletion. This user has already been warned over on Wikipedia (w:User talk:BMarGlines#May 2024). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I have looked at one of the so-called station logos for WCAX and it's not accurate either. File:WCAX 2023.jpg I have nominated that for deletion as a hoax. Possible that many of this users uploads may be fan creations of some sort. -- William Graham (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
BMarGlines has been blocked at Wikipedia for a week for continuing to upload fanmade logos. They should be blocked indefinitely here at Commons and all their uploads deleted. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Last time I was open to give BMarGlines a chance to amend their behavior. Not anymore. I have blocked them indefinitely and have deleted all of their uploads. If they ever get an unblock, their uploads should be closely monitored. Bedivere (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Some of the removed logos should be restored, as they are in actual use (e.g. the Gray NBC affiliate logos without the peacock). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
You said "all their uploads [should be] deleted" and that's what I did. I saw no other alternative anyway, given their disruptive behavior. Anyway, if you point me out which ones you want restored, I will proceed. I did review some of them and could not decide some could be legitimate. Bedivere (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I have restored those that were in use on the English Wikipedia. If you need any other restored, please let me know. Bedivere (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I have made a request at COM:REFUND. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2024 (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.

User:Bigote20006

Bigote20006 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Punitive deletion nominations

@Bedivere: I am experiencing punitive nominations. Are there an actions that can be taken to stop this behavior? It has a chilling effect of participating in debates. About 20 years ago someone did the same thing when I opposed their nomination for deletion of an image. If you want to harass someone, all you have to do is nominate every image they uploaded as a punishment. This is not behavior expected of an administrator, its is a misuse of their status as administrator, to punish someone who opposed a single edit. President Richard Nixon would have the IRS audit people on his enemies list, this is the same behavior, it was part of his articles of impeachment to remove him from office. I do not think Bedivere has the temperament to have access to administrative tools. The punishment appears to be over this edit where the threat "Stop disrupting the project. Do not readd the text or you will get blocked." is made. Bedivere also removed the valid license in their deletion. This is a ridiculous amount of drama over a single edit and a valid interpretation of Commons policy. Institutionalized harassment has a chilling effect on people participating. Is there a policy against using punitive nominations to punish people that have opposed you in a debate? See above where User:Ankry is also harassing me over the same edit. User:Ankry and User:Bedivere appear to be working in tandem to harass/punish me. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) --RAN (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I have acknowledged (in the deletion request) that it was an error to make such a big deletion request. I still maintain that many of these uploads are out of scope. Additionally, many of them have dubious or entirely incorrect licensing. I deleted a couple, actually. Will do so when I've got the time. However, I think that calling this some kind of witch-hunting is both excessive and not really correct. Moreover, you say I do not have "the temperament to have access to administrative tools". You have failed to give appropriate responses to the more than appropriate concerns raised here and on the deletion requests. You have failed to respond how are these in scope (disregarding the existence of the Wikidata items you created). I have not contacted nor have even ever message if I recall correctly Ankry - calling this a "working in tandem to harass/punish" you is not assuming good faith and is unacceptable. These statements [13] on a "harassment/punishment campaign" are out of line too. I will keep myself away from this discussion if that helps cooling down this, but I do assert that RAN's actions and statements should be worthy an apology, at least, and getting them retracted. Finally, regarding the removal of the license which you claim I apparently did on purpose, I only reverted your edits to the previous by Ankry. --Bedivere (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The most fundamental tenet of our Commons:Scope is clear: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose … if it is in use, that is enough ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope." (my emphasis added) As an administrator you are aware of it. It only reinforces that you do not have the temperament to be entrusted with admin tools. You misinterpreted a fundamental policy and you punished/harassed me with massive punitive nominations over a single disputed edit. At that single edit you threatened me with: "Stop disrupting the project. Do not readd the text or you will get blocked. This belongs to Wikisource (if it is actually kept)" this was during an open debate about how much text can be displayed at Commons, or whether text needs to be embedded in a djvu or pdf. This is a serious amount of drama and frightening harassment over what was a legitimate policy debate. --RAN (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Per Commons:Project scope "any use that is not made in good faith does not count." There's been at least a couple discussions recently about people adding files to other project in order to save them from being deleted and the consensus at least from those conversations was pretty clear that it's not a good faithed way to use something. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The problem of asserting that you can determine "good faith" means are able to determine the state of mind of the person at the time of adding a document, which can be highly subjective. And we all need to remember: discussions are not policy and essays are not policy and opinions are not policy and emotions are not policy. --RAN (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Just to throw it out there, I personally probably wouldn't have voted delete on most, if not all, of the images in the DR but that's mainly because they are in scope to begin with. I just think the guideline isn't as cut and dry as your making it out to be and the whole "but the files are in use" thing is particularly weak in this case considering the circumstances. Especially since the at least IMO most of the images are probably worth keeping regardless. Baring ones that are clearly from Ancestory.com and/or don't have proof of prior publication. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
United States copyright case law has ruled that an image is "made public" when it leaves the custody of the creator, it doesn't solely have to appear in a newspaper or magazine. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg for a cogent discussion of the relevant case law. --RAN (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I assume "Ancestory.com" is meant to be "Ancestry.com" (and, while I'm at it, that "baring" is "barring").
Do note that under current U.S. copyright law, since the beginning of 2003, publishing any previously unpublished work work cannot gain any protection beyond p.m.a. + 70 for a known author with a known date of death, or 120 years since creation otherwise. So if it was first published on Ancestry.com in 2003 or later, the copyright situation is exactly the same as if it were unpublished. - Jmabel ! talk 04:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Yeah, sorry. Phone editing. Blame the stupid interface. Anyway, ancestory.com was founded in 1996 and as far as I know there's no way to know when exactly a work was uploaded there. Although I haven't looked that extensively into it, but there is a chance that images on the site were uploaded to it prior to 2003. So I assume they would be deleted per the precautionary principle just like any instance where we can't determine the exact publication date. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that though.
I'm going to guess that in some cases some combination of Internet Archive, information about when someone created an account, etc., can help us pin down a date pretty well. - Jmabel ! talk 06:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm sure that's totally the process RAN went through before he uploaded images from there to. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
If an actual link to the photograph / file on Ancestry.com could be provided, there would be a date, since they do display them. But RAN deliberatedly ommited linking to the files/images. Bedivere (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@RAN: where did I say something "solely has to appear in a newspaper or magazine" to be published? Because I don't think that's what I said. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): correctly pinging RAN. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The harassment has now migrated to Wikidata. They nominated a group of entries there, and added: "I think all of RAN's creations should be carefully reviewed". It is a dog whistle to recruit others to harass me with a punitive audit there, since the audit here failed. I do not think that Bedivere should have access to admin tools. They continue to show that they do not have the temperament for the job, they just can't seem to let go of the issue, which was a challenge to a single edit that occurred several days ago. This is extremely concerning since I edit under my real name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 05:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) (UTC)
Could you please stop making personal attacks? You also fail to assume good faith and have intensively attacked me, so far without sanction. I will not feed the troll anymore and I will only clarify that such "now migrated" "harassment" thread was started nearly two days ago. I've got enough of this unnecessarily dramatic situation. Someone should take the mop and close these threads with a result, as it seems now, it's getting nowhere. Bedivere (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
So "I think all of RAN's creations should be carefully reviewed", "RAN deliberatedly ommited linking" and "I will not feed the troll anymore" are not personal attacks? You don't seem to be offering good faith at the same time you're demanding it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I've been consistently accused by RAN of a harassment campaign, which is not the case. Bedivere (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

StarkWinter

StarkWinter (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues uploading obvious copyright violations (album covers) despide being warmed and temporarily blocked this month. Günther Frager (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done by EugeneZelenko. Kadı Message 19:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Quick1984

3 апреля данный участник загрузил файлы с нарушением лицензии. 15 апреля User:Aafi выдал ему флаг автопатрулируемого, указав, что тот якобы является «достаточно опытным и заслуживающим доверия участником». Прошу лишить Quick1984 флага автопатрулирующего за подлог лицензии. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Лишение флага станет возможным, если он будет ошибиться с файлями, загруженные после 15 апреля. Taivo (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Iamnicolasfaith

Iamnicolasfaith (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is reinputting self-portrait and logos that have been deleted in 2023 and 2024. This is evidently a self-promoting account that should be blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by The Squirrel Conspiracy. Yann (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Enterinsting

Enterinsting (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) All uploads are taken from the web and not own works as stated. 188.123.231.51 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Enterinsting. Yann (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Oscar Antonio

Oscar Antonio (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploaded in the past several copyvios and was notified by DMacks to stop such behavior in October 2023. I bumped into a couple of his recent uploads and they appear to be Flickrwashing, see this DR and this DR. Günther Frager (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef-blocked. Bedivere (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Interruption from certain bnwiki editors in wikimedia commons campaign

We are organizing Wiki Loves Earth in Bangladesh 2024 from Commons:Project Korikath. We have received interruption during our CNBanner and Massmessage. The rationale stated is, the organzers (including me) of this campaign is blocked on bnwiki and so I can't organize the campaign on commons.

There is already one RfC on meta regarding my bnwiki block. There is another RfC regarding alleged disruptive editing by the individual who is most actively involved in the aforementioned disruptions. This person threatened one of our contributors over facebook messenger and made him remove (one of over forty) his uploads from our last wikimedia commons campaign, we have evidence of that. The same person got engaged in an edit war a few days ago with our contributor on wikidata. There are several wmf t&s cases against these certain people.

I am not engaging with bnwiki anymore and investing my skill, network and effort for Wikimedia Commons. Since all the campaigns arranged by me or my team is taking place on commons, bnwiki is irrelevant there and demand of removing bnwiki editors from our massmessage list, removing CNBanner from all user with Bangla as the interface language from all wikis (including commons) is completely irrelevant and it disregards the autonomy of other projects considering the fact that a language can't be owned by anyone. I am raising this matter to the community since the insentisity of disruption is raising everyday. If we did anything unconstructive which is harmful to wikimedia commons, we are open to the consequences and discussion. But we don't want anyone outside wikimedia commons to disrupt our wikimedia commons campaigns and projects.--Mrb Rafi (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that bn-wiki can prevent you from putting banners on their wiki and messaging users on their wiki, and that is not anything Commons can affect.
Of course you can message the same users on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe it has been said quite a number of times that non-Commons dramas should not be used to disturb contributors/contributions on Wikimedia Commons. Most necessarily, when those dramas harm campaigns that contribute to the overall development of Wikimedia Commons. Bangla Wikipedia drama in this case should not be used to hunt/kill any activity here however I don't really know how CNBanners work but citing that drama for it to be entirely disabled on Commons from bn-language interface editors feels very odd. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Shocking to see that two bnwiki admins, ordered a commons admin, on bnwiki, to remove something on commons.
The above-mentioned user's behavior specifically is problematic. He threatened me also over Facebook messenger as I am a contributor of this initiative and told me to stop contributing. I know several contributors who experienced the same. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
In this case please contact meta:Trust and Safety. This not nothing we can resolve here. GPSLeo (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This incident does significantly impacts Wikimedia Commons. Blocking the CNBanner or mass message on Wikimedia Commons should be invalid without a community consensus on Wikimedia Commons. Every user, regardless of interface language, should have access to the CNBanner on Wikimedia Commons.
I found the information of several existing T&S cases and law enforcement investigations against the mentioned individuals. So, T&S is informed.
The abuse of advanced rights and on-wiki influence by these individuals must be confined to bnwiki, where there is an ongoing RfC addressing this monopolization. If these individuals aim to block a CNBanner or mass message on Commons, we require a specific community consensus from Commons explicitly stating this prohibition. Before reaching such a clear community consensus, blocking any CNBanner or mass message on wikimedia commons is invalid and an abuse of power.
Evidence of cross-wiki vandalism by these individuals is obvious in the above text and other linked docs. Since this abuse undermines Wikimedia Commons' existence as an autonomous wikimedia project, the Commons community retains the authority to take appropriate corrective measures. Ifteebd10 (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Banners are also nothing we can discuss or decide on Commons. This has to be discussed and decided on Meta. GPSLeo (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This incident is unlike regular vandalism. The user(s), particularly the one mentioned above, are abusing their advanced rights to disrupt another campaign on a different Wikimedia project. Due to the severity of this behavior, the consequences should be stricter than those for typical vandalism.
I recommend a short-term block for User:আফতাবুজ্জামান to emphasize that vandalizing major Wikimedia Commons campaigns will not be tolerated, especially when it involves citing drama from other projects. Ahnaf Tahmid Manan (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:SonicXMasako2

Persistent and targeted vandalism across numerous files, has been doing this since last year. NorthTension (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. Bedivere blocked the user indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Geovane Jenner

User:Geovane Jenner began again to G10. 186.172.16.70 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Kadı Message 22:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Tylertemp19

User:Tylertemp19 keep uploading copyvios despite warnings. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Kadı Message 22:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Sparmelt

New user, only contribution is COPYVIO porn. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No regular pattern. I deleted their only upload as a copyvio and issued them first warning. Users should be reported only if they don't desist even after a final warning. ─ Aafī (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: I notified Sparmelt for you, as you should have done.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yusaya 94038917

Uploading COM:PERSONAL files and treats talk page as a testing page of "writing numbers to 200", "one number per one edit"! I cannot control that user's problematic behavior. Yusaya 94038917 (talk · contribs) for the talk page and contributions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Vipulbambardekar

Vipulbambardekar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is only uploading publicity images of a resort in India. He has been blocked in English Wikipedia for the same reason. Pierre cb (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: I don't see evidence of him having been blocked there with that account name. Was that with a different account name?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Look at the comment for en:User:Vipulbambardekar where his user page was deleted for using the photomontages of images from https://foresthillstala.com/ uploaded in Commons Pierre cb (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: That is not "blocked", that is "userpage deleted due to en:WP:CSD#G11".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 Not done. No activity after you warned him/her. Taivo (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Alterbulat

Alterbulat (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) New copyvios after two long-term blocks: File:Заседание Парламента ЧР 2.jpg, File:Анна Янц.jpg, File:Бувайсар Пасхаев.jpg, File:Pashaev Buv.jpg and more. 188.123.231.51 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done User blocked. Please tag the images that need deleting so they can be handled. Thanks. Bedivere (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I deleted speedily multiple uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Jamhuri Binti Talib

Jamhuri Binti Talib (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , clearly not here to build. Looks like they are testing or spamming something here. Lemonaka (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. User is warned, nonsense reverted. Taivo (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Bcxfu75k

While this user was noticed about copyvio warn and many deletions due to mis-using GJSTU-2.0 license, this user didn't stop uploading unfree photos;File:秋篠宮家2023年.jpg, File:愛子内親王殿下のお誕生日に際してのご近影1.jpg, File:悠仁親王殿下のお誕生日に際してのご近影2.jpg and File:Ｊアラートについて聞いてみた（井上咲楽）.png. Netora (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked two weeks Bedivere (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User:RUI Thomas Fan

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

Was blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia for both editing and responding on their talk page (see here) and refuses to let the situation go (see my talk page). TheWikiToby (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Both users blocked one week. Please behave. Bedivere (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't at all see why User:TheWikiToby was blocked here. Can someone fill me in on what I'm missing? - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel basically feeding a troll and bringing en.wikipedia drama along the way. I wouldn't object an unblock if they get the point of the block. Bedivere (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
They (User:TheWikiToby) should be unblocked, I fail to see why they should be blocked like Jmabel. Blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive. Bidgee (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It is not a punitive block at all. You can just have a read at their talk page. They were just feeding a troll while at the same time importing a foreign controversy, by responding to obvious trolling. This is obviously just my stance and how I think the issue can be settled for a moment, given that they were given only one-week blocks. TheWikiToby has not asked for an unblock and I have already said I don't oppose such action but they should acknowledge they were at fault by feeding an obvious troll and bringing drama here from the English Wikipedia. "Please behave". Bedivere (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Allforrous

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

Category spam. Re-created categories previously deleted following CfD consensus, reverted edits to get rid of deletion notices (here, here calling it "vandalism"), reverted edits that add a ton of unnecessary categories, some of which were deleted and then re-created (e.g. here, here, here etc.) After having several notices put on their profile (which were not responded to) they re-created Category:Space Jam: A New Legacy characters instead. There is a talk page notice from Jmabel from last week that seems to indicate they have a habit of creating superfluous categories. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see also my remarks and Allforrus's nearly content-free response at User_talk:Allforrous#Category:History_and_events. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't really get what the issue is here since they have been a member since 2010 and have almost 50,000 edits. Their response to your comment is just weird to. Is it possible someone highjacked their account or something? Or maybe they died and it got taken over by a family member who happens to be a child? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Category spam? --Allforrous (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Allforrous: while you do quite a bit of good work, including the creation of a fair number of good categories, I believe that you create more really weirdly inappropriate categories than any other significantly experienced user. Besides Category:History_and_events which I called you out over, there has also been Category:Animations of epistemology, Category:Videos of special, and Category:Historical persons (unlike the others apparently not deleted, but currently empty), not to mention these recreations of categories that there had already been consensus to delete. It is hard to understand how, with this much work under your belt, you haven't gained more of an understanding of what is and is not appropriate in this area. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done 2 weeks block limited to category namespace. --A.Savin 12:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Is a user allowed to blank their user page in a manner that hides the fact that they've been blocked? - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we've ever reached consensus on what type of talk page blanking is permitted on Commons. I'm not particularly bothered by it; the block log exists for a reason. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

user:Odinbait

Odinbait (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) After the 'last warning' user is re-uploading copyvio with deliberately false PD rationale: [14]; uses rude language: [15]. 188.123.231.76 13:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ardilla07

Ardilla07 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) The user insists on uploading an image classified as fair use and insists that it is in the public domain in the United States (when it is not even from that country). Also insists on an external Telegram permission and doesn't show a formal permission via COM:VRT, and tries to remove the maintenance template. Taichi (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment The file was deleted by EugeneZelenko on 2 June and deleted by myself on 10 June Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned the user, all uploads are already deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Tshering Youngming

Tshering Youngming (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), The user still publish his advertising. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, everything deleted. Yann (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Secretum Mundi

Secretum Mundi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Keeps uploading files with bad author and probably license info, despite having been warned before. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked from uploading new files. Yann (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

MrKeefeJohn

Moved from COM:AIV: not vandalism —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User: MrKeefeJohn (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Reason for reporting: The user continues to revert my changes on Category:Sisal (company), among other things with the wrong methods for moving categories. In fact, I recently moved Category:SISAL to Category:Sisal (company), since the company is called today Sisal and not SISAL[1], and following the same title adopted on en.wiki, but the user continues, here and on Wikidata, to cancel the move manually for me. InterComMan (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

the category was created, not by me, as Category:SISAL and, being an Italian company, according to the title in the Italian wikipedia it:SISAL then moved yesterday, 10/6/2024, without any discussion MrKeefeJohn (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
There should have been consensus on the move of that category. The Italian Wikipedia uses SISAL and the English Wikipedia, Sisal. The category here was originally named SISAL. It seems to me that it's just a personal choice by @InterComMan. Please discuss the move before proceeding again either way. Bedivere (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
CFD started: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:SISAL. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
This is not a personal choice, but a modification based on reliable sources. InterComMan (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
This can be discussed at the above CFD. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Moved from COM:AIV since it's not vandalism and notified accused user. Firstly, both parties should take a second to cool down, stop edit warring and discuss and come to some sort of consensus on the talk page of either category. Secondly, I will start discussion at Category talk:SISAL. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
sorry for my edit war. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ https://www.sisal.com/azienda/chi-siamo

User:Julesvernex2

Not action is needed here. Better not to side-track the discussion started elsewhere. Yann (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2024 (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.

The discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff has caused many users, myself included, to become disappointed with Diliff's attitudes towards enforcing the CC licence on his images. However, it has reached a point where some users are overreaching things in their defamatory language. Users differ on whether Diliff is "copyright trolling", which he denies, with no actual evidence supplied by User:Normanlamont who initiated things at the Village Pump, of their circumstances, other than that they admit to thinking an image they found on the internet was public domain. However, what brings me here is the use of language that has legal meaning: "scam" and "extorted", which are both criminal activities. I have specifically asked Julesvernex2 and others to watch their language here and here and their reply here amounts to a challenge that I come here to complain to get him to stop.

I would like an admin to ask Julesvernex2 to show some restraint and that Commons is not Twitter where we can throw rocks and make outrageous claims about real people. We can't just accuse Commoners, and especially those who go under their full real name, of criminal behaviour, nor make serious defamatory comments without far more evidence than we have here. I think some are becoming carried away to the point where WMF might be asked to delete posts on legal grounds. -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually Julesvernex2 is right. Colin, it is very sad that you deny the evidence in spite of Diliff's own acceptance of the facts. Yann (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't use Twitter/X nor have I used "scam" in these discussions, so this whole matter boils down to my use of "extorted" here: [16],[17]. Arguing that I used it in the legal sense and not as a figure of speech is nonsensical, since copyleft trolling is not a crime and I have never claimed it is. In any case, I will of course replace the offending word if the outcome of this discussion is that Colin's demand amounts to anything more than fear mongering. Julesvernex2 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Copying this comment from the DR: Someone using the word "extortion" on the internet -- a term used ubiquitously as both hyperbole and a figure of speech -- is not libel. It is a fine bit of opinion for someone to interpret "I spent time determining you didn't really harm me, so now I am entitled to your money or else I'll sue you" as "extortion" in the non-legal sense. If you're trying to get people to be less harsh (and I won't disagree people have been quite harsh), I think these repeated allusions to defamation and libel are just going to add fuel to the fire. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding the difference between "extortionate" which is an adjective and "extortion" which is a crime. It is one thing for everyday speech between friends to use hyperbolic language, it is quite another for people to put words into print while discussing letters received asking for payment for misuse of a copyright work. I think some people on Commons think perhaps this is a private discussion between friends. It really isn't. To describe this activity as "extortion" would suggest such letters are criminally threatening. I'm disappointed that some folk here can't see the problem. Rhododendrites I'm not asking people to be less harsh out of any sympathy for Diliff's behaviour or some general "be nice" vibe. I'm asking people not to use this language because Being Stupid On The Internet is exactly what led to these people getting letters demanding money in the first place. Speaking as someone who lives in the UK, the damages for careless defamatory speech are, well, not just a few hundred quid but potentially life changing. And there's no need for it. We don't think Diliff's actions meet the CC Enforcement Principles and that's all that needs to be said going forward.
Rhododendrites, the link you refer to is about people making legal threats themselves, which would be the cases if Diliff turned up and banged on about libel and defamation. It is perfectly acceptable on Commons to discuss the legal danger posed to this site and its users from third parties. We do that, frankly, all the time we have a copyright discussion. So please don't post links like that to me as a threat that I might be the one in ToU trouble. I'm trying to stop foolishness. Don't please encourage it. There's absolutely no need. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment What we really need here is someone who dares to close this long overdue and very controversial RfD. --A.Savin 21:28, 11 June 2024 (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.

Socks of same master

This user is selfpromoting across Wikimedia projects from 2009, he don't understand about Commons policies and uploaded 100 photos and images of his jobs in that time, including posters. Because the long time of his socks, maybe the CU tools isn't necessary. Taichi (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I blocked the alternate accounts. Deletion should be decided on case by case basis. Images about theatre performances could be in scope. Yann (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Blessingedi76

Spot-checking this user's uploads, most of the recent ones I checked are found elsewhere on the internet and appear to be falsely claimed as own work. I've marked those ones with {{Copyvio}}, but don't really have the inclination to go through this user's >100 files. What's the best way forward? Can others please have a look? Marbletan (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blessingedi76. Yann (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Marbletan (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Kalocsaizsuzsa and File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg

File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg is likely going to continue to be nominated for deletion until either (1) it's deleted, or (2) the uploader is blocked.

I've got no reason not to believe the uploader's claim that they've sold the image and that the new rights holder now wants it taken down; that, however, doesn't have anything to do with Commons per se and seems to be an issue that the uploader and new rights holder need to resolve among themselves. The uploader knowingly released the license under a free image and it's not Commons' fault if they didn't fully understand what that meant. Similarly, it's not Commons' fault that the new rights holder purchasinged the image even though it had been released under such a license. If the new rights holder didn't know that, then that's also on the uploader for sure; however, the new rights holder isn't totally blameless in that scenario since they should've been more dilligent in checking on image before paying for its rights.

It seems the uploader has been given reasonable advice regarding what their options might be. They might be having difficulty understand what those options due language related issues. At the same time, they might have no problem understanding what their options are but just aren't interested in them. Commons might be able to help with any language issues if there's an admin or someone who can figure out what the first language of the uploader might be and try to explain things to them in it. On the other hand, Commons has no need to deal any further with the uploader's behavioral or attitude problems if all the uploader's going to do is keep up the frivilous DRs.

The file is being used in two articles: one on Esperanto Wikipdia and one an Magyar Wikipedia. Is there any admin capable of communicating with the uploader in either of those languages? Maybe one last attempt could be made to explain things to the uploader before deciding what to do next. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

File now has autopatroller protection so they can't nominate it for deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, DRs closed. This was already discussed several times. This user should send a DMCA notice. Yann (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

DEVIREDDY PRASANNA KYMAR has so far made three uploads, all of which are copyright violations. This includes re-uploading the same image under a slightly different title after I tagged the original for speedy deletion. While I know it's not enforceable here, this user has also been disruptively adding these images to an article on EN. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, user blocked one week, I guess that'll suffice for now. Bedivere (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Newone

This member has inserted website giaythucpham.vn (sale food wrapping paper) into many photos (more 250) uploaded from 24 February 2022 to present. A Viwiki mod said that it looked like advertising and advised this member to crop the photo but he/she refused. This member also uploaded many photos of theaters and communal houses. Per COM:FOP Vietnam all uploaded photographs of architectural and artistic works in public spaces from Vietnam, uploaded on Wikimedia Commons from 1 January 2023 onwards are not accepted in Commons due to Law No. 07/2022/QH15. 2402:800:6172:83F7:C405:FB15:213C:5020 05:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Example: File:NewOne - food label.jpg. Yann (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we really have a rule on Commons that bans that sort of watermark. Not actively welcomed, and it would make me give closer scrutiny to their uploads (lean more toward delete on borderline scope cases) but that's about it. At least that's how I see it.
Of course, if these images are against the policy of any given wiki, they can refuse to allow them to be used there. - Jmabel ! talk 14:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Billythekidgun

Please block. Billythekidgun (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cryptic-waveform I fail to see why. They have not even edited since February. Could you please elaborate? Bedivere (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done I've issued a final warning. If they resume editing only to continue uploading copyright violations, they may be blocked on sight. Bedivere (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Prariwat Nuanma

Please block Prariwat Nuanma (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) for repeated and repeated copyright violations. Thank you so much. -- Librovore (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, last file deleted. Yann (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Simba16

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.

Simba16 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information): Mass violations of COM:OW: uploading low quality self-made digital restorations: File:Khanpasha Nuradilov 140-190 for collage.jpg; File:Jean-Luc Rouge en 1976 (JO de Montreal), 'Montreal 76', Panini figurina n°236.jpg; File:Friedrich Tsander.jpg; File:Shataev Magomed.jpg; File:Valery Rozhdestvensky (cropped).jpg; File:Daton Fix.png and so on. Despite being warned, continues saying this is not the policy, but just a rubbish for him: [18]. 188.123.231.76 10:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Just looked through [19], the last upload of this nature was July 2023. Closing as stale. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:16, 18 June 2024 (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.

User is mad that I remixed his work

I have used one of images of User:Snake bgd (File:Yugoslavia-Army-OF-6 (1951–2006).svg) as a basis to create a new file (File:Yugoslavia-Army-OF-12 (1980-1992).svg). Author of OF-6 god mad, accused me of stealing, then uploaded their own version of OF-12 several hours later and put up my version for deletion. See more on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Yugoslavia-Army-OF-12_(1980–1992).svg

There were two problems with my upload:

a) Name was not correct. That could have been solved with simple request for rename. b) I failed to include attribution for source (OF-6) image. I corrected it since. Again, simple request to add attribution would suffice.

I am trying to explain to user Snake that he gave explict permission for remixing his work when he published it on Commons, but he doesn't budge, and continue claiming that I "stole" his work. He used sneaky tactic of uploading of essentially same work and asking for deletion of my version to erase my contributions. Additionally, when he puts request for deletion, he deletes complete metadata of the file and erases it from categories where it is added.

I am asking for mediation in this dispute.

Ђидо (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Its not remixed work and i am not mad. You simple modify work as you wanna it without said who is copyright holder of original work and that stealing. Here are my works that are made in 2023. I didnt add epalettes of Memeber of Presednecy because i thought that i wasnt necesary. For uploading work in past i got banned and he should two. I think admins should consider this line: "Report freely. You are wrong. I can do whatever I want with CC 4.0 files. The license is clear." I think he cant do everything if violating rules on this platform. Snake bgd (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Snake bgd: while User:Ђидо should have linked and credited your work in the first place, they have now. I've further corrected the attribution. And, yes, people can do pretty much whatever they want with CC 4.0 files, limited only by issues like personality rights, trademarks, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Jmabel, I was not aware of this syntax of {{Self}} template. I do not think that upload wizard is steering you in that direction, at least I do not remember asking whose work it is based on. It could probably improved in that aspect.
Regarding dispute, I am mostly surprised by @Snake bgd's reaction in bad faith. Instead of directly asking me to provide attribution, which I would gladly provide, he goes on stealth attempt to erase my contributions, by uploading essentially same image under different name, then asking to delete my (earlier) image as "copy" of newer image. Little bit of a good faith attempt to correct attribution (and title) would go a long way to resolve it in a civil manner. There was never intention to "steal" his work (even there is no such thing under CC 4.0 license), but simply a technical/knowledge problem. I will strive in future to provide correct attributions with derived works.
Ђидо (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Sannita (WMF) on the remark here about the Upload Wizard. - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1

Consensus is this does not warrant administrative action. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:23, 13 June 2024 (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.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it from discussion of similar issues about other people, there is no limit on a user blanking their own user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
From what I understand people are free to revert comments on their talk if they feel like it. Plus Jeff G. added theirs to an existing section that had nothing to do with what they were messaging me about. I did take note of their complaint though, but there wasn't really anything to say about it and it's my prerogative if I want to remove off topic talk page comments. Although I am interested in where exactly @Jeff G.: claim that I was blocked for doing a similar thing in the past comes from. Since as far as I've never been blocked for reverting messages. Or conversely @Jeff G.: can admit this is a big nothing burger and we can move on. It's his choice. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
You're certainly free to revert. But "Take the concern trolling bullshit somewhere else and fix your own god damn problems next time." isn't helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this merits any administrative action, Jeff. But Adamant's revert message does underscore that as I've said previously, the user is a tad too argumentative for their own good. But this does appear to be as Adamant says a "nothing burger." I'll just say that we'd prefer users to archive their talk pages rather than blanking, but they're within their rights to blank. Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Just an FYI, but I actually reverted the comment instead of replying to it in order to avoid any potential arguing. You can't really win on here though. Regardless, I have no issue re-adding the comment and archiving it if Jeff prefers, I usually do that anyway. Although I do ask that he start a new section for it next time instead of writing an off-topic comment in a conversation that had already been resolved. Otherwise I'm just going to revert it as off-topic. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2024 (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.

FYI, when I posted this edit, I was responding about note 4 of the section last found at special:diff/883642987#Greetings and some notes. It was on-topic as far as I was concerned.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

POSSUM chowg

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.
Resolved by Bedivere. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

User:POSSUM chowg seems to be a troll account that's just uploading personal logos and selfies from other projects while posting nonsense on the Village Pump. Can someone please deal with them? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that Adamant1 was blocked for trolling and edit warring, which amount to incivility.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Looking at User:POSSUM chowg's contributions [I had a broken ping here to Adamant1, but it was moot by the time I noticed that - Jmabel ! talk 06:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)], some diffs would have been useful here), I see importing drama from another wiki, a series of basically silly edits to his own talk page. I'm close to blocking on this, but there is a lot of misc history here, there might be contributions that balance this, and I don't have the patience to look through to see if there is anything more egregious.
@Jeff G.: Adamant1 was blocked for a total of 16 days, none of it in the last 18 months. As far as I know, he is a contributor in good standing, including that he is a filemover. What exactly is your point? Are you saying that there is something wrong with his bringing this complaint, or are you just making an irrelevant ad hominem argument? If the latter it is not typical of you, so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, but please explain. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not a troll account. I am the creator of a page about a park in my hometown, although it is not a very good page... needs some improvement for sure. POSSUM chowg (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
P.S. I am talking on commons because I am unable to edit on Wikipedia, even on my own talk page. I was blocked without warning on English Wikipedia so I had to post here. Is there anything else I can do? POSSUM chowg (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
BTW I have never posted a selfie here, and I would never do that. However, I have uploaded a logo here. POSSUM chowg (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Indefinitely blocked. Bedivere (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Now also globally locked. I blanked the user page on Meta. Yann (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yann's unfair block against Adamant1

Following the above discussions, isn't Yann targeting the wrong target user for blocking? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

How is that? Yann blocked Adamant nearly two years ago. Bedivere (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Yann blocked me a super long time ago. I'm not currently blocked. Nor is he trying to block me again at this point. Jeff G could have been could have been clearer about it though. Or really just kept it to himself. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
That block was nearly two years ago. Adamant is not currently blocked and there's a resolved section above in which no action was taken against Adamant. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


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.
The point of closing the discussion like this was to prevent escalation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I posted facts.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

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


User:Carolus

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.
No action needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Carolus advises other users that one prolific contributor "refuses to respond to questions and suggestions" at User_talk:Jeanhousen#c-Carolus-20240618060200-Hjart-20240617212300.

This despite that the issue mentioned had been resolved. I asked the user to withdrawn their problematic comment at User_talk:Carolus#Comment_on_userpage, but they persist. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I don't think that 👉👈 sorts of conversations are useful. Coming in with a blame approach seems to only get negative reactions. If we try to AGF and some understanding, then we can be looking to a useful solution. I truly recommend that the fingerpointing stops; that users look at their words and reflect on whether their points are escalating or going to help find a solution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's close this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

StarkWinter

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

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

At the moment, this is a category that redirect to itself, which is obviously wrong, but it is not obvious what is desired. - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I left a note about it at Template_talk:Country_photographs_taken_on#Broken_at_Georgia and on COM:AN. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

JorgeVBis

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

Orijentolog/Massive rollbacks

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

First of all, you're doing a huge damage to this project by removing proper top templates. There is nothing which can justify this edits ([20][21][22]), yet you call my reverting to previous (proper) condition as "disruptive". No one in the past two decades has come up with the idea to remove it, except you.
Second, the claim that "templates are excessive because the internal sub-categories that already exist fulfill their functions" is nonsensical. Categories do not make templates redundant. According to your logic, virtually all top templates related to countries are "unnecessarily" because there are categories. I can't believe that you came up with the idea that thousands of contributors and hundreds of thousands of categories with such templates are "wrong", and you are the only one right.
Third, I personally made Template:Western architectural styles and inserted it in thousands of relevant categories. Everyone else was happy to use it, including some of the most active users to the categorization of architecture (AnRo0002, Triplec85, etc.), and suddenly you came and started to massively remove it all around with claims it's "unnecessarily". I restored it all around, along with general templates (like Template:Countries of Asia) which you also removed (point 1), and you started to remove it once again. That's rude.
If you have an issue with top templates in general, open a complain & suggest a massive removal from millions of categories. But don't destroy the work of other contributors based on the views that only you have. --Orijentolog (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
P.S. FYI, after I opened the Template:Western architectural styles, I edited almost everything related to styles in major European countries. The template is not at the top for aesthetics, but it helps a lot for architectural chronology. It took me tens of thousands of edits and months for all that. Then you suddenly came a week ago and spent a few minutes removing that template from tens of categories of few selective countries, with flawed arguments, and now you are surprised that someone reverted you. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Wow, what a miracle. A little unpleasant of you to refuse to give me clear explanations. It seems that after a notification here you have regained the ability to speak. Possibly this issue would have been avoided if you didn't have those rude ways. But this explanation doesn't justify massive reversals on me, in cases that don't seem to affect you.
I repeat, you have reversed many more things than you claim here. For example, there are users who add templates "en masse", even for a single element (no relation with other elements/categories). That's nonsense. I intervened in some of such cases. Why do you also burst at me in these cases?
And finally. Since you attack me without limits, I remind you that your discussion is full of complaints and protests from other users about your view on this topic. It doesn't seem like everything is as pretty and colorful as you describe. In this case, it is clear that if your opinion prevails it is because of the force, given that you preferred to revert to normal dialogue with me. This is my last intervention, I do not want to contribute to prolonging the issue. CFA1877 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@CFA1877: I looked at several of Orijentolog's edits you referenced in your comments above. Their edits you are complaining about are obviously correct; I can see why they did not feel a need to write an explanatory edit summary, though I would have done so myself. These navigation templates exist for a reason. If you object to the navigation template, nominate it for deletion (and you will discover that you are pretty much alone in thinking this). Otherwise, please do not remove navigation templates from categories. It is possible that you were not handled as gently as you might have been in this, but your edits were not easily distinguished from vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Unreasonable removal of CC-Zero City vector maps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only deleted file from Vectormapper that I can see is File:Zurich Switzerland street map.jpg (deleted 18 June 2024), so I cannot make head or tail of this. Perhaps it is about some project other than Wikimedia Commons? @SounderBruce: can you shed any light on this? - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The logs look like English Wikipedia to me since Twinkle is included as a tag (which is a gadget I use there) and the references to "self-promotional account". Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Above you can see a list of my city maps vandalized from the Wiki pages (under a far-fetched pretext) Vectormapper (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
And one more thing about the username. "Vectormapper" is exactly the same legitimate username as, for example, "cook" or "fitter" or "doctor" or "archaeologist" - it accurately reflects the user's identification. The idea that the name "Hannibal_Lecter_666" is more acceptable than, for example, "Philatelist" seems ridiculous to me. Vectormapper (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
We cannot resolve English Wikipedia matters on Wikimedia Commons as Commons is a different project with different policies to enwiki. For the record, I agree with you on the username (which does not violate Commons policy). Abzeronow (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your support, but where can I challenge the fact that my materials were removed from the pages of the English Wiki? Vectormapper (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Try en:User talk:SounderBruce, otherwise take a look at en:Wikipedia:Village pump. Bidgee (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@Verctormapper: I would also strongly suggest that you not refer to this as "vandalism", which means doing wilful damage. Obviously you and Bruce are having a disagreement, and quite possibly even one in which you are correct, but that does not make him a "vandal", and if you continue to throw around accusations like that your account is likely to be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 21:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Any deletion of materials that do not contradict civil laws and Wikipedia rules is essentially vandalism.
If a user simply had questions about my publications or me personally, I, as you can see, am ready to explain and defend my point of view.
Instead, the user simply deleted my maps for made-up reasons.
If I, for example, deleted your own materials from the Wiki because ??? (I don’t like your nickname, or it seems to me that you are advertising yourself, or because of my or your nationality) ??? -
You yourself would admit that this is vandalism.
I could still understand if the articles included AT LEAST SOME maps of cities. But there were NONE of them. Don't you find it strange that in an article about a city there is no map file of this city? Vectormapper (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
User:VectorMapper User:Vectormapper - I don't know what the detailed definition of vandalism is on Commons. The guideline on Vandalism is not informative on that point. However, if the definition is similar to what is used in the en:English Wikipedia for Vandalism, then you, VectorMapper, are making inappropriate allegations. This is a good-faith content dispute, and using the label of "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute is a bad idea. In the English Wikipedia, it is considered a personal attack and is blockable. So don't yell Vandalism unless you have a reading of a vandalism policy or guideline that confirms what you are saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Not to say you were advertising on Wikipedia since I really have no clue or care to find out, but the text on your user space is clearly promotional. The same goes for the watermark in your uploads with the url of your website and your inclusion of it in the file description. So if it were me I probably would have done the same thing. Since although none of those alone are an indicator of anything, I think combined they clearly point to you using this as a way to upsell or advertise yourself. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not fair. Everyone has the right to write about their achievements - if they exist, of course. The profile simply states what it really is - a brief description of professional qualifications. If I, for example, bred fish and wrote articles about it, my profile would indicate that my fish are the most beautiful. And a physicist would probably have an academic degree and significant publications. And in your profile, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamant1 your interests are indicated in great detail. Isn't this an obvious advertisement? Vectormapper (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Your interests are indicated in great detail. Isn't this an obvious advertisement? No because I'm not patting myself on the back about my personal work in a promotional way or trying to upsell anyone on visiting a website where I sell images of postcards like your doing. Your profile literally says "WEB: vectormap.net Vector Maps of the Cities, States and Countries: High Detailed Editable Printable Street / Road Maps in Adobe Illustrator, PDF, CDR, DWG, DXF." Where exactly am I doing that? Sorry, but that's clearly advertising and in no way is it at all comparable to me linking to a galleries of images I've uploaded on my profile. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Planet Work Force Terraforming

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

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

TamikaWest

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

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

User:Jmurphy042000

One of this user's first edits was to add a German nationalist slogan to the user talk page with no context [23]. I have asked them for clarification on their Talk page and have received no response. I cannot assume good faith – this user should be immediately blocked. If they ever choose to explain themselves, they can do so in an unblock request. Toadspike (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This request is somewhat ridiculous, why should they be blocked for something they added in 2020 if they have made constructive contributions afterwards. Also you failed to notify the user which I have done for you. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Not to mention that the national anthem of Germany includes at its very beginning the phrase "Deutschland über alles". It is not a block-worthy offence, for sure. Bedivere (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for not notifying Jmurphy and thank you for doing that. This sort of behavior cannot be tolerated no matter what their other contributions have been. Knowing, unqualified use of that phrase clearly serves to provoke and offend. Commons as a project at least deserves an explanation, and if a block forces an explanation, then I support a block.
@Bedivere, saying that this phrase is “at the beginning of the German national anthem” is stretching the truth. Perhaps you are correct, under some weird technical interpretation of the law, but for all practical matters (and legal protections) the German national anthem now consists only of the third stanza, because the first stanza is strongly associated with Nazism and toxic German nationalism. I am not the only person to be offended by the use of the first stanza; use of the phrase in question alone, with no context or explanation, is far worse. Toadspike (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
You might be right about the phrase, but what difference does it make almost four years after it was made in a somewhat obscure early edit of that user? Had it been a pattern of their editing, they'd have been for sure warned/blocked but this seems a one-off, and one that happened a long time ago. Bedivere (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
If consensus is that users may post offensive statements so long as they're not caught for several years, then fine, this report can be closed. Toadspike (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The point is that the report is stale. And while the use of the phrase is questionable, it is not clearly, to me at least, intended maliciously. Despite that, I will give this user a warning.
As a result, this request is  Not done Bedivere (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Everhardy

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

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

Iwatchonlinex

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

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

Roermondernaar

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

✓ Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I deleted some complex logos speedily and created one DR. Taivo (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Please help removing category from a User page

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

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

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

@Athayahisyam: ✓ Done. That did not need an administrator. Just an autopatrolled user. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the category. Athayahisyam (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Редактор СВА

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

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

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

通報しますた

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

 Not done Already globally locked. Yann (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. I did not see global lock, so I blocked the user locally indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

IP address users on Category:Reproducing piano recording

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

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

Adamant1 again

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.
See my closing comment below. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


Started the above nonsense.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what "above nonsense" your referring to. Can you be more specific about what the actual issue is and provide some actual diffs instead of just making a pointlessly vague accusation? Also, your under no obligation to indulge me on this, but since we're here I'm kind of interested to know what your sudden interest and issue with my behavior lately is about since this is the second time recently that you've made vague accusations in an ANU complaint about my behavior and I don't really think it's a productive way to go about things. So really, what's the axe grinding about? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: You started the above section in this edit after trying to have an image of a 13th century stained-glass window deleted. You always seem adamant about something.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
And? I didn't know it was against the rules to report an administrator for abusing their privileges. It seems your just drama farming. To the degree that I might or might not be adamant things sometimes people like you continuing to stir up drama for no reason really doesn't help it. I'm not going to drop things if other people won't on their end and your the one continuing it with the vapid nonsense. Like repeatedly hijacking old discussions on my talk page after I've told you multiple times not to. It's a little laughable that your reporting me for something when you can't even be bothered to follow a simple request like that for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Also, you made a personal attack in this followon and forgot to ping me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not obligated to ping someone when I reply to them Jeff. Regardless, I think it was a personal favor and I presented plenty of evidence for why I think that. You can disagree, but its not a personal attack to have a negative opinion about another users behavior. Especially in an ANU complaint. Otherwise you'd be blocked for opening this. ANU is exactly the place to raise those types of issues though and its not like I'm going around making the accusation anywhere else or out of context. So I don't really see what the issue is. I've certainly been the victim of much worse on here that people like you never seem to have an opinion on for some reason. Be my guest and report the person when I get attacked next time. Then maybe I'll care about your opinion. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Closing comment Jeff, this is the administrators' noticeboard. Ergo, it is reasonable to expect that administrators already see the discussions happening there (and indeed, participate in them). Creating a thread on this noticeboard to highlight the thread literally right above it on the same noticeboard doesn't seem productive. You seem to have it out for Adamant1 - this is the second thread this month you've started targeting them IIRC - and the back and forth sniping is doing neither of you favors. I don't see any reason for admin action here, but I suggest you two either work out whatever is going on between you two or avoid each other. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Out of process closer by admin after threat on my talk page

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.
No admin action needed here. As I said below, there is no evidence for the DRs started by Adamant1. Yann (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Earlier I opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maîtresse-vitre de la cathédrale de Dol-de-Bretagne. A few hours later a user, @GO69: , threatened to contact French administrators over it. The DR was then closed out of process and for no reason a few minutes later by @VIGNERON: . Clearly because they contacted by @GO69: about it. The whole thing is clearly a conflict of interest, goes against the Universal Code of Conduct, and as well as being an abuse of the administrator privileges. Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I did close this DR thanks to GO69 warning as there is obviously no reason for deletion (per Commons:Snowball clause). If we talk about abuse, @Adamant1: would be the one abusing the Commons:Deletion requests process (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ancien siège d'Ouest-France is also in the same case). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
What snowball clause? There was one delete vote and it had only been open for a couple of hours. There wasn't enough comments or time for there to be a snowball. You clearly closed it before the 7 days was over for no reason because a another user from France asked you to. Which is clearly an abuse of the administrator tools and goes against the Universal Code of Conduct. You can say my justification for the DR was wrong, but that's not a valid excuse to close it early and before there was any discussion just because another French user randomly threatened to contact you about it on my talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I did came to the DR because of GO69 (who made no threats just factual explanations) but I closed it because as a 13th century work it's very clearly in the public domain. « If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. » Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
This is what GO69 said on my talk page "I point out your ludicrous conception of copyright to administrators such as User:VIGNERON (A), User:Pymouss (A), User:Jean-Frédéric (IA/A)." That's not just factual explanations of anything and it's clearly a threat to contact administrators from France to deal with the DRs. Which is exactly what you did. Regardless, "the snowball test", which you cited, is pretty clear that something has to be ran through the process resulting in a unanimous decision for it to qualify as a snowball. There was no process or unanimous decision here though because you closed the DR after a few hours without there being any discussion. It doesn't really matter though because there's a clear consensus on Commons that DRs should be open for at least 7 days anyway. 2 hours is certainly to early to close a deletion request. Especially if it's being done as a personal favor for another user. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
The full message of GO69 in French is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&oldid=888477761
One need to run through the whole process in order to « no need to run it through the entire process » ? That's kind of defeating the purpose.
DR don't have to always to stay open 7 days (see Commons:Deletion_requests#Closing_discussions), it's quite common to close them before. It's more common for close when the result is delete (cf. the page for today Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/06/26 with a few DR already closed) but it's not that uncommon when the result is keep.
Me closing the DR was clearly not a « personal favor », Adamant1 is clearly not assuming good faith and I take it as a personal attack.
I never thought that keeping a 13th windows would cause so much problem. I'll let my admins colleague decide what to do...
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
DR don't have to always to stay open 7 days "In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days. Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier." The guideline literally says they can be closed after seven days unless it's an obvious copyright violation. Which it clearly wasn't. Nowhere does the guideline say it's OK to close a DR after two hours because someone pings you about it as a way to threaten and intimidate another user.
Me closing the DR was clearly not a « personal favor » GO69 contacted you on my talk page specifically for the sole purpose of having you deal with it, which you then did seconds later. On top you didn't even bother contacting me about it before hand and I've never interacted with you before this, the last time you dealt with DRs was 2 months ago, and you clearly didn't just stumble on this one randomly because you were already working in the area. So I don't know what else to call it besides a personal favor. If it walks like a duck. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I think that the DR closure by Vigneron is adequate. Restoring an old stained glass window doesn't create a new copyright. The purpose of restoration of such old works is that they appear as faithful as possible as they were at the time of creation. It usually include replacing some broken glasses and straightening the structure, not creating anything new. Yann (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
It really depends on what kind of restoration work was done and how much personal creative liberty the artist takes while they are doing it. Some restorations are 100% recreations of the original and some aren't. Like in a similar DR the "restoration" involved the artist replacing like 30% of the window with their own artwork. So it really depends on the situation, which is the whole point DRs to begin with. You can't really find a consensus about an edge case or something that isn't clear if a DR is closed 2 hours after it's opened and before people can comment on it. It really just defeats the whole purpose of the thing if administrators can come along and close DRs after a few hours due to a personal opinion that they are invalid or because someone asked them to. The way VIGNERON went about it was clearly wrong to regardless of the merits of the deletion request. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
In France, you can't change whatever you want when you restore a piece of art, in particular when it is enlisted as an heritage building. Trust me, I have experience regarding this topic. :)
Okay, there are cases where a change is done. It was actually a topic today at the national French radio France Inter, about Notre-Dame-de-Paris. For Paris, it is clearly for political reasons and the guests where like "that shouldn't be done unless we have nothing to save".
But trust me (again), it is not the case for Dol-de-Bretagne, at all: we are lucky to have proper 13th century stained-glass windows that have been preserved and restored using similar techniques (what Yann described).
Trizek from FR 17:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@Trizek: This has nothing to do with buildings and the example I brought up to Yann were the artist doing the restoration added their own artwork to a window was in France. It's a separate issue then VIGNERON's behavior anyway. Maybe familiarize yourself with the actual issue before commenting next time. Otherwise it just risks sounding like an off-topic handwaving lecture. Someone's personal experience in a particular usually don't matter if it has nothing to do with the actual problem or what's being talked about. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Adamant1, you're playing hopscotch on the line between acceptable disagreement and personal attack. There was no need to respond to Trizek like that. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1, regarding familiarizing with a topic, you can apply your (rudely written) advice to yourself. If you knew a bit about restoration and heritage, this unpleasant thread would have never existed. VIGNERON did the right thing, as he knows about this topic. Also, your uncivil comments towards me or others, and the tone you use, is not what should be the norm on wikis: you have the right to disagree, but not the way you convey your message.
Thank you @The Squirrel Conspiracy. You very well summarized how I feel after Adamant's comments. Trizek from FR 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@Trizek: No offense intended, but I'm just not a fan of people commenting on a topic that they don't know anything about and like I said, this has nothing to do with buildings. Nor for that matter "restoration and heritage." It's purely about VIGNERON's unacceptable way of handling things. I get told all the time this isn't the place for content disputes, which I mostly agree with. This is the place to discuss user behavior. That's it and your attempt to make this about the particulars of "restoration and heritage" or "buildings" when that's not what the complaint is about just came off like bad faithed derailing. There just isn't any consistency with this though. I can be repeatedly told not to make ANU complaints about content disputes and no one ever takes issue with that. But then apparently it's a rude personal for me to tell you that this has nothing to do with buildings or heritage. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Let me ask you this since you seem like a semi-reasonable person. If someone nominated some of my images for deletion and I lived in the same town as Jmabel (which is also were the images are of), would it be OK for me to ping him on the users talk page and ask him to "deal with the DR because it's ludicrous"? And as a follow up to that, would it then be OK for him to immediately close the DR after I asked him to without any discussion or other processes involved in the action? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User:Георгий Долгопский

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

RfA standards?

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

It doesn't seem like there are any outside of the intuitions of whomever votes in the RfA at the time. Which is unfortunate but also understandable. It does seem to present a problem though where admins are usually above reproach and unsactionable for their actions once they are given the previlage. See my recent ANU complaint about VIGNERON as an example. The only thing you can usually do is either open an ANU complaint which risks blow back and bandwagoning by other admins (again, see my ANU complaint above for an example) or file a full request for rights removel. The last one has almost zero chance of going anywhere though. So at the end of the day all you can really do is take the L and deal with being a tool of someone elses power trip. Or just be an ever increasing passive agressive asshole until you get blocked because no one on here really actually gives a shit about civility and just plays favorites. That's my go to strategy for open source, "community" based projects like this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I do not agree that admins are some kind of superior class of users. It should not be. What Adolphus79 has forgotten to mention, though, is that this seemingly innocent thread they've started has a name within. I have given all kinds of explanations regarding their blocking and they do not accept them. Fair enough. I don't get though why they are restoring obvious personal attacks by some IP users on their talk page, even reverting me. I'll take Jameslwoodward's advice to keep away from this user, so (despite I have already said at least three times) this will be my last comment on them. Making a personal vendetta-stic campagin even after I apologized for my mistake is not fun. Bedivere (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@Bedivere: were the attacks on them (in which case I think it is their prerogative to decide they would rather keep them visible) or on others (in which case what you are describing would certainly be a problem, tantamount to making the attack themself)? - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm referring to these "non-vandalism IP edits for context" (Adolphus' words) they restored, which included: "what a pathetic use of adimnship". Bedivere (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Once again, Bedivere's statement is not quite accurate, and they are once again showing that they do not understand the policies involved. The "personal attack" they are referring to is the IP's comment "what a pathetic use of adinmship, as an unrelated user, you should've kept quiet", clearly not a personal attack. Also, I did not restore that comment after Bedivere removed it (from my talk page, mind you), I only restored the later edit from the IP after being blocked as a sockpuppet, saying they are not me, and asking Bedivere to do a checkuser. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
@Bedivere: That's certainly the attitude a lot of them have and they constantly back each other in disputes no matter who's actually right. I've been pretty active on here for a long time now and can't think of a single instance where an administrator was either blocked, otherwise sanctioned, or threated with a sanction for their behavior. Not to say it's never happened but it's certainly extremely rare and the whole thing has a chilling effect that needs to be accounted for here.
Most of their actions are done in far flung areas where users aren't going to report them because of fear of retaliation or just because it has no chance of going anywhere if they do. That was certainly my experience when Yann unfairly blocked a couple of years ago as part of a personal dispute. Realistically who's going to report an administrator for their actions after an unfair block, threat of one on their talk page, or other bullying behavior by an admin in an obscure area that has a low turnout to begin with? It's just obfuscation all the way down anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but then Bedivere decided to try it with an 18-year veteran of enwiki who clearly knows the rules and policies better than they do. Administrators are held accountable for their actions on enwiki, and there is Oversight and Arbitration. I expect the administrators here to be held to at least some standard, not just swinging that hammer wildly making decisions based purely on their own opinion or rules. I worry how many others Bedivere has done this to in the last 4 months since becoming an admin, that didn't know the policies well enough to stand up and say "wait a minute!". I worry about future new users this admin might come in contact if they are allowed to continue like this unchecked. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know the technicalities of this particular case since you haven't provided any background information, but I've generally found Bedivere to pretty fair and knowledgeable in the short time they have been an admin. Plus they are still getting use to the role. So there's inevitably going to be some mistakes until their fully acquainted with it. I think it's reasonable to assume good faith and give them the benefit of the doubt here. Especially considering the lack of evidence. I do think there's a larger issue with admin behavior in general though that should be dealt with, but this probably isn't the right forum for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I tried to assume good faith, when I was finally unblocked, I made a very clear and precise request on my talk page, you can then see that Bedivere refused to respond with any discussion on policy, only saying "the whole point for the block still stands". Every new comment after that, they changed the reason for the block, personal attacks, "attempting to start an edit war" (with one edit), incivility, copyvio, each disproven by the policy itself. Never once did Bedivere want to discuss policy, never once did they quote any policy as a reason for the block. They even blocked me from my talk page without discussion or warning, so I couldn't try to discuss this with them or post an unblock request (I couldn't even email them, had to email another admin for help). My final edit before coming here summarizes it quite well, "That means.... when you blocked me... all you really had me for was one single edit of openly admitted vandalism, uploading this free piece of artwork over the other image (which you deleted instead of reverting the change)... one single use of the word "bullshit" on AN (which you also revdel'd for some reason instead of just reverting)... and me calling your actions "bullshit" on my talk page (for which my talk page rights were removed)? I wanna talk to your manager... right now...". - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
There's two things here that I think you need to reflect on. 1. You committed vandalism of your own admittance. 2. You swore at an admin multiple times. Full stop that's a blocker offense no matter what other circumstances exist at the time. You don't go into a court room and curse out the judge. And I say that as someone who has an issue in that area myself. I'm constantly having to edit swearing out of my comments. Right or wrong you lose any ability to make an argument for your position after that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I was about to say pretty much what Adamant1 just said. Going by your own description here, if someone came to COM:AN/U, described what you just described, and I saw that it was accurate, then a 3-day block is about what I would have done, too. - Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
In the end, I believe your original response is most accurate, and at least the business I originally came for has been handled. Thank you Commons, it has been an experience that I have learned a lot from and will take with me to share with others... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1 I have made my best efforts at doing the right thing. I have made mistakes, for sure. I have apologized. I tried my best at explaining Adolphus what was wrong with their edits and what led to their original three-day block. I don't really know what do they really want. I just really want to move on and would expect them to move on too. Bedivere (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Rare behavior

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

User:Yubrajhn redirects to UserːLahsim Niasoh - so it looks like he is changing authorship manually Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for my behavior, My username has been changed so I am changing my uploads authorship manually. All files is uploaded by me. Please pardon me. Lahsim Niasoh (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Also I have sent severals permission email for my uploads before my username has been changed (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lahsim_Niasoh&diff=prev&oldid=889314587). So I just manually renamed my new username to my files authorship (those files were also captured by myself). Before my username was Yubrajhn and new username is Lahsim Niasoh. So please review those files, I didn't give authorship to another person two username is mine and I am the author + those files were uploaded by myself. Again I am very sorry for my behavior. Please take a step so that my username manually changes don't affect to get the files copyright Permission. Thank you so much. My English is weak so please pardon me again. @Ganímedes @Gbawden Lahsim Niasoh (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Doesn't seem any problematic edit given a valid account rename: Special:Diff/889314587. Regards, signed, Aafi (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Susudela

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

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

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

User:Enhancing999

Enough. The only likely admin action here is if someone won't let this drop they will be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 30 June 2024 (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.

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

User:A.Savin

Not a problem that requires administrative action. Enhancing999 and A.Savin should discuss their edits on the category/user talk page or village pump and come to a consensus. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:12, 29 June 2024 (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.

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

What should it be, kind of a Tit for tat? Childish --A.Savin 13:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Why did both of you open this report here without starting a discussion on category talk page or user talk page or event the village pump? These are the places to resolve content disputes not the admin board. GPSLeo (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The categorization matter is currently resolved. We are now reviewing the conduct of A.Savin in the matter (first the revert, then the report here, further the "childish" qualification). Enhancing999 (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
How is the categorization matter resolved? Do you have a special "final say" right, or why aren't you willing to discuss? --A.Savin 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of AN/U isn't to discuss categorization, but to evaluate your conduct. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we do not discuss the content dispute here. This also means that your statement "categorization matter is currently resolved" does not belong here. So please start a discussion on the question on the pages were it belongs. If you discuss in an appropriate way and accept the conclusion there is nothing to do here. GPSLeo (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I suggest we block A.Savin indefinitely until he withdraws the above qualification and presents an acceptable excuse for their conduct. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Please stop demanding totally inappropriate actions because of a minor content dispute. The report here without a prior discussion apart from the undo comments is not best practice but never a reason for a block. GPSLeo (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Besides that A.Savin's report here violates the instructions above, do you consider the comment by the user here ( 13:13, 28 June 2024) acceptable? Enhancing999 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
BTW, my report has nothing to do with a content dispute, it's a matter of user conduct by the administrator. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I recently found the noticeboard behavior by Enhancing999 towards me equally unconstructive. They were literally the only user pushing a particular POV, but they used pretty much the same language as here: "issues resolved" (in their opinion, in the opinion of many other users not resolved); "we are discussing whether Ymblanter should remain and administrator" (instead of "I am discussing"), and so on. Seems to be a recurring issue. Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Both of you were involved in admin conduct I consider inappropriate about that user. Interestingly, nobody could name a categorization question we needed to discuss at User_talk:Jeanhousen#Cimetières_et_patrimoine_classé. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I am afraid if you still do not understand what the problem was (despite being told many times) you are not likely to understand this. Then what you consider inappropriate is irrelevant, since you do not have sufficient understanding of our policies. This is also very clear from this thread. Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
You were pressing a user for answers to questions you consider open, but don't bother naming nor did you explain what report lead you press that user. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, perfect counduct, I fully agree. Continuing editwarring with the explanation as much as "there is no consensus for your edit", and then demanding indefblock of a user who doesn't happen to agree with you. --A.Savin 14:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Minor content dispute, no action needed against Alex. --SHB2000 (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I had a similar issue with A.Savin a while ago. That said, both of their ways of handling this are clearly not great. So either both should be sanctioned or neither one should be, and I doubt either one would accept a sanction just to get back at the other. Especially considering how menial this whole thing was to begin with. So I don't really see what else needs to or should be done here. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • If you're editwarring and get reported at this noticeboard, best way to avoid sanction is... to report the one who reported you! The Enhancing999 thread just above is still empty. Editwarring and obvious misuse of COM:ANU is apparently allowed, if your name is Enhancing999. Wow, just wow --A.Savin 06:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Both of you seemed to have jumped the gun on the ANU complaints. Even if yours was technically filed first. So maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
How is this helpful in any way? If persistent editwarring is not to report at COM:ANU, then what else is to do about it? Or are you just trying to showcase your knowledge of some German idioms? --A.Savin 08:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@A.Savin: little idea what here you consider a "German idiom".
As it happens, I agree with A.Savin on the matter at hand. That text is apparently part of the sign, even if it isn't visible in every photo and, yes, attaching it to the category is better, and I might well have done just what he did on that page, though I would certainly have tried to discuss by some other means with the other user before coming to AN/U. Pinging @Enhancing999 it looks like you made no argument more meaningful that "no, this is how it should be", then reported A.Savin here for not accepting that impeccable logic. I don't think this calls for a sanction against you, but it certainly doesn't call for a sanction against him. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 29 June 2024 (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.

Sequence

Enough. The only likely admin action here is if someone won't let this drop they will be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 30 June 2024 (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.

@Jmabel: : Maybe you got the sequence wrong, but A.Savin reported myself here on a content debate, not the opposite. I reported here them for their way of approaching this, by not discussing it and their insults, even suggesting users would seek their block for not agreeing with them on matters of curation. Besides, there seems to be a pattern with A.Savin to use administrative action instead of discussing their approach with other users. Take User_talk:Jeanhousen/Archive_5#Rorschacher: without barely letting time to respond (during sleep?), A.Savin issued an "administrative warning" on a trivial editorial question. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 30 June 2024 (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.

Enhancing999's temperament

Enough. The only likely admin action here is if someone won't let this drop they will be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 30 June 2024 (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.

This is the second time (that I'm aware of) in a very short window that Enhancing999 has been told to disengage, the thread they've been feuding in has been closed, and they've tried to reopen it. You can see the first at User_talk:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy#AN/U.

@Enhancing999: Bluntly, you need to learn to disengage, especially when other users give you an off ramp to do so by closing threads where you're engaging in non-productive arguing. If you continue to try to reopen threads like this after admins have said that there's nothing actionable, you are the one that's going to get blocked. The admins on this project are overworked as it is without having to deal with people that seemingly enjoy fighting for fighting's sake. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Which thread was reopened? I think you are making inappropriate personal attacks and falsely accusing me of reopening a (open) thread. I'd appreciate a correction from your side.
If you think it wasn't useful to include subsequent behavior in the thread you closed by agreeing that the taunting by the reported user wasn't appropriate, it's obviously your choice. I could have opened a new thread. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Not to say that I think Enhancing999 should have continued it after the complaint was closed, but A.Savin seems to have a real problem with trying to goad people into fighting with him to. I have yet to have a conversation with A.Savin where he didn't just misconstrue what I said to cause needless drama. Really at this point both of them should be blocked. Although for an extremely short time, but I think both of them could benefit from a short cooling off period. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to add falsely accusing me of harassment and threating to report me to the WMF for no reason on top of it to. A.Savin clearly has an attitude problem and likes to stir up drama. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Should we open a separate thread or new section on A.Savin behavior not discussed above? Enhancing999 (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999: Almost certainly we should not. The two of you should either try (both) to talk civilly to each other or just plain disengage for a while. User:A.Savin: I realize you are an admin, but really, it looks like you and Enhancing999 have enough difficulty with each other that unless something is at the level of threatening the general operation of the wiki, you should probably just lay off of him for a while. If his behavior is bad enough, I'm sure some other admin will notice it. And User:Enhancing999, if you post again on this thread I personally will block you for a week. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 30 June 2024 (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.

User:LustfulWyvern

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

✓ Done for the latter. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus What's the problem with the name? Is "lustful" offensive to you? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
In context yes because the user is an exhibitionist Dronebogus (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Nonickillo

Nonickillo (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) The user reuploaded the pictures that were deleted. Would it be possible to delete the pictures again, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I re-uploaded the images because I have full permissions to share them, permissions that specifically include their use in the document I'm working on. These images are crucial to illustrating my work, so: Could you be so kind as to explain to me why you are so interested in removing them? What should I do to upload them so that you no longer disturb my work? Kind regards. Nonickillo (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nonickillo: Please read the warnings on your talk page. You need a formal written permission from the copyright holder before uploading works not created by you. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Do not reupload these files until a VRT Agent and an Admin have completed the formalities. Yann (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC) (bold addition by   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC))
Ok Yann, but in the case of images in which no one knows who took the photo, or in the case of images that are over 80 years old and no one knows the name of the photographer, and who is probably deceased... How should we proceed? Thank you. Nonickillo (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nonickillo:
  1. Assume they are still copyrighted.
  2. Assume they are still copyrighted until 120 years have passed, then use {{PD-old-assumed}}.
  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok Jeff G., I'll try to clarify all this. It is really difficult, almost impossible, to use images on Wikipedia, despite having all the permissions from the owners of the photographs. Kind regards. Nonickillo (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nonickillo: Sorry about that. I have 31 surviving uploads on enwiki, so I know it can be done. We follow copyright law worldwide. Individual Wikipedias follow what they want, subject in many cases to non-free content criteria. See COM:L, m:nfc, Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, and https://freedomdefined.org/Definition/1.0 for more info.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
"Owning the photographs" is a completely different matter than owning the intellectual property rights for the photographs. If the copyright is orphaned, that can be really annoying, but it's reality. - Jmabel ! talk 01:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged

Khankendi is a city in Azerbaijan and since 2023 it is under Azerbaijani control. Its previous name was Stepanakert but in 1991 it was renamed and today its official and since 2023 de facto name is Khankendi. Even in recent reliable sources this city is mentioned first of all as "Khankendi" but "Stepanakert" is mentioned only as a name "known to Armenians" or "known in Armenia"[24][25]. Even the recent report of The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights uses the name of Khankendi throughout the report, only once in the beginning mentioning that the city is "referred to as Stepanakert by Karabakh Armenians"[26]. For that reason all categories containing the name of this city in their names should be with "Khankendi". And categories with "Stepanakert" should be redirected to the categories with "Khankendi". But user Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues edit warring reverting the categories with "Stepanakert" back misleading the readers of Commons. I asked this user on his talk page to not revert "Stepanakert" back and explained why the categories should be with "Khankendi"[27], but he ignored my message and continues mass edit warring reverting the wrong and not actual name of the city back and removing the redirects to "Khankendi"[28][29][30][31][32]. So, please stop this user from posting false information into Commons and help to revert his edits on these categories. Interfase (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

We should now be using the Azeri name, with the Armenian name as a redirect. It's possible that there are certain historical categories where the Armenian name is correct, especially if it is part of a longer proper noun phrase. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
For example, we have redirect from "Swaziland" to "Eswatini"[33] which is relatively new renaming (in 2018), but Stepanakert was renamed to Khankendi in 1991 and the old name ceased to exist de facto in place in 2023. We should have the same redirect here as well: from "Stepanakert" to "Khankendi", not the other way around. There is no any "Stepanakert" in Azerbaijan today. The current situation is simply absurd. Interfase (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is just my personal take of course, but I'm hesitant to say we should adopt a new name for somewhere the second it's changed. Depending on the circumstances categories aren't supposed to be 100% accurate depictions of the current facts on the ground to begin with and lots of times they aren't (or can't be) anyway. That's fine. The main thing is that people are able to find and organize media related to the topic. In this case maybe locals know the name has changed, but it takes time for the rest of the world to catch up and this isn't a project just for locals or people who are overly obsessive about the latest trends in geopolitics or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
More than 30 years passed since the city was renamed to "Khankendi" and today this name is widely used in the world press nad other sources. The rest of the world already catched up the name "Khankendi". Just 2 years passed when "Swaziland" was renamed to "Eswatini". What is a problem here? We have more that enogh sources showing that "Khankendi" is widely used in the world. Interfase (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
@Interfase: See Prosfilaes' comment below this one. Your claim that The rest of the world already catched up the name "Khankendi" is clearly false. Regardless, there's no point in changing it if the vast majority of other projects are still using the original name. Again, the point in a category is to find and organize files. That's it. Not be a 100% accurate representation of the current facts on the ground, whatever those facts are in this case. Maybe take it up on Wikipedia's end though and then we can update it once they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia (and probably the majority of Wikipedias) hasn't changed the name yet. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia says there's not much of a Khankendi in Azerbaijan, either; the entire population appears to have fled on the approach of the Azerbaijan military. When you say "Stepanakert was renamed to Khankendi in 1991", that's omitting who gave it that name; the Azerbaijan government may have made that change, but the people of Stepanakert never accepted it. This is complex; instead of renaming anything, I'd almost recognize it as a new city on the same location and completely separate categories depending on time period. It's like the difference between Category:Königsberg and Category:Kaliningrad.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
So, do you think that here we should use the same approcah? Keep both categories with "Khankendi" and "Stepanakert" and put files related to the period since 1923 to 2023 into "Stepanakert" and the files related to the period till 1923 and since 2023 into "Khankendi"? Interfase (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
How many images have been uploaded since 2023 compared to before that? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Almost 100. Interfase (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
But I am not agree to have two different categories for the same city because almost all of the images related to the city were taken at the period when the city was officialy called "Khankendi". Interfase (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm, I could really go either way with it myself then. Although it's probably better not to create two different categories anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Speaking as an administrator, this does not appear to be a user behavioral issue. If the category was at a longstanding place, and you are seeking to change it against opposition, please utilize the categories for discussion method in order to attempt to gain a consensus. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
But user did not bring any arguments for his reverts. It seems that he did reverts for the reverts without any explanation on his talk page after my message. Interfase (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, I opened the discussion here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Stepanakert (thanks for navigation) and proposed to move the categories carrying the "Stepanakert". Interfase (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • What was this even about? My bad behaviour? Bad categorisation? Annoyance that the Azerbaijani victory over Arksakh is not getting proper recognition? I refrained from comment here and on the categories because I have experience of the complainant: dialog is useless as his sole goal is to advance a political agenda. He's not that subtle about it. I'll continue the "discussion" in the above talk page. Thanks for your attention. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    I think the user was objecting to your objection to the renaming of a category, and didn't quite know the proper channel to discuss it. The user has since been directed to it, and has opened a discussion regarding whether or not to move the category. I feel like we can close this with no action. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1 and deletion discussions

Closing with a two weeks block, see rational below. --Kritzolina (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2024 (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.

User:Adamant1 has made a habit out of indiscriminately nominating every single file in a category for deletion, particularly if the category is AI-related, under vague rationales along the lines of “not educational”. They also seem to have a complete lack of respect and/or understanding of COM:INUSE, both disregarding it in the first place and trying to argue it doesn’t apply after the fact. Examples of behavior:

I do not think Adamant1 knows or cares enough about deletion policy to be trusted with it any longer. Their willingness to disregard COM:INUSE is particularly concerning. I think they should be topic banned from this area and potentially CfD as well. Dronebogus (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a topic ban is excessive at this time, but @Adamant1 I think it is incumbent as you as nominator to at least make a solid pass at working out whether images you are nominating are in use or not (and if so where), rather than pushing that work off onto other people. I just spent an hour trying to make sense of the very varied statuses of images at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated gibberish; I feel that is work that you as nominator should have done. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the need for some cleanup regarding unused AI-generated personal artworks, but I agree with Dronebogus' concerns above.
Also, apart from Adamant1 repeatedly misrepresenting policy and making various other factually wrong claims in favor of deletions (example, concerning an image that is currently in use on 14 different language Wikipedias, often since over two years ago), there are also serious civility issues with Adamant1's behavior in context of these DRs. (Folks more familiar with the conventions of this noticeboard: Feel free to advise in case this should rather be made into a separate thread.) See e.g. Adamant1's personal attacks against User:JPxG just within the last 24 hours:
  • Sorry, I didn't know you couldn't read multi-sentence paragraphs. My bad. I'll be sure to draw you picture next time. I'd say to see my comment below this for further clarification, but it's probably to many sentences for your reading compression level. Again, sorry, I'll try to stick to simple kindergarten level diagrams next time. Since that seems to be all your capable of reading[34]
  • I was just trying to be accommodating to your reading comprehension level since it seemed like it's short. No insult intended though [35].
I raised this to Adamant1, asking to refrain from claims that another Commons user has deficient intellectual capabilities. However, they reacted badly, rejecting the request to stop such ad hominem attacks and justifying them as minor pushback to the above mentioned criticism of misrepresenting the relevant policy and (separately) to criticism of a separate mistaken legal claim Adamant1 had made in favor of possibly banning images that were clearly generated with SD 3 if not AI artwork more generally (although JPxG wasn't even involved in the debunking of Adamant1's assertions in the latter).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
That’s another issue I’m seeing with their behavior— they don’t just disagree or even get mad when people call them out, they act like that person is stupid for disagreeing with their obviously incorrect interpretation of policy. They’re a good contributor in other ways, but this kind of behavior is patently unacceptable and should result in an indef if they don’t cut it out immediately. Dronebogus (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
PS, to add regarding factually wrong claims, another very recent example: As detailed here, Adamant1 straight up misquoted the scope policy in one of his belittling comments to JPxG. I.e. a supposedly verbatim "quote" in Adamant1's comment does not actually occur in the policy, and the corresponding section actually contradicts Adamant1's claims there.
I would not bring these up if these were isolated mistakes of the kind that can credibly occur to anyone acting in good faith. But we are seeing a repeated disregard for the facts here that is very disruptive and is wasting lots of time by other editors who are confronted with Adamant1's many misleading assertions. (This is also already visible just in this section, see Dronebogus spending time below on providing detailed evidence to correct another such misleading claim by Adamant1.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment People are free to read through the multiple discussions on my talk page and the DRs that Dronebogus has linked to. The fact is that the same 2 or 3 users repeatedly messaged me in an extremely rude, lecturing way about something that I explained to them multiple times and refused to get the point that the guideline has exceptions for the "in use" clause. @JPxG: in particular repeatedly tried to act like I nominated the images for deletion because I just dislike AI-generated artwork and think it's "low quality." When I told them multiple times that the quality of the images has nothing to do with the DRs.
Nowhere did I say in any DR what-so-ever that they have anything to do with the quality of the artwork or my personal opinions about the quality. Yet @JPxG: was clearly incapable of getting the point and dropping it. I'll also note that I told of them multiple times that I encourage them to ask about it on the village and get whatever they think isn't clear in the guidelines clarified. Which they refused to do. Instead continuing to message about it in an extremely lecturing rude way across multiple talk pages. This is 100% a made up issue though. I don't have a "habit of disregarding COM:INUSE." In fact rarely, if ever, nominate in use files for deletion. Except in extremely rare instances that I go out of my way to explain. Again, people like the commenters above (including @Dronebogus: are just being opportunists and are just refusing to get the point that there are exceptions to the "in use" policy. Again, I encourage them or anyone else to get the specifics of when and how it applies or not clarified on the Village Pump. They clearly don't actually care about though outside of harassing me because I didn't just a bend a knee to their nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
How do you justify comments like [36] and [37]? I can't see any way in which they're acceptable according to our regular policies, they're far from exceptional for you and they would normally be seen as block-worthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Frustration over him and others refusing to get the point and drop it. That happens sometimes. It was a multiple day thing across multiple conversations that he and the other people involved refused to drop and get the point about. The first comment was also made on my talk page. Where I'm under the understanding that we have more leeway to express ourselves. I wouldn't have made that comment anywhere else, but it's my talk page and I can say what I want on it. That's on him for engaging in the discussion in an extremely rude way and then refusing to get the point. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
It's impossible to "drop it", because you are continuing to make invalid mass-deletion requests for dozens of images as we speak, in which you make demonstrable false claims about policy which nobody agrees with. This is blatantly disruptive and borders on trolling. JPxG (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • How long have you been here now? We might excuse Frustration over him as an excuse for incivility in a new editor, but you've been here a while and know how things work. Not wanting to be Al Capone's tax inspector, I don't want to turn this behavioural issue into a simpler (and likely to be swept under the carpet) one about civility; but still these rules still apply to you and you're well into a blockable space.
AI images are a problem for us, as they've recently expanded outside our established corpus of policy and practice. Clearly you hold that INUSE doesn't apply to them. There are real questions here as to whether Commons should hold AI images, preserve INUSE as applying to them, or even (which we are traditionally shy of) dictate to other projects that (like NFC, but unlike PENIS) 'we just don't store that stuff here'. There is room for debate on this. Traditionally DRs have been used as a forum for some of that. But your approach here is against our norms of behaviour. You didn't start these DRs with a question, "Should INUSE be suspended for AI? Here are some items affected." but instead you simply sledgehammered INUSE, on no more basis than "I, Adamant, am adamant over this." That's not good enough, it's not how we work. If you're really debating a policy shift, at least make it clear that this is what you're doing, not just using it as an assumption. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Clearly you hold that INUSE doesn't apply to them. More specifically to the ones I nominated for deletion. There's plenty of AI images currently in use that I wouldn't nominate for deletion though. Your just cherry picking to spin a non-exiting narrative about the deletion requests.
You didn't start these DRs with a question, "Should INUSE be suspended for AI? Here are some items affected." Yeah, I didn't because I don't think it should be suspended for for AI artwork. There's plenty of places where it's totally legitimate and there's some where it isn't. That's it. This has never had anything to do with AI artwork more generally and nowhere have I ever said it does. I don't even disagree with the rest of your musing about it. That's why I invited the people I got in the dispute with to discuss it on the village pump. Repeatedly treating me like I have opinions or position that I don't really isn't helpful though. I'm not advocating for, nor have I ever advocated for, a policy shift. I'm applying the policies as they currently apply. While saying I think it's worth getting some parts of it clarified to in order to help resolve a dispute. You know that and what a strawman argument is. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: You just nominated 14 in-use files in one deletion request alone! How is that “rarely, if ever”? Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
And I gave multiple reasons for the DR. Ones that your free to disagree with, but its not like I didn't provide any. Anyway do you any other examples of doing that before? Because I can't think of any and your the one claiming its a pattern. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Well besides almost every other deletion discussion I mentioned, I can’t immediately cite any, but I’m sure I can find at least one Dronebogus (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Here’s one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abraham Lincoln using a smartphone (anachronism).jpg Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cosmopolitan Artificial Intelligence cover.png Dronebogus (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Possible depiction of LHS 1140 b landscape with black grass and red starlight.jpg Dronebogus (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Police arresting Donald Trump (Midjourney) Dronebogus (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: I was hoping for another DR involving 14 files that were "in use" since that was your example. Its not against the rules to nominate images for deletion or for those images to be kept. There's certainly instance where I've nominated in use files for deletion and that waa the outcome. So your just cherry picking. Maybe compare that to my nominations over all and the one involving the images being deleted. The claim here is that I have a pattern of "indiscriminately" creating sparious DRs for "in use files" though. Not just I get something wrong once in a while. That's litterally how this works. No one, including you, has a perfect track record on here. You've certainly created plenty if DRs for porn files that weren't depeted. Clearly that must mean your just doing indiscriminate DRs because your against pornography. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, let’s shift the attention onto me. Because that’s a good debate strategy. Dronebogus (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: I'm not trying to shift the attention to you, but your the one who opened this and if your claim is that I should be because have a pattern of indiscriminately nominating "in use" files for deletion then at least IMO it should be above and beyond the normal amount of mistakes people (including you) tend to make in deletion requests. That's not to say I'm not responsible for getting things wrong once in awhile, but again, everyone does and that's not the claim your making. I know "Adamant1 gets a few DRs wrong sometimes just like everyone else" doesn't have the same ring to it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how much we need to get into detail about this particular misleading assertion by Adamant1; but yes, in general it does seem indeed worth documenting what looks like a frequent pattern (see also the case of the nonexistent policy quote, above). Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm really sure what your talking. What "nonexitent" policy am I qouting? As far as I know all the qoutes of guidelines on my side were copied directly from COM:INUSE. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Please read the above comment I was referring to, and the more detailed examination of your tampered quote here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking through the archives of this board, this is not the first time that users have brought up such problems with Adamant1's behavior here. E.g. the following past comments (each from a different user who is not involved in the current exchanges AFAICS) seem to also describe the current problems quite well:
This list of examples is non-exhaustive. It seems evident that many previous requests to Adamant1 to change their problematic behavior, and two past short-term blocks for related issues, have not resulted in sustained improvements.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the combination of current examples, block history, and w:wp:IDHT/Everyone-else-is-wrong attitude are enough to recommend an indefinite block of Adamant1 for incivility, lack of policy understanding and continual misuse/overuse of the DR system. Dronebogus (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Show of hands. Does anywhere here seriously think there is or should be a complete ban on nominating "in use" files for deletion? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    This is an absurdly disingenuous comment that misrepresents the positions of everyone involved: nobody ever said that there was, or should be, a "complete ban" on deleting in-use files. Indeed, policies explicitly allow this in lots of scenarios: copyright violations, legal issues, bad-faith use of files. What they do not allow is the deletion of files that are legal, freely-licensed, not in violation of Commons policy, and used on other projects in ways that comply with their own policies, on the sole basis that you want them to be deleted -- people have asked you about a dozen times for literally any rationale that isn't "I want them deleted" (policy, guideline, consensus, etc) and each time you have refused, often insulting the person who asked. JPxG (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    This is the User problems noticeboard, not COM:VP or another venue for discussing what COM:SCOPE or other policies should read like. Please address the specific concerns about your behavior above, instead of trying to distract from them. (But for the record and to discourage strawmanning: I for one am quite comfortable with the limited exceptions of COM:INUSE in the current version of COM:SCOPE. The problem is your persistent misinterpretations of this policy.)
    Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    @JPxG: The problem is that there's no way to determine if they files go against any of those scenarios because you both initiated this and attacked me over it right after I started the deletion requests and before they were actually closed. So it seems like that's your position. You can't have it both ways where it's both disingenuous to treat you like there should be any exceptions, but then repeatedly treat me like that's exactly what your position is. Otherwise you could have at least waiting into the DRs where concluded and other people had commented on them before claiming the whole thing spurious and not based on policy.
  • @Please address the specific concerns about your behavior above.: The specific concerns where that I have a history of opening DRs for "in use" files in a way that goes against the guidelines and the question directly relates to that. I've also asked you multiple to clarify what exactly you think I'm misinterpreting and you haven't answered me. So it clear to me that either you just don't want to admit you have no argument or you think there isn't a situation where it's OK to nominate "in use" for deletion. Hence the clarifying question about it. So which one is it? Either there's exceptions and this is a nothing burger, or there aren't and it's justified. There really isn't any other options there though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have reverted the misleading move of the above comment that Adamant1 conducted as part of this edit.
    Moving the comment away from the above two responses to it rendered them unintelligible (by removing their reference point) and created the misleading impression that JPxG's statement This is an absurdly disingenuous comment ... was referring to a comment by myself instead of Adamant1's. (See also COM:TALK.) I have asked Adamant1 to stop such disruptive behavior. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I commented about the move on talk page. There were comments to it at the time when I moved the question and I moved it so it wouldn't get lost in other stuff. I what happened is that both you and JPxG commented at the same time I was moving it. That's not a crime. Nor is it dispruptive. Your clearly just looking for things to be upset about. Especially since I already explained the mistake to you on my talk page. This whole thing is 100% bad faithed drama farming. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
It's a fact of life that sometimes we all have frustrating moments online, but this is not just one of those cases. This user has spent days making wildly disruptive DRs and repeatedly insulting people who disagree with them while substantially misrepresenting policy. I have already spent a substantial amount of time having circular discussions with this user, so I am not eager to spend even more, so I will try to keep it brief: they've claimed, repeatedly and falsely, that policy requires AI images to be deleted because they are "amateur artwork", regardless of them being in use on other projects. They have refused to provide any guideline, policy, or consensus that supports this claim. Their driveby mass-nominations include, for example, an image demonstrating DALL-E's own output, which is the lead image for the DALL-E article on thirteen Wikipedias. When asked about this specifically, they accused me of "lying" and said my "reading compression level" [sic] is at a "kindergarten level". Nobody has supported these deletions, and indeed every participant in these discussions seems to robustly disagree with this interpretation of policy. Indeed, all relevant guidelines and policies go out of their way to explicitly say this is not the case. Adamant1 claims to "quote" policy that supports them... and then posts sentences that do not appear in the policy, which they made up. I believe the term to describe this is "lying".
This diff is an example of what I'm talking about: Sorry, I didn't know you couldn't read multi-sentence paragraphs. My bad. I'll be sure to draw you picture next time. I'd say to see my comment below this for further clarification, but it's probably to many sentences for your reading compression level. Again, sorry, I'll try to stick to simple kindergarten level diagrams next time. Sure, it is on his own talk page, and I think people should have at least some latitude to be curt on their own talk pages, but it's completely ridiculous to post stuff like this and then act like people are displeased with you for absolutely no reason.

In general, I am not an administrator on Commons and I don't know what the general precedent is about user conduct here, but I think that if somebody is repeatedly making disruptive nominations, insulting other users and then outright lying (e.g. "quoting" policy and then editing it to say different things) this indicates either temperament or competence issues which are incompatible with continued participation on the project. JPxG (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This user has spent days making wildly disruptive DRs From what I remember all the DRs that are being questioned here were opened either yesterday or last night. Nor has any of them been closed yet. In no way is me opening 4 DRs in the same night that haven't even concluded yet "spending days making wildly disruptive DRs." Comments like that are large part of the problem here. Your the one who repeatedly initiated the conversations, continued making spurious claims like that one in them, and then refused to get the point and stop making things personal. I'm sorry if I got a little defense in between countering your constantly disingenuous comments, but that's life. You had plenty of opportunities to just drop it and move on. Your the one who repeatedly decided to continue it across multiple talk pages when I made it more then clear that I was done with the conversation. Sorry, but I'm not going to just sit there silently while someone continuously makes spurious, insulting comments about me over and over in multiple places. That's not how this works. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The claims are objectively false, multiple people have demonstrated this, and Adamant's response is to just keep saying them over and over.
This is not acceptable behavior: it's disruptive editing, and moreover it's a pretty long-standing pattern. On the English Wikipedia they have repeatedly been siteblocked for the exact same type of incivility paired with refusal to accept that their edits violate both guidelines and consensus, culminating in an indefinite topic ban from deletion discussions outside of articles they created. Indeed, it would not even be the first time their trolling/edit warring on Commons warranted a block. I think that a topic ban on deletion here may be warranted. JPxG (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
What's objectively false? From what I've seen all the examples are from the last day or two and none of them have been closed yet. Except for the CfD for "Superstraight" from May, but that's not a deletion request and it still hasn't been closed either. Your the one claiming I've "spent days making wildly disruptive DRs." So what exactly am I saying that's "objectively false" and where's the evidence that I've "spent days making wildly disruptive deletion requests"? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
It’s inherently disruptive to violate policy; CfDs take forever and a day to close even when the outcome is super obvious so that’s not much of an argument when the consensus at the discussion is clearly against you. Dronebogus (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: sure. But then a day into this and a ton of messages later you still haven't provided any evidence of me violating any policy. But then your still out there making off-topic personal comments in DRs about me. So...Why not drop it and move on? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The problems here are (a) Adamant1 is not putting in sufficient effort to exclude files which are likely to be kept as in scope; (b) any nomination of an in-use files on scope grounds needs a detailed explanation as to why the usual guidance of keeping in use files should not be followed; (c) Adamant1 does not know when to back down/cool off. Some of these nominated files look like they should be deleted. Some don't. I think we can probably move forward with some assurances/understanding here, but if it continues the way it has been a topic ban seems possible. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
A and B are underpinned by the user's apparent conviction that they can ignore COM:INUSE because they don't think that it's written clearly enough. (They also keep calling it a guideline rather than a policy, but I don't know if that distinction means anything to them.)
A June 29 thread on the user's talk page has three different editors asking them to follow COM:INUSE in future deletion requests. Adamant1 concludes that Personally, I'd love to see a lot of this get clarified. That's on you guys to do as the ones who disagree with the guidelines current wording to do though. and a few hours later opens deletion discussions on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated gibberish (17 of 31 of which are in use on other projects) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated images by David S. Soriano (25 of 25 in use).
If a user's response to finding a policy hard to understand is to ignore it, and to take multiple challenges of their interpretation as a sign that the policy needs to change, that seems like a fundamental problem with how they're using this website. Belbury (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Where did I say I misunderstand it? I understand it perfectly fine. I was just talking about getting the disagreement being resolved on the village pump because it didn't seem like the dispute on my talk page about it was going anywhere. Isn't that the whole point in the village pump? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
You've said in a few places that COM:INUSE "isn't clear" to you. Belbury (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's clear in general. That includes to me and It's obviously not clear to the people I got in the confrontation with going by their comments about it. But there's at least a couple of places where key parts of it either aren't well defined or contradict each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Admin questions for you Adamant1: Do you understand what parts of your behaviour are disruptive to many users as stated above? This is not about rules or if the behaviour is officially in line with policies or not. This is about collaborating respectfully on Commons. Are you willing to try and change at least some of that behaviour, to help this project thrive? --Kritzolina (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem changing anything I'm doing if there's a genuine issue with my behavior. That said, I'm kind losf about what the actual problem is here. I already said I got a little defense on my talk page. And I'll try to better about that of course. But I really don't understand what actual problem there is here besides a couple of people throwing a fit a few DRs that haven't even been closed yet and don't seem to be a problem anyway. It's a little unfair to tell me the rules and policies don't matter to this when a disagreement about the guidelines has what instigated this. Otherwise the uncivility was both sides and I more then went out my way to disengauge and move on. They continued it. That said, sure. I'll be more civil next time. But I'm not here to just get brow beat repeatedly over and over by the same couple of people while I nod my head about how much of a piece of shit I am or whatever. Sorry. Again, I don't know what the problem here is outside of that one comment on my talk page and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of justify a block. So can you be more specific about what the actual problem is? Otherwise that's really all I have to say about it. Sorry. I rather just move on like I've been repeatedly asking everyone else to do. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1, this is a very unsatisfying answer. Several users took a lot of time to try to explain to you, what the actual problem is. Rules her are created to help avoid conflicts like these and to help a collaborative working atmosphere. You are doing a lot that is disruptive to other users. Most of it is related to Deletion Requests and discussion following DRs. Would you be willing to stop nominating images for deletion for a month and use the time to try and understand what others see as disruptive? We then could continue this conversation on your talkpage or mine, or even per mail, where it doesn't disrupt that many others. Kritzolina (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kritzolina: I've provided 5 examples of deletion requests for "in use" files at the bottom of this. Including two where the person who started this voted to delete the images. One of those also happened to have from a few days ago and I was the person who started it. So no, I don't really see what the problem is here. The person who filed this literally voted to delete "in use" files a few days ago and then reported me for it. So it really isn't clear to me what the issue here is. The stuff being complained about here are things that the person making the complaints seems to have no-issue-what-so-ever with outside of this complaint.
I would also appreciate it if you read the last discussion on my talk page "Do not rearrange talk pages in a misleading way." @HaeB: blamed me for an edit that was clearly an accident and then continued to do so after I told him as much. Even repeating the same claim that I did it on purpose here in this ANU complaint. This is clearly a bad faithed fishing attempt by both him and Dronebogus. I'm not going to take a month off from something that isn't a problem. And again, I say that because Dronebogus has no issue with it outside of the ANU complaint.
I'm not the one causing the disruption here. They are. I told them I was more then willing to discuss it on the Village Pump. They refused to and Dronebogus filed this instead. It's not on me if they didn't want to use the normal channels to resolve the problem before reporting me. Someone can't just refuse to seek a resolution to a problem through the normal channels and then file an ANU complaint about something they have absolutely no issue with doing themselves. Sorry. I'm not taking a break for that. There was no reason they couldn't have met me half way and discussed it on the Village Pump like I asked them to. Then waited to see what the consensus was before filing this if it was actually a genuine issue. I certainly would have been totally fine with that and not nominating any more "in use" images for deletion until it was resolved. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick comment regarding the "in use" issue because I have only a few minutes free time now, the user seems to misunderstand under which circumstances files that are in use can be deleted and mixes up scope and other issues, see my recent answer in a DR to their Plenty of files that are "in use" get deleted pretty routinely argument. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: In use files do get deleted pretty routinely. Especially if the files are of AI-artwork. I'm pretty busy with other things right now, but I'm more then happy to provide some examples when I have the time if you really want them. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's three off the top of my head. The last two are specifically for AI-generated images and funny enough, but @Dronebogus: voted delete in the second one even though the files were being used at the time. Go figure. I'll add more when I have the time.

I think I'm more sympathetic than some others here to Adamant1's position that INUSE should be especially scrutinized for AI images. Let's look at an example, File:Laikhulempi (Laikhurembi) - Goddess of argument, divine law, good counsel, justice, order, retribution & secrecy - Queen of the Underworld - Classical Meitei mythology & religion (Sanamahism AKA Lainingthouism) of ancient Kangleipak.jpg. It's one of many created by the same user. That user then added the images to a range of obscure Wikipedia articles in multiple languages and to Wikidata. There's no indication of some broad consensus to include -- it's just one person adding their own made-up representation of a mythological figure to places that don't get any scrutiny. I don't know if that image should be considered in scope here, but I certainly don't think its "inuse" status should preclude debate. That said, some of the in use files Adamant1 has nominated don't appear so problematic, being used for The Signpost, or to illustrate AI art itself, etc. That's why I say above the important thing will be for Adamant1 to be very articulate when they don't see an "in use" as valid. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I looked into it more and I'm more then willing to agree that images being used on the Signpost, or to illustrate AI art itself are probably fine not to delete. Although I think there's a grey area with the last one though since a user created a Wikibook awhile ago specifically for the purposes of faking usage so AI artwork couldn't be deleted. So I think that one should depend on the situation. But I'm more then willing to say nominating the images for deletion that were being used on the Signpost and the Wikipedia article for AI artwork were probably to broad. I disagree that it warrants this whole row though. A simple message on my talk page explaining the situation in simple terms and sticking to the facts would have been perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am going to close this with a two week block - this is the second such block, next time should be for a longer preiod. @Adamant1, you should try to remember that collaboration is more important than defending rules and listen to voices that have different views on those rules from yours. You are causing others unnecessary work with your DRs and making problems by blaming everyone and not looking for your own part in those issues. Learn how to compromise or you are in danger of losing certain editing rights permanently (topic ban from DRs for example) or even all editing rights on Commons. I am still willing to communicate more with you about proper behaviour on Commons on your talkpage or via Wikimail, so feel free to start a discussion - but I will discuss only if it starts with real curiosity about what you could do differently, not if you are just going to blame everyone else. --Kritzolina (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kritzolina: I talked about it on my talk page and said I was willing to discuss it on the Village Pump. I was dog piled and reported to ANU before I had chance to though. So I don't really see how I wasn't being collaborative. It's not my fault that I wasn't given a chance to discuss it. I was more then willing to hold of on the DRs for a while well it was worked out to. Again, no one involved in this gave me the chance. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_113&oldid=896182563"