Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 117

Two requests

I have just been threatened with ban for mistaking a procedure of deletion for a category I had created myself with a wrong grammar (Category:280s BC in Syracuse in place of Category:Syracuse in the 280s BC), because I did not correctly complete the deletion request, which prevented to start a debate, because: "Warning: such edits are not tolerated and have led to account blocks, as "We cannot work here with people who are not willing to follow our procedures, in particular for deletion requests". This all for a patently wrong category, which goes against the grammar of all the other decades in the mother Category:Syracuse_by_decade.

Now, I have been a wikipedian for almost 20 years and I made almost half a million edits, but this is the first time I meet someone who threatens me with a ban for merely mistaking a procedure. I have therefore two requests to make. First, someone could suggest kindly User:Jeff G. to use a more appropriate language when communicating, sticking to the principle of "always assuming good faith". Being dealt with as a vandal for a mistake could scare away some new contributors, who could mistake the excess of attitude by one adm for the general attitude on Wikimedia.

Second, the procedure for deletion is insanely complicated. In this time of Artificial Intelligence there is no reason to rely on Natural Stupidity, with a complicate procedure that seems the product of a drunken Prussian bureaucrat from the 19th century. I can't code, so I cannot volunteer to write the procedure myself, but is it really that difficult to create a form that opens when you ask for a deletion, just to be filled in? Otherwise, a procedure could be implemented that someone could delete an empty category they created themselves by mistake, thus relieving the burden poor Jeef G has to endure, suffering from users who "do not follow his procedures". That would spare a bit of needless attrition. Thank you for considering my request. User:G.dallorto (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@G.dallorto:

• The procedure to nominate a file for deletion is to go to the file page, click "Nominate for deletion" and give your rationale for deletion.
• The procedure to nominate a category for deletion is to click "Nominate category for discussion" (differently named because there are a wider variety of ways to resolve issues about a problem category than a problem file).

This hardly seems to me to merit the remarks about "insanely complicated" and "a drunken Prussian bureaucrat." What, exactly, do you find difficult about the way it currently works? - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Evidently, they found creating subpage Commons:Deletion requests/Category:280s BC in Syracuse and transcluding it to Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/08 to be difficult. Is the AjaxQuickDelete gadget enabled by default?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: assuming that is the same thing as "nominate for deletion" in the left nav, I see it even when I am not logged in. - Jmabel ! talk 07:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@G.dallorto: I did not originate the procedure for deletion, I found it here over 17 years ago when I joined. I did not threaten you with a ban, I warned you that you could be blocked (and not by me). Users are expected to preview their posts, which can point out problems with manual use of {{Delete}}. It is also required to notify users you report here on their user talk pages.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

User:ChristianPC1998

ChristianPC1998 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. Possible sock puppet account of Walter4123 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) and Summerry2024 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) (both blocked globally). The images that are usually uploaded are screenshots and clippings of copyrighted videos from the internet. --Ovruni (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Warned, all files deleted. @Ovruni: Could you please fill up a request for check user about sockpuppetry? Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Yann: I have nominated similar files for deletion from user Sonia197881 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) (also blocked globally) and created a request for check user. --Ovruni (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ovruni: Sonia197881 is not part of your RFCU. Is that intentional? Yann (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: I just added the Sonia197881 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) account (although it is an older account than the others) and the Augustinsson (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) account that was previously blocked in commons for multiple account abuse (but I don't know any further details about which accounts the administrator found a relationship with). --Ovruni (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Seiichi Miyashita

• Seiichi Miyashita (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user has no understanding of the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, repeatedly creates categories whose purpose is unclear, and and does not attempt to explain why it is necessary in the discussion. He does not even seem to accept repeated warnings. Also, in that discussion and the category he created, he remarks that “let's upload a photo to commemorate the visits”(Revision #929658148) and seems to mistake Commons for SNS. Bart Buchtfluß (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bart Buchtfluß: You must inform users when you report them here. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. Bart Buchtfluß (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I deleted the category, and warned this user once more. Yann (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

みなさん、ありがとう、つかれるね、よろしく。宮下 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

（ご参考）https://seiichi-miyashita.jimdofree.com/2024/09/28/cross-architecture/ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

拙稿の英訳も遅れがちなので、説明の原文も、翻訳してから、ブログのページに載せますね。お元気にてお過ごしください。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

アーキテクトとして、わたしの目から見て、コモンズの写真群も、フリーなアップ先に、思えたんですけどね。

よく撮れているなら、いいんじゃないかな。みなさま、それぞれ、お考えも、あるとは、十分に心得ています。。。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

かさねがさね、せっかくなので、

Pages in category "Commons users"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Commons_users

に、「User:Seiichi Miyashita」というページを、作らせてもらって、

適度なレイアウトにて、「十字架と教会」の写真群と説明文も載せる、というのなら、よさそうに感じます。

そんな方も、いらっしゃるけど、「他の人もやっているから、自分もよいだろう」ということになるのかな？ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI : User:Seiichi Miyashita I want to upload my media to this page. ok? Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

（試しに、作ってみました、ご意見、待っております、説明文、いらないのかな） Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

ＦＹＲ：ガイドライン、スレスレかも。よいのではないかな。説明の英文は、もう物議をかもさないよう、そのうち、ブログのほうに載せますね。いつか、お目にかかれますことを、心より、楽しみにしております。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

　　　　　　　　　　（ご指摘を受けとめ、直しました）

　　　　　　　　　　　　 「Cross & Architecture」

　　　　　　　　　　『十字架とともに、映るチャペル』

　　　　　　　　　　〜十字架と建築の織りなすビスタ〜

いつも、十字架と教会は、互いに、強く、暖かく、慕うように、支えあいます。

ハーモニーは、美しく、確かに、広がり、我々の心に、深く、永く、響きます。

教会を訪れたら、建物の光景と、重厚な風格を、破天荒な輪郭にて、捉えます。

Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

＊ご了承いただけたのでしょうか、もしそうなら、ありがたいです、これから、翻訳を依頼しますね＊ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bart Buchtfluß: もしよろしければ、ゆっくり、英訳お願いします。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Seiichi Miyashita 今一度こちらのコメントをご確認いただいた上で，コメント内でBart Buchtflußさんが言及されている質問「なぜCategory:Church Apex crossesがすでにあるのにCategory:Cross & Architectureを作るのか」にお答えください．「カテゴリに関するガイドライン」についてはCommons:Categories/jaをお読みください．

なお，ご存知であれば申し訳ありませんがCategoryという英単語には「分類上の区分」「種類」などという意味があり（参照），ここにおいては写真を種類ごとに分類する機能です．貴殿の「いろいろなトピック」というコメントは少々解釈違いに見えましたので，見直していただけると幸いです．--Tmv (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

それは、コメントにも軽くふれたように、

「頂点にある十字架」というワードには、

コモンズにアップする品格の写真を撮る、

モチベーションを維持できないと感じた、

ということも、大きな、動機、理由です。

「教会の頂点にある十字架」だけでなく、

教会建築との、確かで、豊かな、一体感、

を捉えた、写真群の、構成を考えました。

また、ガイドラインを、すべて把握して、

トライするには、無理もあると思います。

まずは、気軽な投稿を、勧めてもいます。

当初、個人の制作物のコレクションにも、

見えるような成果も多いと、感じました。

ただ、相応に、テーマ、分類、などなど、

コンセンサスもあるようにも、思います。

いまは以上です。ありがとうございます。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

私もウィキ関連の価値をよく学び知るべきだけれど、新しい多くのユーザーを迎える優しさも大切に思う。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

「井戸端」にても、話題になっているようです。

なので、気は進まないのですが、付け加えます。

自分の利用者ページに、写真群の説明文の英訳、

さらに、当面において、最後のアップロードに、

プロテスタントの礼拝堂の正面の壁面の十字架、

レリーフ、を捉えた、写真を、撮りにゆきます。

これは、「教会の頂上の十字架」というよりも、

「十字架と建築」に、なるのかもしれませんね。

ただ、すでに、議論の的になった当カテゴリは、

もうありませんし、作品を置けても、みなさま、

カテゴリをチェンジされていましたし、わたし、

自分にしか撮れない写真群、かもしれないから、

自分のページに置けるなら、それがベストだと、

思うようになりました。それでよいでしょうか。

FYR:https://www.satohide.co.jp/works/05/05-11.html Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Seiichi Miyashita 返信ありがとうございます．やっとMiyashitaさんの意図が見えました．確かにCategory:Christian crossesには「建築と共に十字架が写っている写真」のカテゴリはありません．作るにしても，より明確なタイトル（例えばCategory:Crosses with religious architectures）と説明が必要だと思います．ちなみにレリーフについてはCategory:Reliefsがあり，他のものについても大抵は既存のカテゴリに収まるのではないかと私は思います．これ以上は管理者の仲介が必要なさそうなので，（まだ腑に落ちない部分があるのであれば）井戸端に場所を移しましょうか．

@admins: according to his comment above, he created Category:Cross & Architecture for photos of crosses with religious architectures. He says the existing category is limited to crosses on tops, and there is no category for photos of reliefs — crosses on the front wall of a chapel, etc. I told him about Category:Reliefs, but it may be true that there's no overarching category for crosses with religious architectures. Anyway, we don't seem to need to be here anymore, so we will move to the project chat. Thanks, --Tmv (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Tmv さん、

ありがとうございます。

『Category:Crosses with religious architectures』は、コモンズの創作・撮影・アップのモチベーションを、

ガイドラインに基づいて、より確かに、伝えてもらえる、とても、素晴らしいネーミングと、感じますし、

ぜひ、個人的にも、強く、支持したいですし、ぜひとも、カテゴリとして、活用させていただきたいです。

自分の利用者のページにおいては、いまのまま、シンプルなイメージにて、わかりやすく、伝わりやすい、

ナチュラルな「Cross & Architecture」として、写真群のギャラリーを、キープしておけたら、と思います。

よろしくお願いします。

宮下誠一 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

わたくしより、『Category:Crosses with religious architectures』も、ご提案したい、と、願っております。

コモンズにふさわしい、普遍的かつ客観的な、英文の説明も調えたいので、しばらく、お時間をください！ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@admins:

今後とも、お力添え、お願い申しあげます。

宮下 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: Thanks.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF?uselang=ja#Cross_&_Architecture Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

ーーーーーーー（説明文案）ーーーーーーー

みなさまへ

『十字架と共に映る宗教建築』創設に際して、

ウィキメデイアの熟練者の方々の勧めも受け、

このカテゴリの初版の制作者として提唱する。

カテゴリ名の英単語の連鎖は、十字架と教会、

キリスト教の建築と記念碑を、示唆している。

両者を、象徴的、両義的、叙情的、芸術的に、

捉えた、主題群、画像群、を、示唆している。

品格あるメモリアルな光景も、示唆している。

特定の、構図に、情報として、抄録したもの、

両者の、対峙と、協調へと、昇華しないもの、

など、趣旨に、沿わない画は、対象としない。

明快な、明確な、基準はなく、主観に委ねる。

神聖と崇高を、信仰と友愛を、思慕と憧憬を、

確かなモチーフに示す、作品のアップロード、

多くの方々に、鋭意、推奨したく、念じます。

宮下　誠一

ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

皆さま、それよりのちに、

なにも、コメントはなく、

文言も、代わらなさそう。

英訳を、近く、頼みます。

ご静観、お願いしますね。

https://www.ulatus.jp/?utm_term=ユレイタス&utm_campaign=Ulatus_Japan_Translation_Brand_Mar22&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=8722753614&hsa_cam=16574079525&hsa_grp=134922315335&hsa_ad=624613055012&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-337631684070&hsa_kw=ユレイタス&hsa_mt=e&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADggnbjnNSq5eQryxKlswP_ZDGj2H Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User: Norbert'sh

Competence issues— see this deletion request. There is no logical reason whatsoever to nominate it for deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I closed the DR. Yann (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done One bad DR is not grounds for a block. Revisit if this becomes a pattern, or present additional cases if you feel this already is part of a pattern. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

re-loading deleted file

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

Downloads many files that have been deleted. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Andrew Pater

Andrew Pater (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploads photos and logos of likely copyrighted source but declaring as his own. Furthermore, some of his uploads are reuploads of deleted items according to the names used. Pierre cb (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. No activity after you warned him. Uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

• Zhangzong (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Zongzhang19463587 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Given the very similar username and the uploading of the same files by the two accounts I suspect sockpuppetry. Master have been indefed, hence the need to create a sock. Jonteemil (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

對，兩個帳號都是我!可以讓我把這些照片放在維基共享資源嗎?如果不能放上這些很重要的照片，我真的會很想死耶.......

維基有沒有給個人專用的相簿? Zongzhang19463587 (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

對!兩個帳號都是我 Zongzhang19463587 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppetry by user themself above. Nuke all files and indef sock. Jonteemil (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Both blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Zongzhang19463587 has not been blocked yet. Or do you think the block is unnecessary? Thanks. SCP-2000 11:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes,  Done Yann (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Misaka Eikoto

Misaka Eikoto (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Sockpuppet of 反共抗獨光復民國 (talk · contribs). Account was registered on the same day he got permabanned, phrasing is identical and so is the nature of his requests. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. I also removed [1]. Yann (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Yaboisohan

Regarding User:Yaboisohan, I have reviewed of their several uploaded photos, and all are copyright violations. I suspect the ones I haven't checked are copyright violations too. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Handled I zapped all of their uploads except for one and left them a final warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Metalworker14, unrelenting copyright violation and possible undisclosed paid editing

Despite the numerous warnings the user has received for copyright issues and a specific warning for uploading Symphony of Heaven's images from Facebook, they've again uploaded an image off the band's website as their own. here. This was actually sized down version of the file that was on the band's official website of Symphony of Heaven. All these numerous warnings in the past didn't deter them from doing this. Their prolific article creation pattern at en.wiki seems to suggest they maybe editing on behalf of a promotion company which would explain why they're getting so many copyright take downs. Graywalls (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user (he was not warned previously). The upload in question is deleted as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Taivo: , I said they've been previously warned, because of these talk messages found on their page. I thought these, particularly the reminder about the exact copy from Facebook counted as a warning.

• Special:Diff/287529111 - Was advised to get OTRS verification. Was ignored.
• Special:Diff/346100528 - Was told about about uploading something as their own is a possible copyright issue.
• Special:Diff/358485206 - another ignored request to do OTRS verification.

Graywalls (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:L._Beck

No admin action necessary. Yann (talk) 11:20, 15 October 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 user readds speedy deletion tags to regular category discussions [2] after the speedy deletion was converted to a category discussion. I suggest they be restricted from editing category namespace.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please let the responsible admin of the relevant category decide. As far as I am informed, it is not desirable to create an empty category today for all possible topics that might even contain a file in the future. This is bad work. Then you could create the corresponding categories up to 2050. Great, nothing gained. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, the user seems to force changes rather than seeking consensus, deliberately undoing redirects when they are aware that the question isn't agreed upon: [3]

It seeems there was a similar issue already in the past: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_39#h-L._Beck-20240725051600 (edit warring with User:ŠJů]),
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the personal attacks [4][5][6], I suggest a block.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel once again confirmed that you have a lousy character. Again, you start a discussion and before we can clarify an issue there, you pass people on to this place. Yes, I find your behavior impossible (and not for the first time). This should not be taken as an insult, but as a well-founded and honest opinion! Lukas Beck (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, you were reported here because you replaced the discussion with speedy tags rather than participating there.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Not repleased!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You are just doing it wrongly.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, and you couldn't clarify that on my discussion page? You had to involve tons of other people to do that? That's exactly what I mean when I say you have a bad character. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And to be honest, I think I'm here because we've already clashed several times, as you've often noticed yourself constantly revising changes without discussion and instead of discussing things, you report people directly here. And the fact that you are vandalizing and trolling is not a form of insult. There are many other things that would come to mind that I won't say, as they quite rightly have no place in this project. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

All edits being examined are yours. I guess it's easy to just start with personal attacks if you don't have any arguments.

Now pretending you ignore that the speedy deletion tag shouldn't be readded after it was convert to a category discussion suggests that you might not even read the deletion tags you added all over. I guess it's a competency issue I'm not sure how to address.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No matter how many times you want to repeat it; Terms like vandalism or trolling are not personal attacks.

Competency problems, to use this word, even if they existed, would probably not be the right place to discuss them here. I highly recommend getting involved in discussions on the user pages and not writing everything you can't handle on this page. This has something to do with social skills. ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are obviously free to think of yourself in these terms.

I asked you to open a discussion if you want to implement a change, but apparently, you are not interested in that.

Even when it's done for your (by me), you add speedy deletion tags to category pages and then force the conclusion of the discussion by implementing the controversial change you want to propose while it's open.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood something fundamental. I'm not going to start a discussion about it before every change I make. If you disagree with my changes for whatever reason, it is your responsibility to open a discussion. Or you can simply revert my changes without much explanation and ask me to justify my changes. The latter is not necessarily the best way. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Which explains why you got into a revert war with SJU before.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Which brings me back to your lousy character. If I may clarify this to you, this process has long since been completed with the result that no further measures against me are necessary. So what do you want from me now? Maybe you should concentrate on the current situation and heed what I just wrote to you. Otherwise, this might not be our last argument. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to assume that it's normal that you keep getting reverted.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

don't get that argument, sorry Lukas Beck (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: We don't keep empty categories. They can be recreated as soon as they are not empty any more. Yann (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We are free to create them, especially when part of series.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

For what reason? How sure can you be that some of the categories won't remain empty forever? And permanently empty categories are not needed here. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to participate in the discussion.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

the discussion is already closed ;-). Lukas Beck (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

1. There are (rare) times when an empty category should be kept:
   1. One of very few empty categories in a mostly populated series, especially if the series has a prev/next navigation
   2. Certain maintenance categories that we hope to keep empty, but where we want them to be there if the issue in question arises again
   3. A category we expect to have content very soon (e.g. a category for the third day of a conference that is now on its first day).
2. If someone turns a speedy deletion into a normal discussion, it is almost always correct to let it run its course. Simply reverting them without discussion is only the right thing to do if you are dealing with a vandal, and in this respect no user who is genuinely active in the project should be considered a vandal: we're talking about things like a brand new user or an IP coming along and turning a speedy into a DR with no rationale, or with a transparently absurd rationale.
3. "you have a bad character" (from Lukas Beck) at least borders on calling for a week's block, and their general tone on this thread does nothing to make me think otherwise.

Jmabel ! talk 06:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone like Enhancing999, who is vERY often seeking conflicts on this page and elsewhere, should be able to take such comments on their behaviour easy. --A.Savin 06:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a personal attack from user not even involved in the above discussion, but present when Lukas B. runs into conflicts.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Now it is not the first time that this user always interprets criticism against himself, no matter how factual it may be, as a personal attack, then reports his colleagues here instead of first discussing it on the corresponding discussion page and then presents himself as the big victim . And his tone is no less unfriendly towards his colleagues. I still think it's highly problematic. That's why I stick with the factual and reasoned statement that he has a bad character. Our policy of not insulting our colleagues should not prevent us from objectively criticizing our colleagues. And this should certainly not be seen as an excuse to block users. Otherwise it will definitely be the end of a healthy debate culture here on Commons. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't reset the discussion. I haven't removed the reference to the discussion either. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• An additional problem that was found on Commons:Undeletion_requests is that that L. Beck systematically ignores COM:SPEEDY and requests speedy deletion of categories don't meet its criteria (Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Category). Accordingly, they should be required to go through CfD for all future deletion requests. You would think given their activities in categorization, they would frequently do that, but apparently they systematically don't do that (no request in the last two years).
   ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, there haven't been any problems so far and there shouldn't be any now either, after all it's regulated that unnecessary categories can be deleted quickly. Otherwise feel free to correct me. ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 09:11, 15 October 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.

Raghav 1048

Raghav 1048 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has uploaded enough copyright violations that it probably warrants a warning. I dream of horses (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@I dream of horses There is nothing stopping you warning them yourself Gbawden (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gbawden Wait, really? I'm an experienced Wikipedian but I'm new around here. It seems that admins do the warnings here. I dream of horses (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No, anyone can warn. Admins block when its warranted. Take a look at COM:BP - anyone can add a warning template (or use a tool to do it) and if the behaviour persists you bring it here and admins take the appropriate action Gbawden (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gbawden Where are the warnings? I dream of horses (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Block warning templates. Or just writing something more specific and less formal: a warning doesn't have to be templated. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Mortezarahimi3rd

Uploaded many files and claimed them to be own work, asked the user to change that to instead link to the source (for OWID files) but the user didn't do so and didn't respond. Don't know what should be done now: the files are useful but other users shouldn't be expected to fix this issue for Mortezarahimi3rd. This same problem may also exist for non-OWID uploads by Mortezarahimi3rd. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done I blocked this user for uploading more files. Other edits are allowed. However Mortezarahimi3rd has not edited for several months. Yann (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Block request 193.210.166.91

Repeated disruptive and threatening behaviour. Here he writes "you may find your Wikipedia head on your bedroom floor". Nitraus (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Fiorinaio05

• Fiorinaio05 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues to upload the same deleted file after having one prior block for it. Jonteemil (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Taivo A week again? Shouldn't a second block be longer? Jonteemil (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, that's second block. I reblocked the user for a month. Taivo (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Dromad09

Dromad09 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Porn user, not here to be productive Dronebogus (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Cracow.Writer

Can someone with a working knowledge of Polish please review this user's uploads? The translated descriptions seem rather irregular (repeated references to "debunking a proof of schizophrenia", a 2014 "Polish terrorist attack", etc) and often seem unrelated to the documents, but I'd appreciate a second opinion before I bring these to deletion. Omphalographer (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Verdy p

• User: Verdy p (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 17 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over three years ago. As a precedent, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman. Verdy p made this edit on or before 23 November 2022 (UTC): including a {{Delete}} tag as the reason. They also made this second edit 11:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC): including a {{Delete}} tag on the subpage. I reminded them of their mistakes and warned them in this edit 13:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC) and edits leading to it. They neglected to respond to my warning per User talk:Verdy p/archive19#Reminder, and made such an edit again in this edit 09:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC): again including a {{Delete}} tag on the subpage. Please block them longer, as they already have four blocks on record.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC):

I posted the request, but I had not the time to complete it because while editing it, you added that and caused conflict. Given you did that work in "emergency" I had nothing to do more after your instantaneus action. You are just too hurry.' I have not ignored any instruction (and remember that instructions change over time, so I need to check them as well before continuing). Also your claim that I did not respond is wrong (including in your old request done years ago). I have not ignored them but people are not expected to reply instantly to everything, especially if they are offline at that time. Everyone should be allowed several days to post a response to any message, I am not a bot, and not a slave!

You links above show that you've done that extremely rarely: Less that once a year! I have done many other delete requests, and completed them properly, before you detected anything. So why are you complaining here? All was done correctly in appropriate time. If ever something is missing this is an omission that may have been caused by other more urgent edits needed elsewhere, or because there was a temporary network/database problem delaying any further action. You have never complained directly to me about that. Only here. Please keep your calm and be fair.

My request was valid even if it was still not complete and took action immediately on it (and made because the request was done to undo abusive edits (spreading fake facts in many places) that were done by an IP user from Asia (on multiple wikis) polluting Japanese topics everywhere (that Asian IP user uses various IP addresses using his mobile; I am checking now all what he did recepently here in Commons; but there are other wikis as well were he pushed repeated polution with fake edit comments like "love"). verdy_p (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Verdy p: I corrected your edit in this edit 10:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC), a full 71 minutes after your edit. You did not take into account the many edits I have made to user talk pages regarding incomplete deletion requests (look for the words "warning" and "reminder" in the Edit Summaries).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

During those 71 minutes you did not ping me at all, did not contact me. I had a neighbour visiting me. I was gone to bring him to funerals of his father (he has no vehicle to attend there in time), so I was absent for a couple of hours to bring him and make some shopping, before eating and returning home. During these 71 minutes I did not edit anything and did not even read any page on this wiki, to get any notification (the internal logs can easily prove that, I can also prove it by my purchase ticket in a mall and at my bank to get money, and another one to buy a lunch and take a coffea, but this is my normal personal life).

Really, read above: I'm not a slave working 24/7, I'm not a bot like what you operate here for such "railed" maintenance you want to do; and if you want to do things faster, you can do that, but there was absolutely no emergency and during that time you did not even take the time to contact me. I have seen nothing when you were back, except to see that you had completed the work that required no further action from me. Also please don't mix me with other unrelated facts concerning randomly chosen other users: your justifications above are completely unfair and causes just pollution: such arguments are built for infering malicious bias).

Even if I made an error or ommission, or if this was caused by some technical reason, the delay was caused by external factors, consider I'm a human, not a device or service supposed to available nearly 100% of time. That's now the way to cooperate (even respected companies and fovernments give reasonable delays and do not warranty any action during that time or compensation after that). I have not abused the system (and my actions on this wiki are very clear, I've not ignored anything and did not act to introduce any massive "pollution", these edits were correctly followed manually one by one and in correct time; time is also always needed to allow further checks). Unlike bots (including yours), We (humans) all work incrementally by small successive steps. verdy_p (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Verdy p: You forgot to ping me. During those 71 minutes, I was busy sleeping and getting ready for my workday. I corrected your edit as soon as I noticed your edit, pinging you in the process. Then, I researched our previous interactions and determined that further contact with you about this exact issue of creating DR subpages including [[t2|delete}} would be fruitless, as I had already warned you about it nearly two years ago. Then, after more preparations for my workday (including travel and further research), I posted the above in a new section. You responded above after four minutes, before I had a chance to post {{subst:Discussion-notice}}. Note, I have created well over a thousand pages in Commons namespace, most being well-formed DR subpages.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

And do so what? We were both busy duringh these 71 minutes. So what's the point for contactuig this board as the only form of "interaction"? Your own history and my own demonstrates exactly the opposite of all what you argued and invented just above, mixing me with also other people. And taking pseudo arguments that are not minutes apart, but several years apart (and then inventing your conclusion, as if I had never replied and noticed your concern if I was ever really involved) is just complete non-sense. You invent your own rules for your preferences. And the only form of "cooperation" taken here, is just a way to harass and ennoy me, and admins or other visitors of this page; adding another set of new lies and invention in your last response, scrambling the chronologies of events, and mixing unrelated people, just makes your arguments above completely pointless. verdy_p (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User:OGGESKARRE

OGGESKARRE (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploaded a great number of non existant hurricane path of fictional Oskia Hurricane Season. They should be all deleted and the user warned or even blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed for crosswiki vandalism. Everything deleted CSD G3 (though F10 may have been more appropriate). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Enhancing999

Hi, I think we have a problem with Enhancing999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

1. First edit-warring with Lukas Beck over deletion of Category:1922 in rail transport in Switzerland (see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10/Category:1877 in rail transport in Switzerland, now recreated, and User talk:L. Beck#Vandalism accusations for changes you seek to implement).
2. Then reporting Lukas Beck on ANU: [7].
3. Then this discussion, of which Jim said that it was completely out of place.
4. Also bothering me on my talk page here.
5. Finally this discussion on the VP.
6. And last, but not least, removing other people comments when they don't like it.

Could someone please explain to Enhancing999 that we don't keep empty categories, eventually with stronger terms? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: Your behavior in this matter is utterly unacceptable. Cut it out immediately. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Enhancing999 continues here. Yann (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Support A block is certainly overdue. This user LOVES to report other users on COM:ANU often for void reasons, and without much attempt to discuss first. Already the fact that they didn't comment anything on this complaint is telling a lot. --A.Savin 19:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• {{s}} all the reasons above and my own experience with them. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Decided to withhold my opinion instead despite my encounter with this user, I've no interest in supporting a block at this time. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 14:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Uncomfortable questions can be a good thing up to a certain amount, but I've also seen Enhancing999 beyond the limit, causing disruption. --Krd 05:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose some sanction might be in order, but a block seems excessive to me. Regardless, it would be a good idea if Enhancing999 were to acknowledge that the consensus is clearly against them on where to draw the line for keeping empty categories, and that they should just plain let others (who are overwhelmingly in consensus with each other) make those decisions. - Jmabel ! talk 10:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm obviously open to discuss this (even opened the relevant CfD). I think Yann is well aware that their action isn't supported by current Commons policy as stated, at least by 17 Oct, 19:54, so it seems to me that they are using their adminship (by prematurely closing discussions, deleting categories, refusing to participate in the discussions) to force an editorial issue. Coming from an administrator that mainly works on copyright issues, this seems even more problematic.
   ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  There is only a small difference. It's not like @Yann clearly violated any guidelines. In fact, various administrators have pointed out to you in various places which rule you are referring to here. And there seems to be a general consensus about this decision. Why can't you submit to that? Lukas Beck (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Support per above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• About point 1:
  • I doubt I edited Category:1922 in rail transport in Switzerland after a speedy tag was placed. To me, this appears to be false reporting by Yann.
  • About 1877: I followed the steps outlined on the speedy deletion tag to convert this to a regular discussion. Lukas then went on to readd the speedy tag. Admin review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:L._Beck concluded that Lukas action wasn't appropriate. Despite the ongoing discussion, Yann proceeded with deleting the category. Admin review concluded that Yann's action was premature. In the meantime, Lukas recreated the category.
  • About the personal attacks: Admin review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:L._Beck concluded that Lukas personal attack should result in a block.
• About 2: Admin review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:L._Beck concluded that Lukas action wasn't appropriate and their personal attacks should stop. Somehow Yann ignored that review and closed the report despite being personally involved in the matter.
• About 3: The undeletion request followed the relevant steps. It's unclear based on what that conclusion was reached. I'm working on having that clarified. Admin view in that discussion was that they wouldn't have deleted the category.
• About 4: I rephrased the question twice, but Yann didn't answer despite responding. It appears they can't explain which Wikimedia Commons policy their action was based on. If they feel bothered by being questioned about their admin actions, the remedy would be to not take any admin actions.
• About 5: It's strange that Yann doesn't want a discussion on user expectations on how admin actions are explained to take place and makes it into a discussion about himself. As an admin, they aren't even particularly concerned by the question for user expectations. It would be good to have more views there.
• About 6: As Yann restored the comment, I added a note about its off-topic nature. The comment is indeed not related to the general question asked in the discussion. I should probably have asked an admin to remove it instead. I don't think Yann's comment in that discussion is on topic either; somehow they keep repeating an answer to a question they aren't being asked. In any case, neither explained how their comments would relate to the general topic.

As much as I value Yann's knowledge on copyright, I don't think their approach to categorization discussions is sound. Admin review already deemed their closure as premature. I had the same impression with Yann's actions about Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Cross & Feather Architecture where they didn't even bother to comment and note their action. It lead even more confusion among two fairly new editors.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point it is very important for me to mention again that I have never insulted or discriminated against this user. I don't have a good opinion of him, which shouldn't be surprising given his history, and I can and will express my opinion here. And the statement that the user has a bad character is a factual observation that is confirmed time and time again. And as @A.Savin said, you should be able to take criticism. A block here would send a very bad signal when you look at what it means for future communication here on Commons. Should you no longer be allowed to criticize colleagues who are obviously behaving incorrectly, no matter how objectively? If so, I see no future for this project, which thrives on mutual exchange. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

About 3: You're not being completely honest here. Not every administrator agreed with you and no administrator saw the need to restore the useless categories. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since Enhancing999 is referring to me, 3 is missing context: I said that I usually don't delete empty categories in a sequence, but I also did not see a need to restore it. I pointed out that the category could be recreated once it was no longer empty (or I'd be willing to undelete upon request when it is not empty). Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

In summary, we should not reopen the discussion about the deleted categories here. We conducted this in a variety of places and always came to the same result. This is about how the user deals with this situation and towards his colleagues. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

From your response I do not see the you are aware of the problem. Do you understand what behaviour is problematic and do try to avoid this in the future? GPSLeo (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, point 6 was an error. I should have noted that I consider the comment off-topic and asked an admin to remove it.

As a non-admin, I can't really check if the report (point 1.) about the 1922 category is accurate or not, so maybe you can check and confirms to me (and all other non admins), if Yann's allegation is accurate or false.

If the - what I consider - continued personal attacks by Lukas Beck (also in this thread) are acceptable, I can take a note of that so that we all may feel free to do so as well. Personally, I don't think their comment even in this thread are acceptable and an admin should consider opening another thread on them.

If it's generally considered inacceptable to request undeletion of elements deleted by Yann, I'd be happy to comply with this.

If the conversion of a speedy deletion to regular discussion was correctly handled in this case, please state so, so that we can update our procedures.

BTW, can you provide a link to the policies that may back up Yann's deletion decisions.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but the topic has been discussed and we have referred you to the relevant guidelines several times. Just re-read the old discussions or look at the speedy deletion guidelines. This clearly states that meaningless categories can be deleted quickly and which category is to be rated as meaningless and which is not is in the hands of the decisive administrators. And to the previous point, all I can say is that your unacceptable actions are causing counter-reactions, which are logically directed against you. Nobody should insult anyone here, but you should be able to tolerate headwinds up to a certain point. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The question wasn't addressed to you, L., but I note that in this thread twice L. comments on that point without being able to provide a working wikilink.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There was an edit war on Category:1877 in rail transport in Switzerland. GPSLeo (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: So you confirm that Yann's report about Category:1922 in rail transport in Switzerland was false?

(L. edit-warring over 1877 and similar was already reported at #User:L._Beck above and closed, by Yann BTW).
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Support block; the discussion above doesn't convince me much. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Abuse of deletion requests

User:Buckshot06 nominated three graphics I created 9 years ago based on the then best available information (File:Egyptian Army - First Field Army.png, File:Egyptian Army - Second Field Army.png, File:Egyptian Army -Third Field Army.png). Any time an editor writes to me on my talkpage on commons or on the English wiki that one of the graphics I created needs to be updated I update the graphics within days. User:Buckshot06 didn't bother to write me on my talkpages, he just nominated the graphics for deletion with the demand: "User:Noclador should contact me so that I can give him a correct diagram". This is an egregious abuse of deletion requests to blackmail another user. If User:Buckshot06 wishes to cooperate on correcting the graphics, he can write me on my talkpage. Dozens of other editors have done so over time and I have always worked with them on improving/correcting the graphics. None of them abused the deletion function, none of them tried to blackmail me. I am willing to improve/correct the graphics, but I will not be blackmailed. Noclador (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

An admin has closed the three deletion requests as 'keep'. @Noclador and @Buckshot06, {{Factual accuracy}} and {{Datasource missing}} exist for this situation I believe. Commander Keane (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you User:Commander Keane for your quick response. With best regards, Noclador (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Commander Keane, thank you for your advisory. Dear Noclador, you are doing amazing work north and east of Egypt and I had no intention whatsoever of offending you. I regret that my message appeared insulting. I will write a full explanation on your talkpage. None the less however, as the Egyptian Institute for Studies' page at الجيش المصري: التكوين وخرائط الانتشار (in ar). المعهد المصري للدراسات (2018-05-17). Retrieved on 2020-04-15. shows, the depiction of three armies each supervising several corps is very incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Army_(United_Arab_Republic) shows how First Army was a designation used for Syria, not Egypt. Kind regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Buckshot06 you must not make a speed deletion request for a file that was recently kept in a regular deletion request. GPSLeo (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers GPS Leo. I think you understand the problem here - the data is factually incorrect. The First Army was a United Arab Republic body located in Syria that disappeared 50+ years ago. What is the correct procedure for getting a file deleted on the basis that (a) there is no data supporting it; and (b) much more reliable data as of 2018 is now available at الجيش المصري: التكوين وخرائط الانتشار (in ar). المعهد المصري للدراسات (2018-05-17). Retrieved on 2020-04-15.? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou GPS Leo. I have just read your comment repealing the speedy delete - I have to nominate the file for deletion through the full process again. I have just done that, copying out Noclador's request of 2020 again. Many thanks for your assistance. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: it still seems to me that a deletion request is excessive when the uploader/creator is available and open to discussion of possible factual correction. Don't use an atom bomb to take out an anthill. - Jmabel ! talk 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Jmabel. The First Egyptian Army *never existed*. It does not exist. There is no reliable data or information available for the organisation of the First Army, located in Syria, of the United Arab Republic of the 1960s. The file needs to be deleted. As regards the remainder of the Egyptian armies and military districts, I said I would engage Noclador on his talkpage, and you are encouraged to contribute to the discussion there at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noclador. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Bruno pnm ars

• User: Bruno pnm ars (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 17 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over three years ago. As a precedent, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman. Bruno pnm ars made this edit 9 August 2024 (UTC): including a {{Delete}} tag as the reason. I reminded them of their mistake and warned them in this edit 12:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC). They neglected to respond per User talk:Bruno pnm ars#File:Cover of Massafghanistan by Kid Yugi.jpg, and made such an edit again in these edits 07:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC): again including a live {{Delete}} tag in the reason and compounding their error by including a live {{Dw no source since}} tag in the reason. I reported them in a section since archived to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 39#Bruno pnm ars, but not actioned. Then, they made these edits ending 13:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC): including a {{Delete}} tag as the reason; leaving in the right curly braces; and removing the subpage, year, month, and day tags. Please block them, at least from filespace.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Ubuntwo

Ubuntwo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user claims own work for most of his uploads but does not provide META data on photos and other works seems from websites, one of them (File:Native range of Sabal palmetto.png) is supposed to be from USGS but link is dead. Can an administrator validate uploads. Pierre cb (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pierre cb The recent photos from Anna Maria Island were taken with my DJI Mini 2 on October 19, 2024. I uploaded all to an imgur album as an intermediary, which unfortunately strips metadata. My understanding was metadata is not necessary for Wikimedia own work uploads. I can amend this if necessary.

The Roystonea regia native range maps are my own work. I outlined a best approximation of Roystonea regia distribution based on information in Zona, the Institute for Regional Conservation, and my own satellite analysis. This compiles Roystonea regia natural range data across the Caribbean and Florida in a manner which has not been done prior. The final base map (no data) is the same used in all maps produced in Little 1976 (public domain). However, all work in estimating and illustrating the native range is my own. This is the focus of the map. If attribution for the base map is seen as necessary, I can provide it. However, the range project is my own work - as one can find my upload predates any other references to the image, and the Little 1976 Roystonea elata range map has no content overlap whatsoever. I also have an extensive post history on Palmtalk under the same username with components of my analysis for Roystonea regia, which I believe provide further evidence here.

The Sabal palmetto distribution map's link has been amended to a non-dead version, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Note that the map is actually an expansion of the Little 1976 map (which only includes range data for the United States). I follow a similar methodology to the Roystonea regia map for Cuba and the Bahamas, however, because I maintain Little's palmetto range in the US I do not consider this an own work and attribute it to Little. Ubuntwo (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

ThisWebsiteIsHateful v3

ThisWebsiteIsHateful v3 (talk · contribs) account appears to exist only to make bad deletion requests. Sowing a lot of confusion as people take them seriously. Jmabel ! talk 14:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they made 5 nominations, with two having some merit. That said, we should certainly be skeptical of an account called "Thiswebsiteishateful" created just to start DRs. CU is above my paygrade, but is that combination of disruptive username + DR-only account sufficient to run a checkuser? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as inappropriate username. Clearly Disruptive usernames, this includes outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise clearly disruptive intentions. Yann (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ptrump16

Ptrump16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

After I provided a critical review of his photos on the Quality images candidates page, he became upset and has been repeatedly posting on my talk page, making personal attacks, including calling me "lonely," and questioning my competence as a reviewer. Today, he started adding quite rather random reviews on QIC page, I have noticed that one of pictures promoted by him belongs to very similar user, that uses the same camera, software, have the same subject of photos. So, I have created a check user request. While I'm still waiting for answer from any checkuser, Ptrump16 started to vote en masse in retaliation under my nominations and reviews on the QIC page. Thereby I am asking for assistance here ---- Jakubhal 17:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ptrump16 has been indeffed by User:Krd for socking. Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Filming 1

Filming 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) PR, copyvio reuploads after warnings. Drakosh (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drakosh: I warned them and notified of them of this section for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. No activity after you warned him/her. Taivo (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. What do I need to do to make the photos available on the portal again? Filming 1 (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The photos belong to me, originally they were only on Wikipedia. Recently, they have also been added to articles on other sites. Filming 1 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Filming 1: Then please send or post permission via VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I sent a request to restore the photos Filming 1 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ssch.cb

Ssch.cb (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Persistently uploading copyright violations materials (and also ignoring warning) and using this materials to replace the existing non-copyrighted infobox image at sister project en:Kim Jae-young (actor) multiple times. They are clearly not here to contribute constructively to the collective Wikimedia Projects as per their comments at my talk page in English Wikipedia when they're editing logged out hence I don't expect any differences in their behaviour here either. I had already made a separate report at English Wikipedia for their actions there, see reporting. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Paper9oll: is "They are clearly here to contribute constructively to the collective Wikimedia Projects" sarcasm? It seems to go opposite to what you are otherwise saying. - Jmabel ! talk 20:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oops just realise my typo, meant to say the opposite i.e. "not here". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. User is warned, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Henjiru

Henjiru (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royiswariii (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistently uploading copyright logos File:Hunker-Logo-RGB-Default-Color.svg, File:Foodie-logo-negative.svg and File:Foodie-logo.svg, create a page and add it on en:Hunger (website) and en:Foodie (website). Royiswariii (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Royiswariii: While the user needs to learn proper licensing and categorization, these aren't copyvios - they fall cleanly under {{PD-textlogo}}. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. As all his/her uploads are textlogos, copyright is not violated here. Taivo (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Kier King is Fabulous

New user who immediately uploaded File:Logo Donal Bebek.jpg, which has been uploaded and deleted several times now. Obvious sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the other uploaders.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Other previously deleted copyvios. I've given 31 hour block; no objection to changing to indefinite if evidence is sockpuppet of previously blocked account. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done Blocked indefinitely as a sock of Raden Review (talk · contribs). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

DLOEI2536

Please consider blocking the following accounts for being sockpuppets of each other and being vandalism-only accounts (all their edits are vandalism):

• DLOEI2536 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• พันจ่าอากาศโทวิศิษฎ์ ทองโม้ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Thank you! -- YURi (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked both indefinitely and reverted something. Taivo (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Saual1234

• User: Saual1234 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Reason for reporting: This user seems to only be here to post naked pictures of themselves, contra COM:NOPENIS. While I do not speak Hebrew, machine translation says their profile text says "male nudes", while their image uploads have descriptions such as "my cock". They have been warned twice on their talk page by other users, but have continued uploading such pictures. Most, but not all, of their currently standing uploads have been submitted to COM:DR.

Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Not the regular low quality spam. But needs copyright clarification as subject can not be the photographer. GPSLeo (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As well, this is a strictly personal and identifiable representation, and there's the need to properly identify the person securely with his explicit permission, in a strong way (just like official records registered by custodians, by creators of porn contents, to allow their content to be legally published). Otherwise this is a strong violation of privacy and it breaks laws in many contries (includeing US and Europe). Without such permission, these files must be deleted, and this user would have violated law multiple times, and without such permission, this is a valid case for blocking (in addition to copyright issues as there's still no permission from the photograph). verdy_p (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Rajasekhar1961

• User: Rajasekhar1961 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 17 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over three years ago.

As precedents, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke and was ultimately blocked indefinitely, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman.

Rajasekhar1961 made this edit 07:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC): not including reason, year, month, and day; not creating the subpage; not notifying; and not transcluding. I reminded them of their mistake and warned them in this edit 17:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC), creating User talk:Rajasekhar1961#Reminder. They replied "Thank you. I will follow it from now." in this edit 14:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC), but did not comply, as follows. They did it again in this deleted edit on or before 6 September 2022 (UTC): omitting reason, year, month, and day; not creating the subpage; and not transcluding. I notified and warned them in this edit 09:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC). They did it again in this deleted edit on or before 23 October 2024 (UTC): omitting year, month, and day; not creating the subpage; and not transcluding. They also have a long history of uploading copyvios and using DRs to try to delete categories (rather than speedies) after warnings. Please block them, as "We cannot work here with people who are not willing to follow our procedures, in particular for deletion requests." per AFBorchert.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Two remarks. Firstly, Rajasekhar1961 fixed the mistake two minutes later and created a regular DR. I do not see here anything that warrants a block as everything else is from more than two years ago. Secondly, you are quoting me but the context of the quote is entirely different. This was from a case where someone removed and blanked deletion requests on their uploaded copyvios. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: I see your point, but I am not allowed to see that edit. Would you or Yann care to comment on the case of Bruno pnm ars, which sat here for a week before being archived to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 117?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for creating troublesome deletion requests. It is because of the lack of knowledge regarding the administrative procedure in doing so. Herafter, I would not use any deletion template, if so learn to create proper redirect. Sorry once again.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rajasekhar1961: if you use the "Nominate for deletion" tool (typically in the left nav, but could be elsewhere in some skins), this sort of problem will never happen. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Surely I will do that.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I think this is resolved. The user seems now to understand the issue and clearly this was never intentional bad behavior, so no admin action to be taken. - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Iamthebest3000

• User: Iamthebest3000 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: User keeps taking logos from Fandom and change the license to CC-BY-SA 4.0 despite obviously not being the copyright owner--Trade (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done 2 files deleted, user warned again. Other files are indeed IMO PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding User Priyanshudhalglt

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

Multiple Copyright Violations. I propose a block on this user User:Priyanshudhalglt. this user do not seem to understand guidelines of Wikipedia Commons. VeritasVanguard (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done You already warned this user. Block should occur if copyright violations are uploaded again. Yann (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User:KhantWiki

• User: KhantWiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: The user keeps uploading non-free, copyvio, unclear licensed images taken from elsewhere. The user received multiple warnings and also one week block.

Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 04:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. One month block (second block). Taivo (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

User:ひろかぴっぴ

• ひろかぴっぴ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Restarting the uploads of unfree photos after short block. Netora (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. 3 months block (second block). All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sangjinhwa

• User: Sangjinhwa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued oos uploading like File:Flag of Nazi Germany (Censored).svg after block for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I would wait for a response before blocking but I removed the autopatrol rights. GPSLeo (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 6 months. This account was already blocked twice for uploading OOS files. Yann (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Stevehard

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

User uploaded a bunch of porn and is now trying to delete all porn. Seems trollish. Dronebogus (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Three days for a start. May be longer. Yann (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Busoul

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

Serial exhibitionist who’s been obsessed with uploading his “willy” (his words, not mine) to Commons for 10+ years and has long overstayed his welcome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Was already blocked twice, including once for a year, so indef. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Trantrongnam~conmonswiki

Trantrongnam~conmonswiki (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

They are reverting maps to their earliest versions without explanation (reintroducing factual errors in the process). They ignored my question and kept reverting. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Savagexx

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

User's contributions are mostly or entirely copyvios; they should be warned. Funcrunch (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that the user got a "final warning" from @Túrelio three years ago (which they removed from their talk page along with numerous other copyvio notices). Funcrunch (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Illamaru2032

Illamaru2032 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned.--Ovruni (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Two week block. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Nicosolv123

Has uploaded an image of a Teenager, that should support a bully action on norwegian Wikipedia (an insulting article is already deleted). I think, an indefinite block is the only possible way to act here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron:  Not done No local action is needed here. They have been locked globally. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 13:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it. The better. I have no words for such people. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

AlkyzawyHsyen

Last June I warned AlkyzawyHsyen (talk · contribs) that it is not appropriate to make accusations of "terror". An anonymous user stated on my user talk page that they had done so again. Since I don't speak Arabic, I hesitate to block on the basis of what I can understand through Google translate, but this would appear to be another instance of the same (besides being an inappropriate overwriting of an English-language caption with an Arabic one). I believe a block is in order, but it should probably come from someone who can read Arabic (Pinging @علاء, Dyolf77. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, it also escapes me why File:Standard of the President of Syria.svg is in scope at all if it is a "fictional flag," but I see that it is extensively used on various Wikipedias. It appears to be presented as non-fiction at en:President of Syria, en:Gallery of head of state standards, da:Præsidentflag, and elsewhere. While this is very peripheral to the immediate issue, I'd appreciate if anyone can explain this to me. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Thespoondragon: perhaps you can elucidate. Also (if they are still around) Pinging @8UR1TT0 who added this to en:Flag of Syria, removing a referenced statement that there is no current Syrian presidential flag. - Jmabel ! talk 03:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Hello Jmabel, I warned the user for the last time in Arabic here, in addition to WD. He may not know English, and it happened before with others. If he makes any new similar edit(s), the user will be blocked in both projects. I also watching his edits in Arabic Wikipedia, and if he makes any similar edits there, will also be blocked, and then the account can be globally locked as "cross-wiki abuse".

Regarding the "fictional flag" point, maybe باسم and/or Michel Bakni can comment on it? Thanks on advance --Alaa :)..! 18:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alaa: Thank you very much. - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that its fictional indeed. The Source is unreliable-- باسم (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, باسم. I've started a discussion at en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Fictional_flag_used_in_multiple_places. Jmabel ! talk 01:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

User:IlEssere

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

Previously blocked for 31 hours for copyright violations. They have continued to upload copyright violations after the expiry of the block. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month, most files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Need a fluent Spanish speaker to look at Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Kadı 2 please

Could someone that speaks Spanish look at the comments from Chaina Vanessa Celis at Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Kadı 2 and decide if they need to be removed? Google Translate seems to indicate that it's off topic, but I'd prefer to leave the decision to someone that speaks the language. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's just gibberish. Gone Bedivere (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The user continued. I blocked them. GPSLeo (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Harassment

Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11/Category:Ivano-Frankivsk Raion - This nomination is next harassment for me from the side Laurel Lodged. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes opening a CfD without giving a reason is not a good practice. But this is far below form a behavior that could be considered harassment. If this would be harassment your comment "This discussion is nonsens!" would also have to be considered as problematic. You wrote your argument. Wait for the argument of the other side and comments from other users. GPSLeo (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the perceived harassment is in the mass pinging through multiple nominations[8]diff. Similarly: [9][10]. Though it seems to be a technical issue[11]. Nakonana (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ajibade Testimony and socks

• Ajibade Testimony (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Ajibade Testi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Ajibade Tests (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Testimony kpl (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Cross-wiki self-promotion using multiple accounts. Each user has uploaded a similar promotional files - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Testiimony.png. Marbletan (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done I warned the main account, and blocked the 3 socks. Yann (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Sbb1413

User:Sbb1413 has accumulated a history of problem edits, identified by various editors on his talk page and his talk page archive.

Recently (September 7), he added the following note to his user page, under the section heading, Note on nudity:

Although I may often work on categories related to nudity, I personally don't tolerate nude people (except small children and topless males). However, I believe that Wikimedia projects are not censored. So, I make sure the media depicting nudity are given dedicated categories to avoid intolerant users like me facing media depicting nudity. (My underlining.)

This strikes me as a red flag concerning this editor's editing motivation. The categorisation of files in WikiCommons is for rational organisation of content, and for ease of navigation and search, not to hide things from one user because of his (self declared) intolerance. It looks like an abuse of editing rights to suit himself, and not for the good of the project.

User:Sbb1413 is enormously prolific so I have not been able to find any examples of him recategorising nudity – so far – because he is so prodigious that finding any trends in his approach is very hard, but he has been questioned and criticised in the past for wreaking large-scale disruption because of inadvisable actions, on a massive scale.

If he has organised or will organise nude material purely to suit his personal intolerance, the scale of disruption and potential restoration work could be overwhelming.

Would an administrator examine this situation and take action to prevent (or reverse?) large-scale abuse, please. Spideog (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In my view, avoiding categorizing pictures of nude people in places where they would not typically be expected is entirely commendable, regardless of motivation. Someone scanning Category:People with toothbrushes should not be seeing the images in Category:Nude or partially nude people with toothbrushes unless they actively choose to. I'd also be all for a way to filter such images out of general search results, though we've never been able to work out a consensus on that. But the "law of least surprise" says you should not see a bunch of pictures of naked people when you are looking for something entirely unrelated.

FWIW, I'm very far from a prude. I am sure I have uploaded several hundred images of naked people myself (mostly, but by no means exclusively, body-painted; about half of them riding bicycles). I would not want someone to find these by default when they are looking for an image of, say, someone riding a bicycle in Seattle.

I see nothing wrong with what Sbb1413 is doing in this respect. Is there any substantive edit of theirs that you find objectionable, or do you just dislike what motivates their work? Because, basically, if their edits are productive, I think the latter is really not anyone else's business. - Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Seconding this. Both on Wikimedia projects and elsewhere, the use of images containing gratuitous nudity or otherwise shocking content irrelevant to the topic is widely considered inappropriate - e.g. see en:w:MOS:OMIMG and en:w:WP:GRATUITOUS for enwiki's take on the matter. When people come to Commons searching for an image about a topic, most of those users will consider an image of that topic with nudity unsuitable for their purposes. Placing those images in a separate subcategory makes it easier for those users to find usable images - and, if they are looking for an image with nudity, it makes those images more discoverable. Omphalographer (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thirding this – I think it's more than reasonable and more so an act of courtesy rather than policy or guideline-related. Don't see anything that needs to be done to Sbb. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Spideog: Yes, the above note on nudity is due to my recent contributions on categories related to nudity, and I sometimes do create nude categories by myself. Although I believe Commons is not censored (see babel), it does not mean that I can tolerate nudity, since nudity is rare among adults in India (except male toplessness, which is pretty common). My comment "So, I make sure the media depicting nudity are given dedicated categories to avoid intolerant users like me facing media depicting nudity" is valid, as no one should expect nude people in categories unrelated to nudity.

The categorisation of files in WikiCommons is for rational organisation of content, and for ease of navigation and search, not to hide things from one user because of his (self declared) intolerance. It looks like an abuse of editing rights to suit himself, and not for the good of the project.

It is indeed for the good for the project, as I mentioned "intolerant users like me", not "me as an intolerant user", as I think there might be other users who have similar issues. There's nothing to hide things from one user. If you want to see nude people standing, go to Category:Nude people standing, which is categorized under Category:People standing. The main categories are exclusively for clothed people, with nude people in subcats.

User:Sbb1413 is enormously prolific so I have not been able to find any examples of him recategorising nudity – so far – because he is so prodigious that finding any trends in his approach is very hard, but he has been questioned and criticised in the past for wreaking large-scale disruption because of inadvisable actions, on a massive scale.

I put nude people under nude categories only if such categories exist, otherwise I keep them under main categories. This is normal in categorization. Yes, I did a large-scale disruption in English Wikipedia, and I repeatedly seek apology for it. I'm currently more responsive while working in Wikimedia projects, including Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless there are instances where the actions of the users are actually considered inappropriate (that users disagree with others is to be expected, even more so if one's contributions aren't limited to 500 in 4 years), I think Spideog should be reminded not poke users over their sensibilities and apologize to Sbb1413 for reporting them here.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I have to reword my notes on nudity, otherwise other users would complain me for something I have never done here. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

8diq

8diq (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

9 copyright violations, and more on enwiki today. Their only upload I can find that wasn’t deleted is taken from a Reddit post three years ago. Northern Moonlight (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. User is warned, copyvios deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

They just did two more copyrighted uploads after your last warning. Northern Moonlight (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all copyright violations already deleted. Yann (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Chrymedia as sockpuppet

Per an overlap in uploads with other socks in this sock drawer (such as Sleevachan and Csmegb), I'm inclined to believe that Chrymedia is another account belonging to a paid employee of the Syro-Malabar Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the photos that I uploaded? If there is copyright issues, upload the same from your end. I have included the reference in the page where you get the coat of arms. Also, please allow to paste the good photo of the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church from the website. Chrymedia (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You are admitting to a copyright violation. @Chrymedia: stop trying to upload copyright violations and stop opening new accounts. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain what is the copyright violation? Chrymedia (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I uploaded the Major Archbishop's photo from the official website of Syro-Malabar Church with the link. Chrymedia (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chrymedia: Please have an authorized official of the Syro-Malabar Church send permission via VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti: A request for check user would be useful. Yann (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurately claimed works

Dftad 55 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Dear all,

@Dftad 55 continuously upload works claimed to be personal works when they are obviously not (ex. paintings) while no reliable source is provided to claim works are under the designated licenses. @R Prazeres already left a warning but without any effect to date. Moumou82 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you discuss this with them and try to explain what the issues are?

We all know how hostile the Commons system is, and the upload tools that fail to explain the issues involved. We should be very generous to new editors here, especially when their work is probably perfectly allowable, so long as the metadata is fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've explained the issue to them and invited them to ask questions on their talk page, but there's no response and they've continued doing the same since. It's not clear to me if they're ignoring the notices or if they don't read English well enough (though the fact that they're editing and adding pictures and templates to the English Wikipedia makes me doubt the latter point). R Prazeres (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

PS: I should add that while the early uploads look like possible old paintings that potentially could fall into PD (but by no means something I would assume), some of the more recent photos are less likely to be PD as they concern more recent subjects. Something like this is obviously a recent photo that they did not take themselves ([12]). R Prazeres (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I sent a last warning, and deleted a few obvious copyvios. I support a partial block (only uploading), so that this user could fix their uploads, but not import more files. Yann (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Yann for your action, however it does not seem to have produced effects as the same type of uploads continues. Moumou82 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Factfinder1125

Factfinder1125 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions). See their talk page. A pattern of repeatedly uploading Loretta Smith photo that's obviously not their own and marking them as their own and re-uploading when it gets deleted. Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

User:氏子

氏子 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). COM:OVERWRITE violation after warning. See: File:人居67模型.jpg, File:紐西蘭國家住屋模型.jpg, File:Cité du Grand Parc模型.jpg.--125.230.77.83 07:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Overwriting one's own files with minor improvements should be OK. Yann (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Miguel Inigo Mercadal2

Miguel Inigo Mercadal2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is a new user unfamiliar with Commons copyright and syntax rules. He is not inputting a direct link to his uploads but only claiming a vague source, even after being asked (e.g. File:Mayon eruption 1928 image.jpg with source as "Fabulous Philippines" with no link to this). He left badly edited comments of my user page. Could an administrator keep an eye of him. Pierre cb (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Katuni5

Katuni5 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, aside from mass spam uploads of identical files, has decided to begin raving on my talk page and on the request for deletion of one of his files with insults and threats and accused me of being a Chinese communist. An hour after he made these rants, a South Korean IP showed up to put two deletion requests on two files, one I had uploaded and one I had updated. While I do find this funny I know it's going to get annoying in the future, so I'd figure I'd head it off at the pass here. NorthTension (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month. Such language is not acceptable. I also blocked Special:Contributions/2001:2D8:6940:2908:0:0:0:0/64 for a week. Yann (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

SexEdCouple

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

Not here to build an encyclopedia, only upload is porn with a creepy description Dronebogus (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Lolulu09877

Lolulu09877 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I was browsing a wikiproject's pages when images that looked similar to ones I took so I looked closer and it turns out that User:Lolulu09877 has been using images uploaded to social media and claiming authorship. I went through some of his uploads and flagged them. The others should also be checked. Gachago (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, I deleted all files from Facebook, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lolulu09877 for the rest. Yann (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Mommy Debby

• User: Mommy Debby (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 17 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), nearly four years ago.

As precedents, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke and was ultimately blocked indefinitely, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman.

Mommy Debby made this deleted edit on or about 11 June 2023 (UTC): omitting reason, subpage, proper transclusion, notice to the page creator, year, month, and day. I reminded her of her mistake and warned her in these edits 11:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC), creating User talk:Mommy Debby#Warning. She did not reply. She did it again in these deleted edits on or before 17 June 2023 (UTC). I notified and warned her in this edit 10:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC). She did it again in each of these nine edits in the seven minutes leading up to 23:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC), starting with this one. She also has a long history of uploading copyvios and vandalism after warnings. Please block her, as "We cannot work here with people who are not willing to follow our procedures, in particular for deletion requests."

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I see you recently placed a vandalism warning on her page without indicating what constituted vandalism. Could you specify that, because repeated vandalism is a lot simpler basis to block. It is much more clear-cut to block someone for malicious acts than ones that might just be occasional incompetence. - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: It was the nine unreasonable manual deletion tags on 10 November and the page blanking of the same group of files on 5 November. She seems to have been bearing some ill will towards the logos of TVRI since 24 October 2023. Vandalism warnings were given 11:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC) and 10:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done blocked for a month. - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikimadari

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

429 remaining uploads, many which are obviously not own works. All files need a check. Please help. Yann (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Why are you tagging their uploads for speedy deletion as "no permission" ? [13]

This is not valid as a speedy deletion. There is clearly a permission given. If you disagree that this claimed licence is valid, then so be it - but that's not the same thing at all, an it can't be addressed through an undiscussed speedy deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This is very unlikely to be own work, so the permission is not valid. Yann (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Which is both not the same thing as 'no permission' and also not falling under the simple issues that can be dealt with as speedy deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Rodigou3

Rodigou3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

The user continues to upload images of dubious origin through license laundering (uploads photos to Flickr and then uploads them here on Wikimedia Commons). He has been warned about his uploads for months, but prefers to continue doing so. Taichi (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month. This user should have been blocked long ago. Yann (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Massimiliano Iacono

Massimiliano iacono (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Long-time abuser, already banned (multiple times) on it.wiki for self-promotion. The user is a pathological liar who's spamming entirely made-up projects and collaborations on any platform allowing external edits (including, for reasons unknown, the Dragon Trainer's Fandom wiki). Now he's taking roots here in Common, uploading his non-sense and creating his usual self-promotional pages.

By personal experience, I strongly recommend stopping this "contributor" with extreme prejudice, banning him and systematically deleting all his contributions. -- Rojelio (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and nuked here and on Wikidata. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rojelio: Should they return under a new account, I recommend you file a global lock request. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Kzunamrai2

• Kzunamrai2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Through the copyvio warn, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio portraits File:Keichi inoue 03.jpg. Netora (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the notice, blocked for a month. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)