Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 93

Iliya Kushkin Official

Iliya Kushkin Official (talk · contribs): high-speed copyvio uploading, re-uploading after deletion despite any warnings or explanations. --188.123.231.58 16:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• • У меня вопрос, почему Вы написали это на английском (может я ошибся сейчас в чем либо) и где доказательства чего либо, я вроде как повторно файлы не загружал и тем более видео. Iliya Kushkin Official (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Sailko Wants a reduction of Catagories

User feels that I created to many Catagories outlining a more efficient collection of relevant categories so connected wikidata items relevant to the topics can be collected Tzim78 (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for fixing categories of Greek Icons. I see some mistakes thou, as you should not put categories that are already on a higher level. Es. Greek Icons of Lamentation is already inside the category "Greek Icons" and "Paintings of Lamentation", so the images must only have "Greek Icons of Lamentation", only the most specific one --Sailko (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please red this message. --Sailko (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sailko: Thank You, we will take your thoughts into consideration..Tzim78 (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sailko: The policy at Wikipedia and Wikimedia is to add as many categories as possible to help search engines disseminate pertinent information for each subcategory. The more categories that exist colleges, universities, museums, and researchers can accurately find the correct information. The more categories the better. You can help Wikipedia by adding the correct placement for each category.

Mmm, no you are wrong, and this is what I am trying to tell you. Categories are not hashtags, they are like boxes, where you have to be able to find the proper images. For example, if I upload an image of Athens, it doesn't have to be inside Greece, Europe, World as well, otherwise those categories will be overcrowded and nobody will be able to use them. It will be inside those categories throug "subcategorization". Please only use the most specific category for each image. If hope you understand now. --Sailko (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Either links and diffs to the issues involved, or else speedy close this and sort it out between you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Shah Mohi sock return?

BotLachis (talk · contribs) Likely returned sock of Shah Mohi (talk · contribs). Three trash uploads, straight to the sock cat page. Nuke all contribs and block Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Nazrul Islam Nahid Majumder

 Done

• User: Nazrul Islam Nahid Majumder (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after block for doing so.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Reblocked. Materialscientist (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 19:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Abdo mitwally 55 (talk · contribs)

Abdo Mitwally 's sockpuppet. And please clear his/her uploading, (^･ｪ･^) (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hari caaru‎

Hello, Hari caaru‎ has been proposing to move File:Location of Thừa Thiên Huế within Vietnam.png to File:LocationVietnamThuaThienHue.png on the basis that all of the files at Category:Maps of provinces of Vietnam should follow the same name pattern as those in the category, Having told them that the proposed name (and those in the category) are all wrong the user has today persisted on reverting and edit warring (I did originally state I would seek clarification and so apologised to the user for not getting back to them however it would be obvious that all files in that cat shuold be renamed).
I've given the user a final warning today which went ignored and I was again reverted. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 19:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010: "and so apologised", please point out where you apologized, as I didn't see such a thing. Hari caaru (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought I included it in the last reply but apparently not so I apologise for not getting back to you sooner. That being said you could've reached out to me at any point this week but you instead chose to revert without like I said reaching out to me. I've told you the names in that cat are all wrong so you should've said "Okay well I'll move them" - Not start edit warring over it. I wont reply further as discussions on your talkpage have gotten nowhere. –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Keep in mind that I replied to you at 18:57, 1 July 2021 " @Davey2010: You want to do go with the hard work then fine, I'm not going to object to it. All I want is the name of all files to be harmonized. Hari caaru (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)" (which is exactly 1 day after your last message to me (at 17:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC) ), by which you should have get back to me about whether you were going to move the others or not) but you didn't even bother to reply me back. So what's the point of reaching out to you? Hari caaru (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You could've pinged me on your talkpage or like I said reached out to me even a day later, I have over 60k items in my watchlist and real life is hectic at the moment so I cannot remember everything, A quick message to get my attention than reverting me. –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010: What's the difference between using {{ping| }} and {{re| }}? I used {{re| }} and that should already leave a notification in your notification bar. Unless you read it, the notification will still be there. This doesn't make any sense at all. You were complaining about me not getting back to you, and when I said I did get back the day after, you are now complaining about me not trying to reach out again.

Please note that I wasn't the one who asked for the response in one day, you said it in your own words (if you don't think you can make it then don't say it). If you needed more than a day, that's not a problem to me. Hari caaru (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Also there is no clear definition of right and wrong names, nor good and bad. The name is still understandable, the only problem is that it is not grammatically correct in English. But then again, there are no rules enforcing the names to be correct in grammar terms, so I don't see any problems with the proposed name. Hari caaru (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Technically you're harmonizing them so in that respect your request is correct however I don't agree with going from okay to bad just because all of the other filenames are bad .... that being said if an admin believes I'm wrong to decline that file then begrudgingly I'll rename it –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and renamed the other files instead as no one's replied here (I assume others see this as a non-issue), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Self-requested block for my account as (Davey2010 upsetting me on enwiki)

Hello, is it possible for me to have a self-requested block on my Commons account and all my global account. I have been blocked on enwiki and I don't think I'd be a good contributor anymore. Davey2010 has made my life extremely miserable by reverting all my content for no apparent reason and just saying disputed content. I don't even want to contribute and just want all my non-used uploads removed as I don't feel like I am part of the community anymore. I just hate it here and just want to end it all for everyone and just let everyone edit in peace as I feel I am not needed. I don't mind how long it is for, but I am not of any use anymore with my enwiki block. I don't mind how long it takes, but with my old blocks for my behaviour it just doesn't feel worth me. I was crying all night and having mental breakdowns and started hating everyone in real life. I am a worthless individual and Davey2010, Oshwah, Bbb23 and everyone else has made my life on enwiki an absolute nightmare and when I saw Davey reverting most of my contributions, I started crying and bawling my eyes out and starved myself the entire night. It is just not worth me editing anymore with improving and I want to say sorry for all my past bad actions on Commons, as I tend to be a better user on that site but I don't want my blocks for my disruptive behaviour on the site being a nightmare. I am just going to be a nightmare with my behaviour and it is not worth me editing anymore. I don't mind if I cannot edit here anymore, as Davey is making my life an absolute nightmare. Can you please help me? I am depressed, mentally challenged and feeling so upset and angry for my own actions that I want to say sorry. I had a very bad day yesterday with being shouted at, family disputes and friends disputes to the point I blocked everyone on facebook -Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. This seems problem of en.wiki. Do not bring problems from other projects into Commons. If you want to leave Wikimedia, then you can simply stop using your account. If you still want to be indefinitely blocked, then Commons cannot block you globally. You must ask that in meta. Global lock does not mean deletion of your uploads, because free licenses are irrevocable. Still, files uploaded less than week ago (on 8th of July 2021 or later) can be deleted on uploader's request, if you confirm your wish to delete them. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Taivo. Yes please if that's ok with you guys. I totally appreciate it also could you please remove all the recent uploads as well as all the unused flickr files (i don't mind whichever) but please also delete the 4 images which I have nominated for deletion as the licencing terms on a site was not compatible with this one. I just want to start afresh and possibly help you all out detecting copyvios (my speciality). I'm better at image analysing as opposed to writing. I honestly don't have an issue, but I feel of contempt and anger now with users who keep reverting me. I feel like the most hated individual. Take your time, there's no rush and you are a great friend Taivo. --Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I mass deleted 132 files per your request. Please remember: nobody hates you in Wikimedia projects. Even Davey does not hate you. You are not blocked in Commons. If you like that, then you can always return. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Taivo, many thanks. But why can't you just rid all the ones I uploaded in July? Isn't that pretty recent? Its not just that, but I thought it would make sense as I do not want my wasted efforts to remain and make myself more miserable. I don't really mind how long it takes, but isn't it just better to rid the unused ones. Can you please delete the selfies off File:Thumbs_up_selfie_in_white_C-Class_Uber.jpg, File:Shaka selfie pose in Black Koleos Uber.jpg and File:Peace sign selfie in grey Lancer Uber.jpg per COM:PERSONAL as I am a little fearful of my safety and it was dumb of me to upload them with face censored. Davey2010. Many thanks for nominating them for me, as I was about to do them! No problems if not, but I thought to make life a little easier for you, instead of you trawling through my gallery wasting your time. You're my friend and I want to help :)--Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• A) Different projects cannot help in regards to issues on sister projects. B) Stop pinging people otherwise soon you're going to find yourself muted.

The saddest part to all of this is that you were Indefinitely blocked because of your behaviour ...... and yet you still seem to believe you're not at fault. I'm certainly not blameless and there are things I could've done better but at the end of the day whining to other projects isn't going to help nor will it lift your block anytime soon (and FYI repeatedly pinging people just makes your life more harder as those who edit EN aren't going to wanna wake up to find a ping from you here having another rematch.

In the most nicest possible way I can say this - Grow up, Stop acting like a child, Contribute constructively and peacefully otherwise you're going to find yourself blocked here too. I wont be replying further. Take care and stay safe. –Davey2010^Talk 10:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)`

Ⲙϩⲙⲱⲇ ⲱⲥⲁⲙ, probable sockpuppet of Ahmed88z

Same edit pattern, uploading maps of "Egyptian Empire" without adequate sourcing, as well as uploading copyrighted images. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Periklis1999

Periklis1999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him for a week and mass deleted his all contributions. Taivo (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Why this user can upload photos? Isn't he was blocked indefinitel from file namespace, where is the unblock? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.76.13.209 (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The block was lifted, see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/03#Covering events - how many files do we need?. --Achim (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yan-Lucky

Yan-Lucky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

[1] - this photo obviously has a fake license, as it's a screenshot from a Russian TV-show. [2] - same problem here, I even specified the source of copyvio. I guess many other photos uploaded by this user may have a fake license. --Good Will Hunting (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• As per this discussion the editor confirmed that he considers himself as an author of these screenshots made from the copyrighted videos. His entire contribution must be rechecked and, unfortunately, the most part of it must be deleted: [3]. --Good Will Hunting (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

   deleted and warned rubin16 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User:ItsJustdancefan mass deletion nominations of logos

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

ItsJustdancefan has been doing mass nominations of logos for awhile now. Most of the nominations are of simple text logos that clearly do not meet the threshold of originality. Two examples are File:Fx.png and File:Telehit Música Plus logo.png. I know they are aware of the threshold of originality rules, especially for text logos, because me and several users have brought it up to them. Multiple people have also asked them on their talk page to stop the mass nominations, but they archive them without responding (diff). I don't necessarily want sanctions or anything, but it would be good if someone with authority, who they will hopefully listen to, can tell them to not to nominate things anymore that clearly shouldn't be nominated. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What I find concerning here is they upload themselves logos likely above TOO that are similar to those they are nominating for reletion (e.g. File:Azteca Guate 2017.png or File:Univision TDN 2012 logo.png). @ItsJustdancefan: could you please explain? — Racconish ^💬 10:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself. It's kind of a weird thing to do. If the files they are nominating really do meet the threshold of originality, then the more complicated or same versions they are uploading certainly will also. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I will stop nominating files and logos for deletion and sometimes a lot of logos have own work so I will start changing files files that have the own work. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: thank you for commenting here... but I have to admit I have some difficulty in understanding you. Could you please kindly clarify? — Racconish ^💬 13:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Racconish: I will stop nominating files and logos for deletion. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Tornado vermelho

Tornado vermelho (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) was blocked twice by Elcobbola for uploading unfree files on Commons. The first time for 1 week on May 28, and the second time for 1 month on June 8. They returned from the block and restarted their behavior. ALL their uploads are COM:COPYVIO. Files taken from the internet and uploaded here as "own work". I think another block is warranted.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done: deleted everything and blocked indefinitely rubin16 (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Rubin16 Thanks.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 23:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Frombowen, probable sockpuppet of Liverpoolpics

I'm not a regular here, but the subject line pretty much says it all ... they've both had problems uploading copyrighted images and, more pertinently, they both have exactly the same idiosyncratic editing pattern on enwiki of making mass semi-automated photo requests on talk pages. Pinging Rodhullandemu, as the blocking admin for Liverpoolpics. Graham87 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Graham87: I'd say they are the same. The quality of his own photos, tending towards pretty much useless, is a bit of a giveaway. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: Thanks for your note here, but your attempted ping didn't work because pings don't work retroactively. Graham87 (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'd also started discussion about them on the English Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment Probably no benefit for me to submit COM:RFCU, they look like meatpuppets each other. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Lusccasdeutsch uploading many inappropriate videos

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

This user has uploaded a large number of dubiously in-scope videos imported from Vimeo or YouTube. These videos are almost all blatantly pornographic with little plausible encyclopedic use (such as 1 and 2), politically inflammatory (3 and 4), or both (5). I have hidden the titles behind links as they are reproduced from the source and are clearly inappropriate for Commons. The user has been warned about this, and was given a final warning by Ymblanter back in January. All of those linked uploads were after the final warning. The user has never edited their talk page, and their one defense of their uploads suggests that they are here to push the boundaries of what's allowed. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleted those DRed. Nominated more out of scope: Commons is not a soapbox. — Racconish ^💬 13:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC) modified 15:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• I took a look at a few and most of those are in scope, in my opinion (they are mostly not interesting for me personally, but that’s not what Commons is for). Looking at the list, it seems that a major renaming effort is nedeed, granted. Accurate categorization and other additional data curation would be a good thing too. (Reviewing video is way more time-consuming than static imagery, by the way.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Lee Gok Da

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

i believe this user is the one behind Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lý Ngọc Đạt. s/he forged a LR: special:diff/522960877. also, this user name is just another way to spell the vietnamese name. -- RZuo (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

more forgery: special:diff/572956441, special:search/insource:"Đạt Ngọc Lý".

sadly this user had been caught by User:Jdx but let go: User_talk:Krd/archive/2020#Yet_another_possible_sockpuppet_of_Lý_Ngọc_Đạt. -- RZuo (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I really don't know who he/she is Đạt Ngọc Lý! And I upload files that are completely legal in terms of copyright. Please do not misunderstand, because there have been cases like this before. Regarding the case special:search/insource:"Đạt Ngọc Lý", I can interpret it as an error in the validation. Pleasure consider. --Lee Gok Da (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done After seeing these three edits (Special:Diff/575375222, Special:Diff/575375267 and Special:Diff/575375304) I have blocked the account indefinitely for sock puppetry. --jdx ^Re: 12:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

user Jameslwoodward filing for wrongful deletions due to a vendetta

User:Jameslwoodward has nominated multiple of my images for deletion after he reverted my edit (by mistake) when I wanted to retrieve one of my old deleted images, so because he took it personally, he went on a vendetta and went through all of my images and filed them for deletion, he did a bunch in the morning, and came back again once I had argued my case as to why I have the right to keep them up.. for example, I have uploaded clippings from a newspaper from 1930 and he argued that copyright law has to be life +70 (uk law).. however, with uk law, if the photographer is not known, then it's reverted to simply 70 years after the end of the calendar year it was published.. therefore he did not mention this, he also placed deletion notices on my own art work, works that I myself produced with my own hand.. this can be proven by how I sent wiki an email a few years back showing that I was the creator (evidence supplied here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mari_Lwyd.jpg), he also asked to take down a scan of a photograph that is managed by myself which is owned by the company I work for, to which they gave me permission to upload (Evidence that I work at Gwrych castle preservation trust: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/gwrych-castle-im-celebrity-history-20793123), so without asking me nor researching first, he made the outlandish decision to target me because he took a disliking to me, surely this is not fair and he is indeed a form of harassment.Hogyncymru (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I know @Jameslwoodward: for being a balanced administrator and I find it hard to believe he took personally an issue like copyvio. Are you sure this is not a big misunderstanding? -- Blackcat 19:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment @Hogyncymru: , I notified Jameslwoodward, but it's you that should have done first, please keep it in mind next time you want to open a similar report. -- Blackcat 19:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for not notifying him first, the reason I said he did it out of vendetta may be because of his actions following him reverting my deletion, the fact that he purposefully pored over my contributions trying to remove my contents, why would he do that if he was not inclined to do so if I hadn't deleted an edit by mistake? would he have done so if he hadn't given me a warning for deleting a deletion request? doubt it, I am however worried that because you know him you may be more likely to defend his actions, just seeing this on the outside looking in, I don;'t want him punished, I just want him to leave me alone.Hogyncymru (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not defending him, indeed I didn't say "he hasn't done what you say". I am simply saying that having seen him at "work" here for 10 years he's not prone to go personal, so I'd be surprised if he did now, hence my purpose to further investigate whether there's some misunderstanding between you two. -- Blackcat 20:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but by going from here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ian_Douglas_Cochrane,_Earl_of_Dundonald.png to reverting my deletion (which I did without meaning to break the rules.. I only wanted to retrieve the old file) he then visited my page and pored through my uploads asking to delete multiple uploads.. it was so petty that he wanted to remove a file because it was a jpg instead of a svg.. he did it because he was annoyed with me, why else would he go out of his way to target much of my contributions? even though I have proof that I own my own work that I uploaded?Hogyncymru (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: Just to be clear, I reverted your edit at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ian Douglas Cochrane,_Earl of Dundonald.png, where it clearly says in bold red letters, "Please do not make any edits to this archive." Now, I can't speak for Jim's intentions any more than you, but if I find that another user seems to be unaware of Commons policies and licensing rules, I generally think it's a good idea to look at the user's other contributions. I don't consider "targeting".

On the more specific items:

• Nominating a JPG flag image because an SVG image is available is standard is not problematic. Unless there's a compelling reason to keep a JPEG format, minimizing the content duplication is welcome. Deletion on Commons is not punitive, and I urge you to not take a pretty standard housekeeping move personally (especially as you accuse Jim of acting vindictively).
• It's not immediately obvious that you are Rhŷn Williams. You don't explicitly mention it in the image description and you don't have a user profile that explains the connection Which is fine, but you also can't get upset when someone fails to make the connection. Also, I can't tell that the OTRS ticket for File:Mari Lwyd.jpg (OTRS:2016081010015528) applies to all your work. My advice would be to submit an OTRS ticket for your nominated images to avoid any future confusion. Again, a deletion nomination isn't a personal attack. It's a request for verification.

"Assume good faith" is generally a good rule to follow on all Wiki project sites. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but seeing that he was responsible for the deletion for the Dundonald image, and then made the conscious decision to delve more into my activities, to me feels targeted, as to me not following rules properly, this is due to my dyslexia, there's no rules outlining that people with mental health issues cannot contribute to the site, therefore if people with dyslexia contribute and edit, we are also susceptible for not understanding rules properly.. so mistakes can and do happen. And even if I do edit my images and update the files showing that they follow copyright rules, the threat of deletion will still exist even after I have uploaded them showing I am who I am (because if a wiki volunteer has vetted that I am Rhyn Williams via my username and the same work can be found on my external site > https://www.deviantart.com/rhyn-art/gallery then that's proof enough that I made them, I also linked my name to the organisation I work for through a news article (which has my name mentioned) so why should I wait for weeks worrying when the deletions could be dropped right this second? anxiety is a crippling issue, especially when researching and creating is my full time job and the uploads depend on my contributions.Hogyncymru (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to be sure, if it's 'good faith', can it also be directed towards the deletion requests? because that could also be mistaken deletion via 'good faith', because I've given my evidence and reasons as to why they shouldn't be deleted, because it's easy to nominate them.. but it can be time-consuming to revert it, for example, you can nominate an image for deletion because nominator says that image is life +70, but if I counter it by saying that the copyright is not that clear-cut, and that 'life' only applied to images if the publisher is known, if the publisher of the image is not known.. then life does not apply and it's simply 70 years after the calendar year of the publication, so this means that his argument is flawed.Hogyncymru (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Why did he start this > (Starting mass deletion request), I told who the artist is and I marked it as my 'own work' so how am I not complying with rules?, so if people are saying I'm not clearly showing I am rhyn williams, then why have those as an option?Hogyncymru (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Written before the comments above were read. Thank you, Blackcat and Ytoyoda. There is no vendetta here. File:Ian_Douglas_Cochrane,_Earl_of_Dundonald.png is a 1968 UK image and it should be obvious that it cannot possibly be PD -- even if the photographer were unknown, the UK copyright runs for 70 years from first publication and the US copyright for 95 years. When I saw that Hogyncymru did not understand this, I then looked at their other uploads. As Ytoyoda says above, this is standard procedure for me and many other Admins -- where there is one problem, there probably are more. As can be seen at User talk:Hogyncymru that was the case. I found a variety of different problems -- several copyright violations, one recent jpg when there are several perfectly good svgs of the same subject, and at least one 19th century image that is probably PD, but for which Hogyncymru claims to be the author and no source is given. I also nominated the work of Rhŷn Williams, since I had no way of knowing that Hogyncymru is Williams. The standard procedure for an artist who uploads under a different name is for the artist to put a note on his user page, in this case, the blank page User:Hogyncymru. An OTRS volunteer can then place a note there confirming the relationship.

What should happen now?

• File:CountessDundonald.jpg is clearly not Hogyncymru's work, as claimed. It is almost certainly PD, so I hope that they will provide the source from which they got it so we can keep it.
• An OTRS volunteer should provide the appropriate template for the Rhŷn Williams images and also make a note at User:Hogyncymru. This would include the colorization of the Countess Dundonald image, since Rhŷn Williams is credited with the colorization. However, I tend to think that the colorization is probably out of scope.
• The other images I nominated should be deleted at the end of the DRs for the reasons given:

File:Lady Grizel Hamilton, YWCA 1930.png

File:CELTICA.jpg

File:Welsh flag.jpg

• I might hope that we might see an apology from Hogyncymru for wasting the time of three active Admins, but given their continued aggressive tone, that's probably unlikely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Jameslwoodward: oh, don't worry, I was already dealing with someone else that's misusing this page assuming that's a way to solve edit controversies... -- Blackcat 22:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think I have an 'aggressive tone', I may counter that with your 'offended tone', I am a reasonable person and when you nominated my artwork, I later showed evidence showing that my page here is that of R. Williams, you an I can now agree now can't we? and as for you nominating a large chunk of my work without researching my other work to see if I had at all showed proof, you would have seen that one did indeed have proof, so if you saw that I was the artist, you could then realise that your requests were done by mistake (which they should be reverted asap now that you know), if you do that, I can go ahead and update my whole page to reflect my activity, as for originals owned by Gwrych (which I then coloured) this new copy is a new image produced by myself (as I am an artist). James, please don't think I', against you, but you should also understand that you made a mistake, I have no grudge against you but it seems that you're taking it personally, should we leave this as 'good faith' as others pointed out?Hogyncymru (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see that I made a mistake. I agree that I targeted you. What do expect an Admin to do when it is clear that you do not understand copyright rules and Commons policy? Only one of your image uploads is a valid upload with all of the required information and status. Several are clear copyright violations. A 1968 UK image cannot be PD in either the UK or the USA. A 1930 Australian image may or may not be PD in Australia, but cannot be PD in the US. The 1990's File:CELTICA.jpg is clearly a blatant copyvio. File:CountessDundonald.jpg is, as I said in the DR, is almost certainly PD, but it clearly not your own work as you claimed. Only one of the Rhŷn Williams images -- which I did not nominate -- has the correct OTRS tag -- all the rest appeared to be copyvios. And, finally, we do not allow uploads of raster flags and other similar images when SVGs exist.

You think it was a mistake that I did not somehow use my Admin's crystal ball and figure out that you are Rhŷn Williams -- as I went down the list of your uploads, all I had seen were copyvios and incorrect claims. When I came to the Rhŷn Williams images, there was an OTRS tag on one -- the tag said only that the image was freely licensed by Williams, not that you were Williams. The rest of them had no mention of the connection. Sorry, but Admin's are paid so little that we can't afford crystal balls -- instead we expect uploaders to follow Commons rules, understand (and obey) basic copyright law, and make relationships clear..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Lady Grizel Hamilton, YWCA 1930.png - (I uploaded in UK, so it follows UK law) File:CELTICA.jpg (I drew it, it's not exactly the same, it has some slight differences) File:Welsh flag.jpg (My own work: I added a penis, so it has been modified, as to why I added the penis is to reflect how the dragon should look due to Henry VII's coat of arms) Hogyncymru (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, images must be free in both the originating country and the US. A 1930 Australian image cannot be PD in the US. Your drawing of Celtica infringes on the copyright of the original. And, as I and others have said, the problem with the flag is that we do not allow uploads of JPGs when there are existing SVGs of the same subject. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed CountessDundonald.jpg is not my own work, but again.. I work for Gwrych castle trust, Winifred, Countess of dundonald owned Gwrych, they own the original image, I am their researcher, I uploaded it to help them, again.. to verify that this is an article mentioning my name and my job; https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/gwrych-castle-im-celebrity-history-20793123 , as for age of the image, it's from ~1905 which is definitely in public domain.Hogyncymru (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I would rather get a reply from other rather than the person who I'm complaining about, it's infringing on bias when they argue back, others sound more logical than James, so I will no longer reply to him and I hope he respects my wishes.

As for vetting one of my work but not the others, even if they are not marked correctly, you can still validate that they are indeed mine, also when I'm trying to contribute and help the community, it doesn't help when there's someone targeting me (like he said), without talking to me as a human rather than filth, plus, with my mental health, he really isn't helping my cause, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'd rather get the answers from others who doesn't have a grudge on their shoulders, it's really affecting my mental health, it would be nice to contribute to wiki without disclosing much of my life (which is why I choose not to tell people who I am on my main talk page), but this... this exact this exposes everything, my life and also a disagreement I'm having with someone who had a vendetta (even if it is his job) he still had an agenda and it feels overwhelming (so again, James.. do not carry on with my message, you're contributing to the decline of my mental health)Hogyncymru (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: , I try to give an outsider's point of view because I think that you're focusing only on one aspect of the copyright.
I am from Italy an our country has an exception to the author's exclusive right: unsigned photographs produced in Italy and with no artistic value enter the public domanin the 21th year after their publication.
Because of a complex intertwining of laws - which I spare you from - the United States recognize those photographs in public domain too, provided they were already in PD before 1996; I don't know why the USA decided to protect at their home a photo declared free by its country of origin, but we have to deal with that -- as long as WMF servers are in the USA.
So, alas, we have lots of PD photographs that will never will be uploaded on Commons at least as long as we are still alive (say year 2000 photos that will be free for Commons at least in 2070 if author is unknown or 70pma if author is known, alive and kicking).
So, free does not necessarily means free everywhere. Here on Commons we must deal with the law of the United States and a media must be freee both in its country of origin and in the USA, not "either..or". It's hard for me too but we have to adapt. -- Blackcat 22:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blackcat Thank you for your rational, unbias and calm reply, as I suffer from depression to see one user literally remove a great chunk of my uploads, it doesn't feel great and to have someone attack you on top of forcing someone to lose those images can feel overwhelming and scary, so the way James reacted was not how he should react when he's dealing with the public even if he is correct or not, so it feels good seeing you talk in this way, now regarding my art, why is he trying to take those away after showing I am the artist and that I have proven it via one of my other art? one could simply see one piece on here, see that it's mine and then go find other works seen on this site and vet it with my website? shouldn't this be enough? I have already marked my work as 'my own' and signed it with my full name, (as for the gold dragon, if you look at the ear, it reads RW, my initials.. this is my signature on the pieceHogyncymru (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Fan de Randy Rhoads

This editor showed up on my talk page making legal and other threats after I nominated one of their uploads for deletion. I was surprised to see that COMMONS:NLT is not an established policy on Commons, but I still consider these threats (legal and otherwise) to be extremely problematic, so I thought I would bring the issue here. If someone with better Spanish language fluency can take a look, that would be especially helpful. The editor has also uploaded a number of other problematic images. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I already sent a message to the user and asked for the required forgiveness for the misconduct and that this will not be repeated--Fan de Randy Rhoads (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done - This is LTA/globally blocked Eltiodepedro. Эlcobbola _talk 18:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

user:TakrawKongpop: Repeatedly copyright violation uploads despite being informed

The user user:TakrawKongpop has repeatedly uploaded images that are deemed copyvio, despite being warned and informed both on the user's talk page on Commons and on Thai Wikipedia (where the user possibly active the most). However, no reply was given so far. I have warned the user in Thai, due to the edits being only available in Thai. What should I do next? Is it enough to report for user block? --Chainwit. (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I have given a formal warning. Lets see if that helps. Appears to be a new user who might not understand Gbawden (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Adaaaam uncivil and disruptive

Adaaaam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who has been around for three years with very little contributions to the project, made a significant change to Template:User YouTube with the edit summary of "Included channel link", which I reverted stating "unexplained changes and this is what Template:User YouTube uploader is for". The wording significantly changed the meaning of the template, since it is for those who upload from YT to Commons and not those who have a YT account or channel (which is what Template:User YouTube uploader is there for). Adaaaam has reverted a couple of times "Previous revision copies Wikipedia's Template:User_YouTube such that users can continue to not specify channel via URL yet the exact, same info of being an uploader is STILL conveyed, OR specify channel to display a link, thereby usefully allowing User_YouTube_Uploader to be deleted for redundancy" and "Based on your own admission of what you perceive this template to be used for, reverting it to align with Wikipedia's useuflly eliminates Template:User_YouTube_Uploader's redundant existence while still satisfying what you perceive to be the purpose of this template, since ALL YouTube uploaders have channels".

But this is not the end of it, Adaaaam has now taken upon themselves to make uncivil and disruptive comments, to the point of making personal attacks including deliberately spelling my username incorrectly.

Links to the uncivil and disruptive comments (including edit summaries) at Template talk:User YouTube/doc.

• "Created page with '== Why is there a Template:User_YouTube_Uploader and this template? == And why is Bridgee engaging in an edit war to prevent the useful elimination of redundancy? Isn't he a Template Editor? Review this template's edit history to see our one-sided and unproductive discussion. Also view /doc's history to witness his abusive threats of blocking a useful editor for reverting edits that have invalid reasons (such as "listening" to him, not a re...'"
• "Reverted attempt at censorship. Bridgee previously advised to "take it to Talk" as the means to counter his single viewpoint on what this template's purpose is. By removing discussion, his single viewpoint persists and remains unchallenged. My guiding other editors to review edit history to gather context into whether a change is needed in no way violates any explicitly stated rule in Brisbee's link"
• Reverted Bidgee's second attempt at censorship. Contents of post are utterly critical to provide context and give understanding behind event causing this topic's creation. In no way does it violate any rules in pages linked by Brisbee. Messages posted to Brisbee's walls are summarily deleted similar to messages to this public Talk space to foster collaboration.
• Reverted third attempt by Brisbee to censor discussion on potential change of template he adamantly opposes. Refuses to cite explicit rules broken in blatant abuse of power. Deletes posts to his wall.

It is also clear the user thinks they are in the right, when it clearly isn't the case (User talk:Adaaaam: [4][5], Template talk:User YouTube: [6][7][8], User talk:Bidgee: [9][10])

This user has a history of ignoring or having a I didn't hear that with a deletion back in February 2018 and very recent undeletion request, it was pointed out by both Эlcobbola and Christian Ferrer that their allegation/claim was wrong. Bidgee (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Brisbee is the one being disruptive and abusive. He has made clear his opinion Template:User_YouTube should remain unchanged.

However, instead of constructively providing reasons to foster collaboration compared to mine that layout the benefit of eliminating redundancy, his are uncollaborative and unilateral, such as "Undo revision 576612808 by Adaaaam (talk) user with no to little commons history will not listen." So uncollaborative is he that to him, his voice is all that counts, to even consider "listening" or an editor's relatively low edit count a valid reason for reversion.

Furthermore, any attempts to bring discussion to Talk raises more ire as he continuously threatens retaliatory action in a blatant abuse of power to drive his opinion forward. He even goes so far as to outright blank discussion on Template:User_YouTube/doc to hinder collaboration.

I have not once made uncivil or disruptive comments, while Brisbee has repeatedly threatened to ban me in a blatant abuse of power. If usernames are spelled incorrectly, they are done in error (and I am unsure that has even occurred) and in no way constitute a "personal attack." Uncivil means discourteous or polite. Stating Brisbee's attempts at censorship to concisely provide a reason for fixing his senseless undo's does not make me impolite. Removing my undo's without providing sensical reasons, instead bizarrely stating "listening" to him is somehow a requirement to making useful edits, is what's "disruptive."

Brisbee continues to contend that I am "not right" as if his opinion is somehow more important or even a valid reason for engaging in an edit war and threatening to ban me instead of purposeful Talk discussion. As a participant himself, he is implying he is above the rules. Also, he is participating in an "edit war" on a Talk page, which should be strictly forbidden as Talk is for discussion not contribution edits.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Template_editor/en clearly states, "Individuals looking to request this right should show that they have experience editing templates in a constructive way. "

In no way is Brisbee exercising his power constructively when he continues to pressure my silence by constantly issuing warnings, threatening to ban me and deleting my Talk posts, even continuing to threaten a ban if I continue to post in a forum meant for open discussion from all, which goes against collaboration.

Regarding Brisbee's final sentence that I don't quite understand due to grammar, my image file was deleted years ago and actually reversed as it can be viewed here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Adam_Hoodie_sticker_logo.png I'm unsure what purpose deflecting to that seemingly irrelevant topic serves.

I repeat, I have not once made uncivil or disruptive comments, while Brisbee has repeatedly censored my content and issued warnings for violating no rules—refusing to cite specific clauses when requested—instead using threat of ban to intimidate me into silence while creating undue stress.

Ultimately, Brisbee has made me fearful of continuing to make useful edits or foster open discussion on Talk pages as he continues to spam my profile with warnings in an unrelentless show of power. I will likely contribute much less if this irrational behavior continues unchecked. Wikimedia sites are intended to be collaborative in nature. Just because he strongly disagrees, doesn't give him the right to force his viewpoint upon others by abusing his perceived position of authority to intimidate dissentors into silence. —Adaaaam (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked Adaaaam for 3 days. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek has problem with users

Frivolous complaint. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2021 (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.

---

Guys,

"The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." -John F. Kennedy

Ikan Kekek (talk · contribs)

Ikan talks with me in a sovereignty manner. The problem has raised from the last comment s/he made here. I made a comment in her/his talk-page. Not all but many photos that I nominated for deletion are deleted, finally and as you can see not all of them are baseless. S/He said "You're engaging in a pattern of baselessly nominating photos for deletion, yet you're criticizing me for asking you to please stop?" S/He's saying me that I don't have the right to be treated nicely because all of my DRs are not correct to him/her. "Please stop" is not a polite request in that DR. Or again s/he said "you think it's polite to nominate loads and loads of photos for deletion without a good reason?" Really? how many reasons should be provided to be GOOD to you? Is there any rule? It's super clear that doesn't matter how manny photo we nominate for deletion and as far as I know, many of them are deleted. Obviously, I don't know the uploaders then this is not a nemesis. "I didn't tell you to "fucking quit it"" s/he said but, is he really allowed to say "fucking quit it" even if we are troll!? How do you define "to be civil", Ikan?

"You are wasting my time. Please stop." If you think being here and being polite is time-wasting, then leave here.

"The consensus is that you should stop" No, the consensus is that the reason is not enough for moderators and the photo could be kept. It looks you have problem to be civil. You think who you are? because you're a native speaker then you can insult to the users? Rohalamin (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, come on, talk about a thin skin! This individual has repeatedly nominated photos for deletion merely because they are small. Many of them are photos of Iran from like 2006. And I'm rude because I asked them to "please stop"? Gimme a break! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment Discussions here are often robust, but I see no overstepping of any policy redlines here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please stop! Here is no fawiki. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This was the context. I will post links to other examples of baseless deletion nominations by this individual, based solely on their feeling that a relatively small size is per se suspicious. I don't like the idea of purging Commons of loads of photos just because they're not very big. Older, smaller photos are information that this repository of images should store, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tagh1.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tabriz Terminal.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sushtar Bridge.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shushtar.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azerbaijan-Museum.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jahrom Airport.jpg, and these are only examples of deletion nominations by Rohalamin based only on supposedly suspicious size that I've come across; I'm sure this is not an exhaustive list, and I repeat my request for Rohalamin to please stop nominating photos for deletion based solely on their size. That's not a valid reason for deletion, and nominating photos for deletion based solely on their size is very rude to those who took and uploaded the photos and may be dead now (because the photos are like 15 years old), and to whomever might have wanted to view or use the photos. Some of these photos are used on quite a few sites. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Rohalamin, you are nominating a large number of files for deletion on the thinnest of grounds. Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rohalamin: Okay, so Ikan Kekek is not the problem here, the problem is you whining over the bed you've made for yourself. The fact that yes, Ikan may be a native en speaker, yes I get that, but you are assuming that he's insulting you because of that. I personally don't find "fucking quit it" offensive at all. Change your attitude, and stop deleting files just because of the size and stop assuming things. If Ikan Kekek really had a problem with users, then it would have been dealt earlier, not now, and that would have been for a valid reason, and not for a rant which is what you're doing here. SHB2000 (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

"Fucking quit it" would have been intemperate. I asked them to "please stop", which is certainly a polite phrase. Since they objected to it, I made the point that I hadn't told them to "fucking quit it", and basically, what the hell are they objecting to? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I also have no idea what they are objecting to. Also, I was well aware what had happened before I posted here. Also to OP. Just letting you know, disputes aren't a valid reason to come to ANU and in this case, you were being uncivil. To Ikan Kekek, good on you for pointing that out. SHB2000 (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

"Fucking quit it" would be definitely problematic. Commons is an international community and one cannot assume that people all over the world be okay with such language. I'm boldly closing this discussion, because it's not fair to come down hard on Rohalamin, a 3-month old user who may not be as familiar with the atmosphere of Commons as us. Cultural difference is the key factor here. There is nothing more to achieve in this thread. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2021 (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.

More edit warring and pov pushing by User:Blackcat

More edit warring and pov pushing by User:Blackcat. This user with a history of pov pushing edit warring, tool abuse and outright bizarre decisions caused by poor comprehension of the English Language has restarted his obscure crusade against the word Stadium by removing Category:Wembley Stadium from Category:Stadiums in London, he has previously been warned not to do this. He also has a problem with Category:Wembley Stadium being located on Category:Olympic Way. Usually I would just revert it which I have, But this user's actions in the past mean that it needs to be reported before the user gets out of hand. Oxyman (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Oxyman: I notified the user, as you are required to above.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks Oxyman (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I don't know what Oxyman is talking about. I simply reverted an edit because of COM:OVERCAT, and I mentioned it in the edit box. I am accountable for what I do, not for whatever else one read in it. so please forgive me if I won't reply any further, I replied to you out of courtesy because you warned me, but frankly I don't know what answer the reporter expects to receive. -- Blackcat —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
P.S. There's no edit war: he made a wrong edit, I deleted it, simple.
PPSS As for the category Stadiums in London, my mistake while sorting out the categories

you also just so happened to make the same "mistake while sorting out the categories" at Category:Wembley Stadium (1922-2003) which also belongs in the category Category:Stadiums in London. The fact is you have a history of edit warring about the word Stadium, so the mistake claim is hard to believe. Also I never made a wrong edit that is another example of the users pov pushing. The fact is that this users actions which he claims to be accountable for have in the past got out of hand following disagreement with his pov pushing leading to him abusing admin tools. Oxyman (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This isn't an abuse of sysop privileges since none of the tools were used. SHB2000 (class="signature-talk">talk) 15:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Only because I reported the user's behavior here before it descended to that point, The user has a history of Tool abuse Oxyman (<span talk) 12:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Oxyman: Kindly read COM:OVERCAT. Category:Wembley Stadium (1922-2003) does not belong directly in Category:Stadiums in London because it is indirectly there because it is in Category:History of Wembley Stadium, which is in Category:Wembley Stadium, which is in Category:Stadiums in London.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That's your pov not a fact. It used to be that Stadiums was a subcat of Architecture/Buildings and the separate architectural structures were cated under this, apparently that category structure doesn't exist anymore because of that user's pov pushing and vandalism. Oxyman (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yet again, a simplistic, over-literal reading of OVERCAT makes for a worse end result.

Find an "average reader" on the Clapham Omnibus and ask them to name "any stadium in London". Probably a majority will name Wembley. To not include it directly in that category is perverse and literally ridiculous (while you have that average reader handy, try explaining to them why and see if they can comprehend it). For Commons to claim, "but that's what the rules say!" is dogmatic and useless. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: , and indeed, when this fictious average reader will go looking for Wembley Stadium, they're going to find it in Stadiums in London. If they're going to look for the stadium that existed from 1923 to 2002, there's a {{Catseealso}} that indicate disambiguated title Wembley Stadium (1922-2003). In my opinion, istead of blaming the - more than appropriate - OVERCAT policy, would be better that the old Wembley Stadiom is not subcat of the mothercat "History of Wembley Stadium" and is child cat of "Stadiums in London". But this is not a topic to discuss here. Overcat is a right principle, if something is going wrong is because we categorize bad. -- Blackcat 18:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand your point? Yes, it is (correctly) in the category, but only because it was added by Oxyman after you removed it, citing OVERCAT. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: , the OVERCAT was about Olimpic Way, which is redundant. As I told before, I removed "Stadiums in London" by mistake. I assume in good faith that you missed that point. That apart, this is not the place where to talk about categorization. -- Blackcat 22:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No Olympic way is not redundant that is an example of pov pushing, if anything Wembley Park is redundant because it's a parent cat Oxyman (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This users abuse is usually about categorization, so this is infact a place to talk about them. Oxyman (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: It's not only an over-literal reading of OVERCAT, it's a misunderstanding of it. The policy clearly states that there are times when cats can be in multiple layers where relevant. Making the users edits a matter of POV, the problem then becomes this user's pov pushing and edit warring. Similarly Wembley stadium located on the street Olympic Way and the area Wembley park. It is usual to put buildings in the category of the street the are on, I have had complaints from other users when removing the area from a building when adding a street location. You could of course create another cat "Buildings in Wembly Park" thus creating two cat tree branches for no other reason than to satisfy that user's extreme over-literal reading of OVERCAT. Is that really good policy? Oxyman (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blackcat: That wasn't a warning, it was a courtesy notification of a discussion which concerned you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Yes, you are right, I meant "a notification", thank you . -- Blackcat 15:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blackcat: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment I see no edit war nor any role abuse. As pointed by Jeff, the corrections have every legitimate reason to be. 31.158.106.183 11:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Musical groups

@Blackcat, Oxyman, and Andy Dingley: Leaving the stadium issue aside for one moment, Blackcat seems to have a problem with musical groups and makes moves without discussion or consensus, even in one case against existing consensus:

• Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/07/Category:Iron Maiden (musical group)

where there is an existing consensus at

• Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Iron Maiden

and here, again nobody agrees with him:

• Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/06/Category:All-female musical groups from the United Kingdom

This should at least be telling Blackcat that these moves are likely to be controversial and should be done by discussion and consensus rather than unilaterally. In particular this diff from anyone is unhelpful, let alone an Admin. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This user's behavior should be of more concern to Admins, but in my experience I am more likely to be attacked for disagreeing with him by other Admins. To unilaterally decide you don't like a word, then disrupt categories that have been established for many years without discussion is just disruptive and in Bad faith in itself, let alone the edit wars which result after the inevitable revert. Something should be done about this bad faith behavior, it's just unreasonable to assume oneself superior to all that have gone before and all who disagree at present. Oxyman (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Gibra191

Gibra191 removed DRs from 50+ files and added "permission=XY allowed the use of this file" or similar. User has been warned to be blocked, if them not stops to upload copyvios immediatly —C.Suthorn (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. User is now globally locked. I will look his/her edits, maybe something should be reverted. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Jeankispanki 13

Jeankispanki 13 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded fair-use/copyrighted content, marked them with an incorrect license and been warned, and reverted attempts to get the offending images deleted. So far I believe the user has uploaded at least three deleted files (with one marked currently, though they keep removing the tag; they claim the current file is licensed under Creative Commons from YouTube, however, the video is licensed under the standard YouTube license which does not permit reuse/copying). The user has now moved on to personal attacks on their talk page instead of attempting to understand what they're doing wrong. Recommend indef block until they explain that they understand copyright and will stop uploading copyrighted material under false licenses. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

And now they've taken to trying to remove this discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jeankispanki 13: As they weren't following the directions on how to appeal a speedy deletion nomination, I nominated the file for standard deletion (even though it very much qualifies for speedy deletion as a clear copyvio), and now they're edit warring to remove the standard deletion nomination which clearly says to leave it in place until the discussion has closed. See edit history at File:SophiaDiMartino2018.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jeankispanki 13: hello, as @Locke Cole: said, you cannot publish unfree material on here, especially after warning. You cannot also delete warnings from service pages, nor respond with personal attacks. Please stop this disruptive behaviour and start contributing according to the guidelines, or your account may be blocked without further notice. -- Blackcat 07:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. The user is warned and the file in question is deleted. At moment nothing more should be done. Taivo (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to add more for the record here, this user also falsified an OTRS/VRT ticket to try and stop the dispute, see discussion at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard#File:SophiaDiMartino2018.jpg. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: , what's your opinion on that latest fact? -- Blackcat 22:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support blocking.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support too. -- Blackcat 06:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Vox populi – vox dei. One week block for falsifying OTRS tickets. Next blocks will be longer. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

user:TylerKutschbach continuing to remove all categories from files

TylerKutschbach (talk · contribs) has a long history of removing all categories from files, apparently because he thinks they are redundant, and he has persisted in this behavior after having been warned several times that this is a form of vandalism. See prior noticeboard posts from archives 87, 89, 91, and 92, the first of which deals directly with this specific issue. He appears to have stripped categories of all files several times in just the last week (some examples here, here, and here), including once today, his sole edit after he was once again asked to quit doing this. His most recent edits have been reverted, but based on his long history there may well be dozens of files that are now uncategorized thanks to this bad behavior.--Ibagli (Talk) 05:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment actually this is not removal of redundant categories, this is removal of categories at all. @TylerKutschbach: , let me say that this is a wrong way to act and, even assuming good faith, is disruptive, let alone vandalical. -- Blackcat 07:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Mrcl_lxmna

Good day. It has come to my attention that User:Mrcl_lxmna has been mass deleting images related to the Philippines on the grounds of Freedom of panorama on which he may be misinterpreting. I've seen past and recent complaints about this in his talk page and despite the pleas, warnings, and a temporary blocked, he's still doing it. I was surprised when suddenly two of my images were deleted because of his actions. In the past, he nominated one of my images to be deleted but fortunately this was prevented. Based on the conversations in his talk page, he seems to be indifferent and he doesn't want to listen to the explanations of other users. Something more serious has to be done with him. In line with his persistent behavior which to me is very damaging to the community (particularly to Filipino users), I recommend that he'll be permanently blocked in Commons and perhaps on other sister sites. My apologies for I may be overreacting so I'll be very grateful if you guys can bring a better and just solution.

Thank you.

Kampfgruppe (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Systematic violation of COM:NOTHOST, copyright, edit warring, WP:HOAX, WP:OR and other rules by user Лобачев Владимир

Hello, I have encountered an especially problematic behavior of user Лобачев Владимир who recently was on purpose uploading various fake coat of arms and flags of Lithuania (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), thus violating the COM:NOTHOST, WP:HOAX, WP:OR rules. Also, he has been using license template {{PD-LT-exempt}} as if these inaccurate images were officially recognized as the state symbols of Lithuania, however they are not and many of these are simply generated by him with modified colors and other inaccuracies. This highly problematic user was recently placed under the discretionary sanctions in the English Wikipedia for his disruptive behavior and hatred of other nations, countries (statement by an admin). Consequently, now he moved on to Commons and continues his dirty work with other countries symbols. Basically, he uploads random images from the internet or creates them himself, thus attempts to distort the national symbols of Lithuania.

This user's talk page is full of notices about deletion of files (take a look yourself at the list in the latest diff of his talk page), so he has been violating various rules for years and many of his uploaded disruptive files were deleted. Probably there has been even more, but I did not found a Wikimedia tool myself which would allow to check how many of his images were already deleted.

I created nominations for deletion of these HOAXes, however this user is even attempting to censor my accurate arguments why one of the files uploaded by him should be deleted, thus he is single-handedly removing my arguments from a deletion template and performing edit warring (see these diffs: 1, 2, 3). This is a perfect proof that he is uploading disruptive content and later aggressively defends it. From his block log, I can see that in the past he has been blocked already for edit warring in Commons, but clearly he did not learned and continues his disruptive behavior. For a context, he has been performing edit wars with nearly 10 reverts at the English Wikipedia as well (one of the reasons why he was put under the discretionary sanctions).

Also, I noticed that he is removing categories from the Lithuanian topics for no reason (e.g. 1). This user also is inserting his personal POV in Moldovan topics by single-handedly modifying content in a controversial way (see these diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4). Ping user @Super Dromaeosaurus: (Moldovan/Romanian) as he will probably be able to explain the Moldovan topics situation better.

As a result, I request to act and block this highly problematic user before he did not created more chaos for other users and administrators. -- Pofka (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• You love to talk about me, but you give few arguments about breaking the rules. It seems to me that you simply want to adjust the historical images of the coat of arms of the Republic of Lithuania 1918-1949 to the description of the coat of arms of 1992. You are also against the images of the coat of arms of Pahonia, if it differs in color from the modern coat of arms of the Republic of Lithuania. You should not manipulate history and fit it into fictitious frames. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment Лобачев Владимир is problematic for many reasons and for many years. The user engages in systematically improperly naming files, e.g. 1 and 2 should be in the Latin alphabet instead of Cyrillic. Romanization is necessary. There is no reason to write "Lithuanian coat of arms - Eduardas Krasauskas. 1930" or "Coat of arms of Lithuania - Žmuidzinavičius, 1918" in Cyrillic on an English-language platform.

Furthermore, as Pofka explained, Лобачев Владимир misplaces licences. He puts the {{PD-LT-exempt}} on images that are not OFFICIAL Lithuanian symbols ("official State symbols and insignia"). The official ones are defined in official sources, not amateur websites. Examples of chronic misplacement are 3 (the symbol is taken from a random student's embroidery - something that is not mentioned in the English description, only in the Cyrillic ones, and the author in the EN description is not the one actually responsible for the work. This image was/is not in any way OFFICIAL, ergo the licence is wrong). [11] and [12] are w:WP:HOAX, because instead of an official source (which is NECESSARY for {{PD-LT-exempt}} to be valid), the source is given in the original location as "press publication". This is problematic because that in no way constitutes an official document. Another case [13]: the title is File:Coat of arms of the Republic of Lithuania. 1921.jpg, which is supposedly official, but instead in the source what you have is just "Vytis - 1921". Are all Vytis by default official coat of arms? No! So stop the masquerade that unofficial drawings are official coat of arms. Random drawings of a certain symbol are NOT "official State symbols and insignia of Lithuania".

Sanctions should be placed on the user Лобачев Владимир for his repeated and major offences. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment Russian user dictates to a Lithuanian that he doesn't know how their coat of arms looks like or how it should look like. However, when asked for official/reliable Lithuanian sources he attempts to defend his position with various Russian sources or baseless walls of texts. Classical propaganda of the Russian Federation and at the English Wikipedia he has clearly demonstrated that he is part of the Russian web brigades as his only task is to attack and distort other countries national identity. Such disruptive behaviour is simply incompatible with the Commons:Assume good faith. -- Pofka (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Violation of copyright rules by this disruptive user continues: 1, 2. -- Pofka (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• 
  Lithuanian map of 1918-1920
• 
  5 Litas. 1922
• 
  1 Centas. 1922
• 
  2 Litas. 1925
• 
  10 Litas. 1927
• 
  Presidential Seal of the Lithuania with, used in 1919-1940
• 
  Coat of arms on the Foreign Passport of the Republic of Lithuania 1940
• 
  Flag 1919–1922
• 
  Flag 1939

• The fact is that there is no officially approved standard for the coat of arms of the Republic of Lithuania in 1918-1940. That is why there are many different variants of the coat of arms. In this case, it is extremely difficult to say that some drawing of the coat of arms is official, and some simply Vytis is not the coat of arms of Lithuania. Here, for example, is the coat of arms on the flag, seal of the president, coin, banknote (different design of the rider, there is a blanket under the rider or not, the saddle is white or red, the shield is white or red, the cross on the shield is white or yellow.). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Red shield was never used officially. -- Pofka (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Look posted above Lithuanian map of 1918-1920. As far as I know, until 1928, the color was not regulated in any way, since there was no official description of the coat of arms. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It is a foreign (Swiss) poster. -- Pofka (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Red shield was never used officially. This is a personal point of view, since there was no official description of the coat of arms until 1928, which allowed different interpretations by artists. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that these two foreign sources do not agree with your opinion, where the red shield of the horseman is depicted. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The law adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian SSR (later called the Restoration Seimas) on March 11, 1990 "On the name of the state and the coat of arms" restored the pre-war coat of arms. Here is a description from the law.
The Lithuanian state emblem is Vytis: in the red field of the coat of arms of the color of silver, a rider in armor on a horse holding a sword raised above his head in his right hand. On the left shoulder of the rider hangs a shield, in the red field of which there is a double gold cross. The handle of the sword and the attachments of the scabbard, the rider's spurs, the bit of the bridle, the horseshoes of the horse and also the decorations of the girth and other equipment of the color of gold. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Zinnsoldat

Davey and Andy are correct. If somebody will identify these automobiles, that's OK, but if not, then these photos are just as useful as with identified automobiles. Zinnsoldat, please do not add the unidentified automobiles category. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2021 (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.

---

Hello, On 30th July I removed Category:Unidentified automobiles from quite a few files as either vehicles weren't the main subject or couldn't be identified

• File:Будинок Марії Вязьмітіної.jpg, File:Будівля Інституту біооганичної хімії та нафтохімії, в якому працював Гузиря В. С. (01).jpg, File:Шовковична вул., 19 DSC 8334.JPG, File:Somalia (Somaliland)(007).jpg - None of the cars are the main subject

• File:Vida matinal II (4559469230).jpg - To me the main subject would be "People in x" and "x high street / x street" not the car itself (and I would presume we have plenty of images of the car)

• File:Вечірній херсонський степ 3.jpg - The file shows the bonnet of a car which again this could be any car and thus is impossible to identify as there's no distinguishing features

User:Zinnsoldat came along and reverted me three times over 3 days stating the main subject is the vehicles, I immediately went to Zinnsoldat's talkpage on the first revert[14] however I've recieved no response and instead the user has edit warred. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've removed these again. To my mind, "Unidentified automobiles" is for cases where we would like to, or plan to, identify those automobiles. Because they are significant as to their type, and where there is some chance of doing so.

In these cases, these are modern automobiles. I'm sure that someone suitably dedicated could do so, and I would have no obvious objection if they did. However their appearance in these images is not central to the image. A street scene with "some cars" is the same whatever those cars are. They're unlikely to be the same type. This is not a rally of Skodas. This is not an image featuring a key viewpoint of a particular Toyota. Their identification does not change the value of that image, thus it is not a goal of the project to identify it, such that we will track our progress in doing so by using a slot in our "list of automobile images for which it is useful to expend effort in identifying them". If someones does identify them, great. But we don't see this as a "backlog" we ought to try and reduce. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• This one in particular is ridiculous File:شهرک سجادیه تهران 1261.jpg

It's a car covered in snow. That makes it hard to identify, it also means that identifying it tells us nothing, other than the shape of it as a pile of snow. A hard effort, for a useless result. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Andy Dingley for your well thought analysis all of which I entirely agree with - You said it better than I ever could,

I actually did identify the snow vehicle but I agree other than 5% of the rear lights and the shape of the car it's pointless categorising so I've removed the cat again

It's also worth noting there was a main subject issue with buses with someone in 2019 (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_79#Davey2010) and I was told my edits were fine then.

Obviously if the car is pertinent or is the main subject I will cat it but in this case none are,

Anyway thank you for your well thought out analysis and thank you for removing the cats, Your help (and comments) as always are greatly appreciated, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:46, 1 August 2021 (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.

Repeated copyright violation by User:Nigel PG Dale

I've blocked 3 days User:Nigel PG Dale for reuploading already deleted files. Hoping that they read and understand the several notifications on their talk page. --Ruthven (msg) 14:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

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

---

User:Nigel PG Dale has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations in spite of my repeated explanations of Commons' copyright rules (in discussions on English Wikipedia). He has re-uploaded several deleted files, one of which was re-uploaded a second time after I warned him about re-uploading on his Commons talk page.

• File:Patera Structure Graphic.jpg
  • Re-uploaded as File:Patera Building 1982 Innovative Hybrid Sructure Mark Whitby Graphic.jpg
  • Re-uploaded again as File:Patera Building Prototype Stoke-on-Trent 1982 Hybrid Three-pin arch Structure Mark Whitby Graphic.jpg

Related discussions on English Wikipedia:

• w:en:User talk:Nigel PG Dale#Images on Patera Building
• w:en:Talk:Patera Building
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

One of the uploads was supported by what appears to be license laundering on Geograph.[15]

I suspect that User:Pugh57 may be a sockpuppet account. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

---

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

User:Zinnsoldat again

Closing as resolved as per Andys reply. –Davey2010^Talk 15:44, 5 August 2021 (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.

---

Hi, So having removed "Unidentified automobiles" from File:Жуков и Тимошенко, 1940 год.jpg and having removed an identified automobile at File:Командарм Лелюшенко Д.Д. в 81-м гв.мсп. Эберсвальде 1984..jpg Zinnsoldat has again reverted me on both files without any edit summary.

The vehicles in both images aren't the main subject nor can they even be seen so IMHO these shouldn't be categorised (although I have no objections to them adding image notes).

Should the images be categorised ?

Pinging Taivo and Andy Dingley who participated in the section above. –Davey2010^Talk 20:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd leave them to it. Their additions are correct, albeit of minimal usefulness. There's a vast range of edits where I can't see the point to them, but nor can I see a good reason against them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand your point, Given both have " in Soviet military service" at the end I guess this is one of those cases where it's pointless to categorise but then it isn't in a way ... Anyway understood I shall leave them to it, Thanks as always Andy for your help it's much appreciated –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

---

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

User:Archaeodontosaurus

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.

---

Do I have to bear this reaction of User:Archaeodontosaurus? I consider this as insulting. I have no problem with fact based reactions, but this behaviour is in my eyes very inappropriate. For actual background see User talk:Archaeodontosaurus#Your revert of my edit with links and the derived image I have recently uploaded, File:Georges de La Tour - Saint Jude Thaddée.jpg with version history. For background you should also notice this thread in dewiki: de:Spezial:PermaLink/214449096#Streit um ein Bild, schon Vandalismus? (partly in English, but for most parts in German). Regarding the copy assertion confer the image files. — Speravir – 21:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Speravir: I warned him. Then, I notified him of this discussion, as you are required to do above.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment There is nothing insulting in my words. As planned, I went to Albi yesterday to take some new photos. They will be paid during the day. I confirm that your image is of poor quality and cannot therefore be used as a reference. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I don't see anything insulting here. Any perceived insult might be language based as I sense English is not his first language Gbawden (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

An alternate version of the table was made yesterday and released today. An image of the exhibition hall paid to mount the conditions of exhibitions. I hope that this will ease the tensions and that we will be able to resume our work safely. Thank you to those who expressed their sympathy to me. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we can close this. It should be obvious that Archaeodontosaurus is interested in propagating images of these paintings that come closest to the original paintings. I do not think that Archaeodontosaurus pushes his personally taken images just because they are his but because he genuinely believes that they are superior. And given his high quality approach in his photography and his personal acquaintance of the museum Toulouse-Lautrec d'Albi, we should, IMHO, trust him that he is not doing this in bad faith. The term stubbornness was surely not the most friendly one but the thread at dewiki exposes a lot of bad faith. I think the best approach would be to discuss the selection of the best picture for an article on the respective talk pages. And in interest of avoiding conflicts like this I recommend in all non-trivial cases to propose alternate pictures on the respective talk pages before swapping someone else's shot by your own one. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It is wisdom. I readily admit my too much liveliness, but there is so much to do ... Thanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2021 (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.

File:VEN orthographic.svg

There used to be two versions of this kind of map of Venezuela: File:Venezuela Orthographic Map.svg showed the reclamation in Guyana in light green while File:VEN orthographic.svg didn't. The latter has been subject to unilateral changes trying to show the disputed territory claiming that don't doing it is against some obscure UN document, and thus making it a duplicate of the former. User:El informante2021, whose edits in Commons are only related to this file, keeps reverting to the version he likes ignoring the fact that there's an alternate version (I pointed this out multiple times in edit summaries and their talk page). They've been doing this for months and aren't showing signs of wanting to reach a consensus.

This also overrides local consensuses in Wikipedias that decided not to show the disputed territory in the infoboxes, such as es.wiki. Therefore, as the file has now been protected, I request reverting it to the stable version, not showing the reclamation in Guyana, that has been standing for almost ten years. -sasha- (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

per request reverted to original version of april 2021. The decision which map should be used on the various projects should be made by those communities, not here. Ping to @El informante2021: . Elly (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Uploads by Ilham Qubadov

Please check uploads by Ilham Qubadov. Most of them fails project scope. NMW03 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you please ask the uploader for an explanation and description of the images? If not succesful you may nominate the relevant images for deletion. Some appear exact copies and can be nominated for deletion immediately. Thanks, Elly (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Deleted and notified per F10. The user has not been active for months, no need for further action. --A.Savin 18:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Uploads by different users.

Same situation as above:

• Uploads by Rafael Kerimov
• Uploads by By official
• Uploads by TiFFOZi iz Baku

and this file:

• File:Sherif Saleh Ismayilov.jpg NMW03 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Conflit avec User:Tm

Bonsoir pourriez vous faire cesser les actes de vandalisme de cet utilisateur qui bien que signalant une ancienneté de 15 ans sur Commons refuse d'appliquer une règle de base de Commons à savoir l'usage du pluriel dans le nommage des catégories sauf impossibilité manifeste, ce qui n'est pas le cas ici ; en l’occurrence category:Iberian horse. Le vandalisme consistant à remodifier tous les fichiers concernés et ceci à moultes reprises malgré mes avertissements répétés. Merci de bien vouloir mettre un terme à cette situation ubuesque ou m'avertir d'un changement des directives de nommage des catégories. Cordialement.Finoskov (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Conflict with User: Tm

---

Good evening, could you stop the acts of vandalism by this user who, although reporting a 15-year seniority on Commons, refuses to apply a basic Commons rule, namely the use of the plural in the naming of categories unless clearly impossible, this which is not the case here; in this case category: Iberian horse. The vandalism consisting in re-modifying all the files concerned and this repeatedly despite my repeated warnings. Please put an end to this grotesque situation or notify me of a change in the category naming guidelines. Cordially.

translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

See

• Category:Iberian horse
• Category:Iberian horses
• History

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Salut @Finoskov: , c'est mieux que j'appelle l'admin @Ruthven: qui parle français mieux que moi :-) -- Blackcat 21:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thankyou for bringing this here. The obvious and repeated edit-warring over several days is unimpressive (this would be automatic blocks for both on en:WP), but you did at least try some discussion: User talk:Tm#Finoskov.

Tm is simply wrong here. The behaviour for Commons, and for the Wikipedias, is that our default position puts Commons categories at plurals and Wikipedia articles at singular names. There are exceptions, but they can be discussed and I don't know why they'd be relevant here. They seem to not understand this and have cited supporting evidence that just isn't relevant.

Tm - please stop. The category is plural, the singular can usefully redirect to it. If you stop, then we can drop this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

First this user started today to overcategorizing several of is file a under Category:Iberian horse and it subcategories Category:Horses of Spain and Category:Horses of Portugal, after he reverted for several days my moves from Category:Iberian horse to Category:Horses of Spain of images of horses that are clearly spanish and not portuguese.

Also articles in several Wikipedias are in singular as "ca Cavall ibèric", "es Caballo ibérico" "fr Cheval ibérique", "it Cavallo ibericoro", "Cal iberic" and "sv Spansk häst". Also an an magazine specialized in the Iberian hosrsr is called Iberian Horse Magazine and this magazine is made by the International Andalusian & Lusitano Horse Association, so the name, present in several languages is in singular, not plural, as this category that has existed since at least 2018. Tm (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• There are two real issues here:

1. Should the category name be plural?
2. Does the behaviour of editors require sanction?

There are no issues relevant here as to whether particular images belong in this category. Those issues are separate.

Now, per #2, blocking of editors is justified by the edit-warring so far. If there's any indication that an editor wishes to pursue that further, then that blocking becomes necessary as preventive of further disruption. Behaviour like: File:2010_Feria_M%C3%A9janes_003.jpg and especially this suggests that it may be.

We have a broad policy that category names on Commons would be plural, unless there is a reason not to be. Despite the article title on Wikipedia being singular. Your post above does not address this. You have given no reason why our usual rule should not be applied. Singulare tantum would be a good reason and recognised by Commons, but it's grammatically rare and you would have to show that it applied to 'Iberian horse'. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Tm: is now continuing to edit-war here, and many other edits, so it's time for a block. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment After i showed the sources for the singular name and no one show sources for the plural name and as the category is still in discussion, the other user restarted making the same edits, like recreating a duplicate category and overcatorizing again dozens of files with Category:Iberian horses when said dozen of files are already under the subcategories Category:Horses of Spain and Category:Horses of Portugal and it is me that is "continuing to edit-war"???? Tm (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• We're past the point where this becomes behavioural and disruptive.

But still, there's no indication that this category should be singular. That would be unusual, we don't do that. We only do it in unusual cases, when there's some particular reason to - we don't have any such reason here. You've given lots of sources for why "Iberian horse" (singular) is a good title for an encyclopedia. Of course it is, no-one disagrees. But we aren't an encyclopedia, we're a media repository – and our practice here is that the corresponding category is usually plural, see Commons:Categories#Category names.

To continue to push your edits against that, despite – well, that's edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Comment (non-admin user) I agree with Andy Dingley with regards to pluralization of category names. It is written at COM:Categories#Category names, that "types or groups of objects or people should generally have names in plural form" (examples: Category:Lakes and Category:Sculptures). The singular form is usually for "general themes or activities" like Category:History and Category:Music. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yet more edit-warring. Definitely time for a block. Raised again at ANU/B Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Support blocking.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, for the second time, who is "edit-warring after discussion" by moving several files and categoriesfrom Category:Iberian horse to Category:Iberian horses] and then nominated Category:Iberian horse to speedy deletion? Hint, it wasnt, again, me, but the other user, so if someone should be blocked is the one that should be blocked, for moving files after the opening of discussion and so "Edit-warring after discussion". It is frustrating to provide sources to the singular name, no one providedas any to the plural and yet the other user ca, after the discussion was opened, move files at will and it is not "edit-warring", but me restablishing the situation at the beggining is edit warring? Tm (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Support blocking because the recreation of Category:Iberian horse by Tm has become disruptive to the point where it needs to stop. However – I do need to make a point for maintaining the singular version as the main category in this case. While it is correct that categories should generally be plural, we are dealing with a specific breed of animal which has the quality of a proper name. So, like Category:Bernese Mountain Dog, Category:Pinzgauer Ziege, and all subcategories of Category:Horse breeds by name, categories for horse breeds are not pluralized. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@De728631: I did not recreated it, as per the diifs provided above. It was the other user that, on August 6 he moved, for a second time, all files and categories present in Category:Iberian horse to Category:Iberian horses and then, for the first time, nominated Category:Iberian horse to speedy deletion claiming that it was empty, i.e. he did did all this when this discussion is still open, i.e. he did a "disruptive move" and i only reestablished what has present at the beggining of this discussion, i.e. i was not disruptive, as i did not moved files and categories that were in Category:Iberian horses to Category:Iberian horse after this discussion was opened, but the other user already did this twice, so if i´em being disruptive, what is the other user doing? See the diifs provided above. Tm (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@De728631 and Tm: If "Iberian horse" is a proper name, why isn't it expressed as "Iberian Horse"?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Psossibly because of the same reason as the spanish Category:Burguete horse and Category:Andalusian horse are expressed as horse and not Horse, be it in Commons or in en:Andalusian horse or en:Burguete horse. Tm (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Some other use the name as Horse, like the magazine specialized in the Iberian hosrse called Iberian Horse Magazine, made by the International Andalusian & Lusitano Horse Association. Tm (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Tm, as far as I can tell, you did recreate Category:Iberian horse yesterday at 17:26 UTC per this history: 17:26, 7 August 2021‎ Tm ... Created page with '{{Wikidata Infobox}} horses horses Category:Horses of Europe'. The entire page had been deleted on 06:00 UTC by Krd on that same day and you should have left it at that while the discussion here is still going on. Although I don't agree with Finoskov's rationale, their actions were still sticking to the rules. You, however, went over the top by recreating a deleted page that had been heavily contested before. So, Andy is right that this slow edit-warring needs to stop. De728631 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think we should have two of these categories, except for one of them being a redirect and uncategorised, just as a way of avoiding navigation paths and old links breaking.

I have no strong opinions as to whether singular or plural is best, which is why I've not changed it myself. I was hoping to get some input from horse people, who would have a clearer idea. Certainly it could be singular (and if that's best, then we deprecate the plural). If anyone cares to make that case, then please do so – certainly some breeds do use that.

As it is, we seem to have had a weak consensus here for plural – but I would have liked more input. If that's the case, then even if it's wrong we go with that. I prefer stability over perfection, especially when perfection clearly isn't obvious (if it were obvious, we wouldn't be here).

What we really don't need is this edit-warring. If consensus says, "We're OK with plural, at least until anyone puts forward a more convincing argument" then it needs to stay at plural, even if wrong, or else be discussed. This is what Finoskov has been doing. Tm's slow edit-warring just needs to stop. They can make a grammatical or conventional argument as to why collections of these horses should be singular (not just encyclopedia titles) first, which they haven't been doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)~

Besides the sources i provided to the singular, and zero sources provided to the plural case, here in commons he have in Category:Horse breeds by name, there is only 4 categories that use the plural, 17 that use the "(horse)", 38 that use "Horse" and around 115 that use "horse". Tm (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

In Category:Extinct horse breeds no "horses", 12 variations of "horse". Tm (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

In type of Category:Draft horses, related with specific type of draft horse, one "horses" (Category:Brewery draft horses) and 22 "horse". Tm (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Finoskov was coming from the general naming guideline. The consensus for singular when it comes to animal breeds, however, seems to have been reached much earlier at Category:Horse breeds by name, Category:Dog breeds by name, Category:Cattle breeds by name and the like. As to capitalisation, the Merriam Webster dictionary has the Afghan hound and the Shetland pony, the Manx cat and the quarter horse (no capital letters at all). The Shire horse is a good article at ENWP and does not use a capital Horse either. So capitalisation seems to be a minor problem compared to plural versus singular over here. De728631 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

So, in Wikimedia Commons, in similar cases of horses, 5 cases with the use of plural and around 204 uses of singular, i.e 1 plural to 40 singular. Tm (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

False Allegations

User Noncreativephotographer is spitting my username everywhere at Wikimedia commons by pointing to an anonymous IP address. He is also into calling names in an abusive manner which should be treated seriously as a personal attack (COM:NPA). Please take necessary action against him in this regard. Thanks Outlander07 (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

First off, new reports/topics should be on the bottom and not the top of the discussion and I have since moved it into the correct location within AN/U. Secondly, you're meant to notify the user (as per the not on the top of the page), again I have done this for you. Bidgee (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Everyone know you are a nair caste vandal who need to delete thiyya ezhava photos from wikimedia commons.[16]

This guy is into logged out editing mode /from another device to delete all those photos related to thiyya/ezhava communtiy. A thorough investigation is needed and is attacking my photos and vandalising wikimedia[17][18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noncreativephotographer (talk • contribs) 07:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

He is a Tiyya caste promoter who has a dozen or more accounts in Wikipedia. I believe he has multiple accounts in Commons too, using them purposefully to cover his tracks for the edits made to en.wiki and ml.wiki. It is his responsibility to show the evidence to confirm I'm the one who is in logged-out mode.Outlander07 (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Everyone knows that <private info removed> is doing this all.SNDP/Thiyya organizations and other People and IT cell are on his back who write bad things on Facebook and other social media against thiyya/ezhava community.Noncreativephotographer (talk)

Lol. Have you visited a psychiatrist? Then better never late. A psychiatrist can teach better coping mechanisms to demonstrate how to handle your problems. Just cut the crap and find out yourself who the hell is behind you.Outlander07 (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. This was not nice to say. I blocked Outlander for a week due to intimidation/harassment. Taivo (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Taivo, please see [19] for reference; this user (Outlander07) seems to have recently been subject to sustained and unacceptable harrassment across multiple Wikis. I understand that their response here leave something to be desired, however in the context of their broader experience I believe it is understandable. Please also see User talk:Outlander07#To Commons admins. I respectfully request that you review the overall situation and your choice to block here. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed the overall situation and my choice to block and decided to not change that. Outlander requested unblock and it was also declined. Taivo (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Taivo I'd be the first to admit that I don't really know the lay of the land over here on Commons, so please excuse me if I'm speaking out of turn, but I'm struggling with this decision. A few comments above this one, Noncreativephotographer seems to be making an attempt to dox Outlander07, claiming to know the name of his partner and where he lives and works. On EnWiki, if I'd seen a comment like that I would have revision deleted it, and blocked the person who made it for harassment. You have blocked the victim of the doxxing/harassment because he got angry and made an unfortunate remark about psychiatrists? That doesn't seem right. Girth Summit (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like seriously feeding a troll. I've held up my end on en.wiki trying to tamp it down, actively siding with a blatant harasser will only embolden the troll against a good editor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Several hours later, that comment about a particular account belonging to the 'gay partner' of a specific named individual is still there, alongside an assertion about where they live and work. Pinging Elcobbola, since they declined the unblock request - is this situation really how things roll around here? I've got to say, it's not making me feel like this is a safe space. Girth Summit (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I encountered the unblock request whilst reviewing Category:Requests_for_unblock. I had no knowledge of this thread, or any other editors' remarks--be they trolls or otherwise. The rationale "The block is not appropriate because he was the one who started using abusive words" is a completely inadequate for the reasons I've explained. I understand this would also be the case at en.wiki (w:WP:NOTTHEM, which I linked, is, after all, en.wiki guidance.) Am I perhaps to understand that being trolled is an excuse to make disparaging comments/insinuations about someone's mental health is how "things roll" on en.wiki? On the Commons, we are responsible for our own actions and responses; if another user is making disruptive comments, they should be addressed on their own (de)merits. If Outlander07 wants to make a new request acknowledging that their remarks were inappropriate and not excused by another's misbehaviour, I don't see why they couldn't be unblocked. Эlcobbola _talk 20:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

elcobbola look, the block/unblock issue is one thing - anyone can make a mistake, blocks and unblocks are cheap, etc. My very serious concern is that there is still, many hours after I initially pointed it out, a statement to the effect that a particular account is connected to the 'gay lover' of a named individual, and specifying where that individual lives and works. Is that permissible here? I have no idea whether the information is accurate, but to my eyes it is an attempt at doxxing, and ought to have been revdelled hours ago. Am I wrong? Girth Summit (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

elcobbola If you're not sure what I'm talking about <diff removed>, it's just a few comments above. Girth Summit (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Taivo? Anyone? Look, if that kind of stuff is allowed to persist here, just tell me and I'll stop pinging you - I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse. I don't know anything about the history between these users, I can't vouch for either of them, but this looks like turning a blind eye to doxxing, which is a new experience for me - I'd be grateful for an explanation. Girth Summit (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed the inappropriate text and the diff. Elly (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ellywa The diff is very much still there in the edit history of this page, anyone who wants to can still see it. The account that made the doxxing attempt remains unblocked. The account that responded less than ideally to cross-wiki harassment and doxxing remains blocked. Are you personally satisfied that everything has been done in-line with Commons' policies? Girth Summit (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

YW. I took the action which I considered most urgent. In case of cross-wiki harassment please request global lock on meta. Elly (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I wish to add my voice to those pointing out that this is highly disappointing action by the Commons administrators involved. It has been pointed out multiple times, by multiple editors, that an editor has been serially harrassed (including plainly defamatory doxxing, for which the information was removed from the page but remains in the edit history, with no action taken toward the editor whom put it there in the first place), and all that has happened is an entirely obstinate and shortsighted insistance that everything is fine as the editor who was targetted "didn't accept what happened". Pointing toward meta for a global lock does nothing to address the abuse which has been allowed (if not actively facilitated through inaction or negligence) on this project. This is utterly appaling, and to be frank, entirely disgraceful. Jack Frost (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, CptViraj, for removing those diffs from the history of this page. I note that the account that posted the comments remains unblocked, and nobody has given them any guidance about the appropriateness or otherwise of leaving comments like that. I don't have permissions to do anything about that here, and I don't have evidence of cross-wiki abuse to report on Meta; I would have blocked them on the spot if they'd left comments like that on EnWiki. As I've already said, I am not very active on this project, and I'm not sure where to find project pages like policies. Please could you give me links to the relevant pages about doxxing and harassment, the blocking policy, and any information on admin accountability? I'd like to familiarise myself with the community norms here.

From my perspective, what has happened here is deeply troubling. One editor made comments about another editor, which included assertions (which may or may not be true) about that editor's real-life name (or that of their partner), their sexuality, their place of work and their location. Those comments were allowed to remain on this public noticeboard for about 46 hours, and then allowed to persist in the history of the page for another 3 hours, despite my repeated attempts to draw them to the attention of local administrators, and despite three admins commenting on the thread and either declining to take any action, or taking partial action.

In my work as an administrator and sockpuppet investigations clerk over at EnWiki, I frequently come across examples of doxxing and other forms of harassment: there is, unfortunately, nothing new about that, and it no longer shocks me. What I do find shocking is coming across sysops who are willing to leave doxxing in place on a public noticeboard. I don't have words for how disappointing I find that, and if that is the norm around here, I do not see how this can be considered a safe space for anyone, particularly people who are LGBTQ+. I don't know whether there is an equivalent body to the EnWiki Arbcom who could look at what has happened here, or if I need to take it to WMF Trust and Safety team, but I feel that someone needs to look at what happened here in the last couple of days. I'd be very grateful for the links to the relevant policies if you have time. Girth Summit (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

CptViraj, thankyou for revdeleting those edits so speedily following my request on IRC. The fact that it had not yet been done by any of the three administrators who had already participated in this discussion, including one whom replaced the material but did not remove it from the page history, is both baffling and entirely disappointing. It is also somewhat surprising that the account which has done so remains un-addressed. I entirely echo Girth Summit's sentiments, and also hold the view that someone needs to review what has happened here, and prevent it from being allowed to happen again. Jack Frost (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit and Jack Frost: I've now warned the user for the uncivil comment, wasn't able to do it at the time of revdel as I was short on time. Here are some policies: Blocking, Revdel, AGF, Admin, for more see Commons:Policies and guidelines. Commons doesn't have an approved harrasment policy. -- CptViraj (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks CptViraj for passing on those links, and for your actions here. From what I've read, I see that there isn't really anywhere I can go to discuss what has happened here. To be clear, I see the above thread as a complete failure to take doxxing and homophobia seriously. I infer from the fact that nobody else has commented on the situation that this sort of thing is normal, or at least it is not so out of the ordinary as to have raised eyebrows; if that inference is correct, I fear that there is a serious cultural problem here.

I appreciate that there is a huge amount of work to be done on Commons, and that building formal consensus for a harassment policy perhaps hasn't been the top priority for this project (although I am surprised though that in 2021 we're still without one). Nevertheless, even without a formal policy outlining how to handle doxxing, I'm incredibly disappointed that it took so long to find anyone who was willing to take such a blatant example as that seriously.

I don't have any more to say. This thread has now been drawn to the attention of the head of WMF's Trust and Safety team (by another editor, who read it and shared my concerns), and I guess I'll leave it at that. Girth Summit (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

(Afterthought: CptViraj, you included in your links one to COM:AGF. I should be clear that I do not doubt that anybody above has acted in anything other than good faith; it's more about sysops taking their responsibilities seriously with regards to keeping regular users safe. As at EnWiki, this is a volunteer project and I usually don't think it's appropriate to criticise people for choosing not doing something (as discussed at w:WP:VOLUNTEER). For a sysop to be pointed at doxxing however, and to choose not to do anything about it, strikes me as irresponsible. If they didn't think it was doxxing, they could have explained why - obviously I'd have disagreed, but we could have had a discussion about it. But to just ignore it and carry on with your day? I have no words. Girth Summit (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I tried to get Commons:Civility accepted as a guideline in 2019, but it didn't get enough traction.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: That's a shame. With a bit of digging (now I know where/how to look), I found Commons:Harassment, which looks like someone has made an excellent start. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G. and Girth Summit: Colin copied it from the English Wikipedia 2 years back and I'm in the midst of localising it before proposing it to be an official policy. --Minorax^talk 14:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

For clarification: I had provided the AGF link regarding Noncreativephotographer not the admins. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

CptViraj Thanks for the clarification; that hadn't occurred to me. Good faith or otherwise, it is my view that it is unsafe to allow someone who would leave a comment like that to edit here. Minorax I think you are doing vital work, and I thank you for it. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

JFVelasquez Floro

This user was already CU blocked, but nothing was done about all the terrible images they uploaded and ridiculous categories they created. This is Florentino Floro again, for those who are aware of his activities on WMF projects and/or his activities in the "real world". This stuff needs to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin comment @Beeblebrox: he was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Judgefloro (talk · contribs) because of lying on his "wikibreak" by utilizing this new account to continue uploading various out of scope files and files with derivative work problems (banners, posters, etc.). If you wish to delete some of the uploads, kindly file deletion requests. If you have user rights you may activate VisualFileChange to conduct batch deletion requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I really don't think this needs or should be subject to prolonged deletion discussions. This person has a well-documented history of severe mental illness, and that is reflected in his activities here. There's nothing we can do for him, and it isn't helpful to have a bunch of discussions about how ridiculous it is to upload fifty pictures of the same dude riding a bike or whatever when one single admin could just zap the whole lot. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: though a couple of his uploads are actually being used on various Wikipedia articles. Majority (I'd say 7-8 out of 10) are decent for me. I'm fine with images of various people riding bikes or farming or fishing, or images of public space works (but we have no FOP right now). Though what I am critical of his uploads are those depicting random but repetitive sceneries of roads of various levels of notability (from Quezon Boulevard to a relatively obscure road in this town of our province). I actually made a severe batch DR that substantially nuked more than 50% of his images showing Pulilan–Calumpit Road).

But anyway, when I nominated a category for deletion, he replied once that he was dependent on the people of the area regarding names of roads. The people (the city / town folks) who may know nothing about the official or common name of the roadways. The strangely-named Category:Bigaa-Plaridel via Bulacan and Malolos City, Bulacan Road is actually from the w:Department of Public Works and Highways. As per this latest atlas on national highways for Bulacan 1st Engineering District, the road was given the name "Bigaa-Plaridel via Bulacan & Malolos Rd", which is too strange indeed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that a discussion of similar concern was raised before, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 78#Possibly treating commons as cloud for that discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This should be handled through regular deletion requests, not per COM:AN/U if the user is already blocked and if there are no copyright concerns. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Info @Beeblebrox and AFBorchert: I've started these two deletion requests: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Views of swimming boys in Pampanga River from San Juan-Tabuyuc steel footbridge and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PHirst Park Homes Pandi. Perhaps there may be some more to do, but other users and admins are welcome to scrutinized his uploads. A good starting point is by looking at his created categories contributions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

A1Cafel and yet more abusive deletions

Per community consensus, A1Cafel is banned from any sort of deletion procedure. They may neither nominate pages for a deletion discussion nor tag any page for speedy or delayed deletion such as copyvio, missing source, author information etc., and they shall not participate in deletion discussions either. Moreover their user rights of file mover, autopatroller and rollbacker are revoked. Third, A1Cafel must no longer threaten any users with getting blocked. Using the regular templated warning messages is not subject to this ban though. De728631 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: The topic ban may be appealed and lifted after six months subject to community discussion and consensus at this noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2021 (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.

---

A1Cafel (talk · contribs)

There are some editors here, where "deletion" has moved from a necessary cleanup task to a game of trying to get other editors blocked and hounded off the project. One of the worst editors for this is A1Cafel who has been doing it for some time, does little else, and refuses to engage in discussions about this behaviour.

They're already listed on this page, #"You may be blocked soon", but did not answer there other than to make some minor (albeit welcome) changes to the form of the warning they intend to use. That was followed by Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#唐貴台湾棒球好開示 where they went to directly requesting a block.

Now I see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elias Kärle (profile picture).jpg where two images were tagged for speedy deletion, and again, with the inevitable threats of blocking "Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing."

This is lazy and slipshod as a nomination rationale for a DR, and for a speedy it's inexcusable. See the note on the DR.

It's time we acted on this, before A1Cafel drives any more editors off the project. I would like to see the following restrictions:

• No more vague handwave DRs as "possible copyvio". No more simply linking to Google search and expecting others to do the legwork. If something is a copyvio, that needs to be backed up with plausible evidence for such a claim. Starting with links to an actual instance of it, not just a search engine where one "might" find a source.
• DRs should be credible. So no more claiming that a 1000px image on Commons was sourced from a 150px thumbnail on the web. This would need ongoing monitoring.
• No more non-policy based DRs. So no more "small image, no EXIF" (this is not a policy-based reason for deletion). No more "FBMID in metadata" (this is not a policy-based reason for deletion either). If A1Cafel wants to change our deletion policy, then they need to do that first, not just act as if they already had.
• No more speedy deletions. A1Cafel has shown themself to be incapable of using speedy deletions correctly. They do not appear to understand the basis for a speedy deletion; that it is there when a DR is so clear as to be unarguable and so does not require discussion. It is not there as an excuse for "I can't be bothered to justify this" or "I want this gone quickly before it raises a discussion".
• No more threats of blocking editors. This is abusive. In particular, blocking is there as a preventative measure, not as a punishment.

@Elwinlhq: Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

At User talk:Elwinlhq#Hi A1Cafel,, the uploader admitted that he is not the author of these two files, but they received the permission from the copyrighted holder. Elwinlhq just need to submit the permission to OTRS in order to keep these files. BTW, "FBMD" Metadata (Nomination made by admin) and Low resolution image with no (EXIF) metadata (Nomination made by admin) are common reasons to be at DR. I don't know why you are nitpicking on me. If you want me to link a policy to support the DR, I would say both scenarios had COM:PCP concern. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you more concerned in all these deletions (and you do little else here) to get editors blocked, than any issues of content quality? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Well A1Cafel was back at uploading photographs that had already existed and having the original uploads deleted. I caught A1Cafel tagging File:Melbourne Rally for Marriage Equality.jpg as a duplicate which was a December 2018 upload with File:Melbourne Rally for Marriage Equality 2017 (36414037060).jpg which they uploaded on 28 June 2021 (now deleted and redirected to File:Melbourne Rally for Marriage Equality.jpg), rather than uploading the higher original to the existing upload. Seems they have learnt nothing from the restrictions they had in the past or just don't care. Bidgee (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue with A1Cafel's no exif and FBMD reasoning. You have no idea how many new users upload stuff they find on the net and then try pass it off as their own work. We need people like them to help weed through the dodgy images on Commons Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

So you mean OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Yes, there are cases when uploads are a problem and it is common to find indicators like "no EXIF" and "FBMD". But these are not reasons of themselves to DR content, and certainly not to speedy it. A1Cafel seems to be so keen to get uploaders blocked (not merely content deleted, they actively pursue blocks) that they have abandoned all pretence of AGF and are seeing minor indicators like no EXIF as entire reasons for deletion. Nor are they even truthful in doing so. A >1000px image is not "small". You claim yourself that "This image has no exif" which is untrue (see File:Elias Kärle (profile picture).jpg#Metadata) and then (amazingly) " A google image search [20] [...]. Although smaller that is another reason to view it as suspect." Please explain this alchemy where someone uploads a version of a web image that is eight times bigger than your claimed original. For you both to then fall back on PCP is appalling. This isn't precautionary, it's both of you doubling down because you won't admit you're wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Andy, here and at the linked DR, you refer to "[A1Cafel's] regular threat of blocking". It looks like you're just talking about the standard template issued in such cases by the deletion gadgets (Template:Copyvionote)? (not to say they're necessarily appropriate DRs -- I just had to check to remember what the default message is, and indeed it includes mention of blocking). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm talking about:

• This: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User_problems#"You may be blocked soon"
• and the manual choice to add this template {{End of copyvios}} as a first warning (within minutes of any first engagement with an uploader).
• and canvassing Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#唐貴台湾棒球好開示 specifically to obtain blocks.

We know that copyright is complex and that new editors need help with it. But this response is a total rejection of AGF. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would have probably also warned them. You are taking AGF too far with this uploader. One image he says he has the rights to, but claims it as own work. As for their other uploads there are a bunch of what look like screenshots. And this File:Nuñuwa wiphala.png is also claimed as own work - based on your assumption of good faith for everything we should just let this slide. But its clearly a Coat of Arms that they found on Facebook. And you're calling out A1Cafel for holding this uploader accountable? Gbawden (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• So what's the issue with the coat of arms? It has been drawn. By a human being, with the skills of a human being. I draw things like this all day (although a llama would be beyond me). I can see no reason to doubt the bona fides of any uploader saying, "I drew this". There is an increasingly judgmental attitude here saying, "Not good enough, delete" or simultaneously, "Too good, must be from elsewhere". There is no reason to credit any such attitude.

Note also that we've just had a few threads on "fictional flags". I have no knowledge of Nuñuwa to comment on authenticity.

If you're concerned that perhaps it's based on derivative work, maybe the llama is a photo and it's not the author's photo – then you could ask the author! You know, dialogue. Without a judgmental attitude that you want them blocked first. There would be no good justification for DRing this without such discussion first, and a speedy would be right out. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You completely missed the point about the Coat of Arms. Its a complex drawing - complex logos et al need OTRS or confirmation of a free license. In this case he took it from FB per the exif - but claiming it as their own work. You are so intent on painting A1Cafel as the bad guy you can't see that the uploader is likely violating copyright on numerous of their images. Gbawden (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• So you've now nominated it for deletion. Wow. That's pretty toxic.

"Its a complex drawing - complex logos et al need OTRS or confirmation of a free license." There is absolutely no such policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Complex drawings exceed TOO in their source countries as a matter of copyright law. This drawing was evidently published on Facebook. Images published on Facebook usually are not accompanied by a free license. Per PRP policy, there is sufficient reason to doubt it is the uploader's own work.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• But that's a question of authorship and the prevailing (and unsupportable) view that any past contact with FB makes content unacceptable here in the future (we have no policy on that, and regular VP threads fail to create any).

COM:TOO is also irrelevant, because no-one is claiming that. That would be an excuse that someone else's content and work can be used here, regardless of their opinion, because it is too simple to attract protection. That is so outlandish a claim that I hadn't even entertained the possibility that was what the deleting editor meant.

The only point of relevance here would be that an uploader's claim of authorship can be rejected if a drawing is too complicated. There is no such policy. This is an abuse of OTRS, dropping it post facto onto new uploaders and their work, just to find new ways to delete things, and for gatekeeping editorship at Commons. We should resist that especially strongly. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think our standard should always be: if we can find it somewhere online, whether it's FB, Flickr, etc., then require a communication that proves that the user is the owner of the other online identity (and when that identity happens to be an email address, that's when OTRS comes into play). But merely being low resolution or having FB metadata does not tell us anything about the circumstances of previous publication, so there is no greater evidence that would actually help prove that the uploader is the creator. In such cases we must AGF as long as the uploader does not have a history of lying. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have not read carefully all what is written but in answer to King of Hearts above: "...having FB metadata does not tell us anything about the circumstances of previous publication": that is not entirely true, if it have FB metadata then the .jpg file here is a copy of a .jpg file hosted in Facebook, so it tell us one thing: that the file have already been published on Facebook and that someones copied it from Facebook to their PC and then into Commons. However it's true that we don't know if the uploader is the copyright holder or not, but the rules in Commons have always be the precautionary principle, i.e. if we have an evidence of prior publication (e.g. in the metadatas?) then we requires that this publication have a free compatible license or that a permission be sent to OTRS, because there is simply potentially a "significant doubt" about the authorship of such files. "Small size with FB metadatas = unlikely to be own work" is a rationale that have been used hundred and hundred of times by many users, inculding by several administrators, and including for speedy deletions.

Therefore as A1Cafel is the main subject of this discussion and as this discussion talks also about FB metadata, I must precise that A1Cafel can not be the scapegoat of any "FB metadata" topic. The debate about "FB metadas being a sufficiant rationale for deletion (and therefore for nomination for deletion)" may be an interesting thing, but if the community is ready to grant an exception to our "Precautionary principle" for the files that have FB metadatas then we should write it somewhere in our policies, in order that, of course A1Cafel, but also dozen of other experimented users, included many administrators, be aware of that. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

But what if the FB image is private? If we get an OTRS from a random email address, we still wouldn't be able to prove anything. I am not in favor of requiring people to give us access to private content on social media accounts as a condition to getting their works onto Commons. We should only require traceability to an online identity (such as an email address or social media account) when the content can be found on a public website.

The idea that we require OTRS whenever there is evidence of previous publication is not strictly true; rather, it is required specifically if the location of previous publication can be tied to an email address. For public posts on user-generated content websites (Flickr, FB, IG, etc.), OTRS is generally useless, and we instead ask the user to edit their post to indicate a free license. But if the material cannot be viewed publicly, then I think an AGF assertion by the uploader that they are the author/copyright holder shall suffice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree it is a subject worth discussing, and why not to add a detailled guideline in our policies for such files, even if that would tend to assume good faith. Honestly I have no strong opinion. However what I'm saying is that this kind of rationale is used from years by many users and by many administrators, so I still think it's very unfair to put this problem on someone's back, who maybe simply followed others before them. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

To illustrate my point just go to that quick search, just open the five first DRs, each DRs talk about "FBMD", each DRs are closed as deleted, each time by a different administrator, and each time it is a different nominator ( by the way never by A1Cafel). If I interved here it's because the thread is suposed to be about A1Cafel, and I still think it's very very unfair that the subject focuses on Facebook files as if the "Facebook files deletion" was an A1Cafel problem. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As an user who also frequently involved in copyright inspection, while I also used NPD as a reason to delete Facebook-related images, as a precedent established by other users. After all, the EXIF residue is prima facie evidence that this is from Facebook instead of from the uploader. However, I can't agree with equating images with small resolution or without EXIF with possible copyright violations: some can be old photos, others may be images taken by cheap devices which don't come up with EXIF (I've seen quite an amount of these files by developing-country users).廣九直通車 (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I also have issue with A1Cafel's rationale, as two of my images were tagged with copy & paste reason of "Small image without EXIF, dubious claim of own work" (see here and here). In essence, the images were tagged simply because I don't have the technical skills beyond cropping in MS Paint or the default Windows image editor when I got home to touch up. I took those photos at the airport back in late March of last year just as the pandemic started to spread, and we didn't have much clue about how the virus was spread at that time. It was a "quickly pull out the phone camera, snap a picture and put it back into the pocket". I didn't have the time to consider lighting, composition or pull out a tripod for a leveled image. And despite my explanation, A1Cafel doesn't follow up or withdraw the deletion request. Up until this discussion, I was trying to AGF. However, given the scale and pattern shown by multiple editors, I can no longer say that mine was an isolated incident. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this has happened to you. FOP and copyright issues shouldn’t be used like a weapon, and I fear this user is using them in this way. SelfieCity (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm also sorry to hear that this has happened and the term "dubious own work claims" has been used as a weapon, along with what SC mentioned about FoP and Copyright issues. SHB2000 (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment btw, pardon my naïveté, but is 'No Exif itself a valid reason for starting a Rfd? I often stumble in recent files with no Exif data and wonder whether they're actually property of the user who uploaded them. -- 109.112.174.177 16:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is actually no place stating that low resolution files missing Exif Metadata is a reason to start a RfD. As seen from above, there is a hot debate on whether nominating files of small files missing Exif/files found with "FBMD" Metadata is a valid reason or not. IMO a discussion is needed. --137.189.220.37 02:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• I also have issue with A1Cafel's rationale. I got "last warning" because I uploaded cropped version of old image from Commons not knowing that it is going to turn out to be copyright violating. I feel like I am paying for somebody else's mistakes here. It doesn't seem fair. Could somebody tell me what I did wrong? To be specific, I am being punished for File:Governor-Lou-Leon-Guerrero-768x96 (cropped).jpg which was just a normal cropped version of File:Governor-Lou-Leon-Guerrero-768x960.jpg. --Czarnybog (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Czarnybog: No, you did nothing wrong. And it is not just you who's had this issue with A1Cafel before, as he's done this to so many people with the intent of driving them off Commons. SHB2000 (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• See User talk:Ragini Upadhyay Grela today. This appears to be an artist, uploading images of their own work. A1Cafel has speedied the lot, demanded a source (they're clearly an artist with theiur own work) and threatened a block. We need to stop this now. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: well, I don't think even a topic ban will work. Probably indef ban to me. SHB2000 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing behaviour at Wikivoyage

This guy/gal has nominated at least two files being used as pagebanners on en.wikivoyage for speedy deletion. That's an act of vandalism of a sister site. Please see Commons talk:Deletion requests#Proposal never to nominate images for speedy deletion merely for FoP issues also for more on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, I would point to my discussion with them at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dubai International Airport (Concourse B) WV banner.jpg. They do not consider themselves a vandal and are now promising to stop nominating images in use at Wikivoyage for speedy deletion. Take that for what it's worth; I appreciate it as far as it goes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I commented in Commons talk:Deletion requests#Proposal never to nominate images for speedy deletion merely for FoP issues. Seeing your proposal it seems that you too you were not aware that the FoP issues are already supposed to go through regular deletion requests. It would not comes to my mind to call you a vandal for that reason. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

To any admin here, would it help to revoke A1Cafel's autopatroller status? SHB2000 (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Does it matter that FoP is already an exclusion for speedies? Clearly that exclusion is not effective, they are still being speedied, we need to do something else. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer, your comparison of my starting a thread in response to at least two speedy deletion nominations based on DoF issues, indicating that's an actual problem, with someone trying to speedily delete Wikivoyage pagebanners, is pretty illogical. You're saying it could make some kind of twisted sense to call my starting a discussion thread vandalism? That's quite obviously absurd and speedily deleting files in fair use on other wikis is, effectively, vandalism. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

To nominate for deletion "fair use files" is of course a good and useful maintenance task that have to be done, as we don't accept fair use here. Users doing this should be thanked as well as administrators closing such request as deleted should be thanked too. I repeat, yes speedy deletion for FOP cases are inappropriate, but it is not well quoted in our policies, and it is not surprizing that some users don't notice it... To find the right sentence in our policy I myself had to use the search fontion of my browser for the word "panorama", so I won't call anyone "a vandal" because they also missed that sentence, and that they nominate for speedy deletion two files (even if they are used in Wikivoyage) instead of regular DRs. Of course it is not the same thing if the nominator is aware that speedy deletion are not appropriate for FOP cases and he does it knowingly. But personaly I am not aware if the nominator has already been warned that this is officially part of our policy, therefore I AGF. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not vandalism relative to Commons but is vandalism relative to Wikivoyage or any other wiki where the file is in use. Common courtesy to other wikis should dictate good behavior on this, even if there weren't a rule or guideline here, and I already objected strenuously in a previous case in which I contested a speedy deletion nomination. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mount Takao Tokyo Metropolis Wikivoyage banner.jpg. There have also been other cases of Wikivoyage pagebanners that were deleted before anyone at Wikivoyage knew they had been nominated for deletion. I don't know whether A1Cafel was involved in those cases. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There is previous case that images violated FOP are speedy deleted User talk:SelfieCity#File:Rocklin Banner.jpg--A1Cafel (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• OTRS is a gatekeeping process. If we require it, especially post facto (sometimes by a decade!) it's a great way to inconvenience new uploaders and drive them off the project. There are editors here who see that as a goal. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If you don't know how the vandalism would turn out to be because of speedily deleting pagebanners, see voy:en:User:SHB2000/Junee. SHB2000 (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm concerned by A1Cafel's ongoing speedy deletions (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dubai International Airport (Concourse B) WV banner.jpg) even while this thread is still open. That's a bad case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Whatever the eventual outcome of the wikivoyage content issues, this sort of deletion is clearly disruptive (that may be unavoidable and a correct action, but it's still a workload generator for that project). It should never be done through a speedy like this.

A1Cafel is demonstrating, yet again, that they won't listen to any complaints about their behaviour, won't discuss it or justify it, and certainly won't stop doing it. If they won't stop from choice, they require appropriate topic bans etc. to make them stop it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. Here are some examples: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020aug-derecho-ottawa-illinois-tornado.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020aug-derecho-damage-Scranton-Iowa.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020aug-derecho-damage-Wheaton-Illinois.jpg. These look to be not only not subject to speedy deletion but not subject to deletion at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I find it disconcerting to see allegations of vandalism directed at A1Cafel by certain Wikivoyage editors, who may well be operating within Commons policies as pointed out by Christian Ferrer above. It is unfortunate that these policies cause problems for Wikivoyage, but if that is the case, efforts should focus on modifying policies rather than attacking editors enforcing them.

It is no secret that accusations of "vandalism" are routinely used on the English Wikivoyage by a small group of editors to discredit contributors in an attempt to get them banned and their contributions removed, conveniently bypassing Wikivoyage's own policies. Commons is not Wikivoyage, and unfounded vandalism accusations will not work here. ArticCynda (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

But A1Cafel still refuses to listen to us when we ask him to slow down. Instead, more are nominated for deletion. SHB2000 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

We've made very clear that nominating files in use on Wikivoyage, especially but not only pagebanners, for speedy deletion just based on DoF concerns that don't have the same force on Wikivoyage as on Commons does not constitute vandalism on Commons, but it does constitute a form of vandalism on Wikivoyage through action here. I haven't seen any Wikivoyager attempt to get A1Cafel blocked here; we just want them (him/her/whatever) to stop improperly nominating files for speedy deletion and give us a reasonable amount of time to take action before files are deleted, and we believe their autopatroller status here should be revoked, so that their edits can be monitored by Commons admins who follow Commons policies and guidelines more closely than A1Cafel does. ArticCynda, I would suggest for you not to troll here. (Useful background for Commoners following this discussion: ArticCynda was banned on en.voy for adding grossly bigoted and demonstrably false content that was anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-African, and did I forget anyone? [Apparently, anti-French.] So view his comments in that light. See these differences and this thread if you like.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If anyone thinks I'm trying to get A1Cafel blocked, no that's not the case and I apologize in advance if it seems like I did. I just want him to basically do what Ikan Kekek mentioned above.

And to AC, I get that you may feel like envoy admins may have not followed policies in 2018, there was still consensus the second time which did follow policies and an indef ban was agreed, so you can't use that statement anymore. (also for others following, see voy:en:User talk:ArticCynda as well) SHB2000 (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

SHB2000, I suggest for you to read through the entire thread I linked before giving him any kind of out; see for yourself how we followed policies in 2018. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for that message. I meant that AC may have felt that way, but not that envoy admins (and non admins) actually didn't follow policies (everything was to policy for extra clarification). But the second time was well clear, and there was no AC complains that we weren't following policies when we did the UBN the second time. SHB2000 (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If participation to a discussion is dismissed as "trolling" and turns into personal attacks, I don't see any hope for a constructive solution to the debate, and rather leave.

Perhaps those Wikivoyagers eagerly accusing Commons contributors of vandalism and trolling, or violations of the Commons deletion policies, could first take a look at their wiki's policies before lecturing others about their flaws. For example en-voy has a policy that articles about real places should not be deleted and yet articles on Shipka, Gunib and Buynaksk (all real places with Wikipedia articles and Wikivoyage articles in other languages) mysteriously vanished from en-voy. Seems like Commons is not the only wiki confronted with systematic deletion vandalism and violations of deletion policies. — ArticCynda (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Because block-evading banned users are not allowed to edit on the site. Do you want to continue to troll and expose your misbehavior more? I didn't post links to your outrageous and false bigoted edits or the userban discussion of you on Wikivoyage until you chose to cast baseless aspersions on what Wikivoyage editors are proposing here. Crawl back under your rock. I think I've said enough and regret that this troll has brought off-topic discussion of his userban issues from Wikivoyage to Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

AC, late response, but you openly admitted to ban evading, hence I tagged your pages for speedy. You yourself have posted a timer link to fr.voy, despite being indef banned. With the Shipka article, that was created by Brendan (Telstra) who is banned. You need to stop being proud of ban evading, and support other banned editor[s] (only Brendan in this case). But I'll not go any further off topic. SHB2000 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Special user rights

Liuxinyu970226 told me to come here and make the request, but would it be a wise idea to strip all their rights? I'm more concerned about autopatrolled rights, because the rate of deletions are going far too quick and has failed to listen to all the warnings given to them, as well as commit vandalism by speedy deleting Wikivoyage pagebanners, and ignoring a clear statement on F3. Not too concerned by filemover and the other rights they have, but would anyone else agree it's better if someone would rather patrol his edits? I know it's quite unusual for someone with about 400k+ edits, but the rate is too quick, and personally, if there were a deletion notice on Wikivoyage (but would apply in all WMF projects), I'd want to do no more than one a day at max. Also look at OhanaUnited's message above. SHB2000 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's clear that their edits should be subjected to patrolling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What about others like file mover and rollbacker? SHB2000 (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked out whether there have been any issues related to those. I'm not an admin here; not sure if you knew that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to remove autopatroller status from this user. We should only remove the other rights at this point if they have abused them. In my opinion the “guilty until proven innocent” approach the user in question to deleting a number of files, with which we at Wikivoyage can barely keep up, is unfair on our small WV community. I would be frustrated if someone took down the images I uploaded to Commons unless a valid reason was presented with evidence of some kind of policy-breaking, in which case I would definitely comply. SelfieCity (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I know that there was even a banner that was proposed to be deleted on ja.wikivoyage (which was another banner on en.voy as well), and ja.wikivoyage has I think only one admin, with a few users there. The rate is too much for us to handle as well. SHB2000 (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My own experience with User:A1Cafel so far is that they flagged some of my own uploads for deletion, which followed the conventional process and were eventually un-nominated for deletion per community consensus. This was not a speedy deletion. So it appears that in some areas this user is applying excessive measures whereas in others they are perfectly reasonable. Removing autopatroller status as suggested by SelfieCity does not curb their editing freedom, so I think it can be a good compromise. ArticCynda (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

On that deletion notice, an admin closed it off with "Such nominations are disruptive". It's clear that A1Cafel is too disruptive to have autopatroller status. SHB2000 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was closed because the nomination was deemed disruptive, thanks for pointing that out SHB2000. This further strengthens my opinion that removing autopatroller status and keeping an eye on A1Cafels (speedy) deletion nominations is a good idea. ArticCynda (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Well... if A1Cafel is going this rate, we're probably going to end up having no images at some point. That's of course hyperbole, but you get the point. SHB2000 (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Their actions are more likely to cost us editors than images. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I also  Support removing their autopatrol flag. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: looks like we have a consensus to strip those rights off him. SHB2000 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support removing their autopatrol flag.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

To any admin here, we have 6 supports in removing their flag, but only one oppose from A1Cafel himself (not here, but on their talk page). SHB2000 (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess @Wcam: is not involved so they can process this removal of flag? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support removing their autopatrol flag given the recent ongoing problems,. –Davey2010^Talk 16:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Support per above and my support comment in the topic ban section of this discussion. Bidgee (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Time for a topic ban

The thread above has been open for a week, and we're still waiting for any substantial response from A1Cafel as to any recognition of why there is a problem here, or how they intend to change their ongoing behaviour. All we've had is more problems, and weak excuses as to why they were right all along.

In response to this, it's now time to look at topic bans. Continuing to repeat just the same actions which led to this posting, even while the AN/U thread keeps growing, is the behaviour of an editor who has no intention of changing.

To be specific, look at the first and fourth points at the start here: "No more vague handwave DRs as "possible copyvio". No more simply linking to Google search and expecting others to do the legwork." and particularly, no more vague speedies when the situation is neither clear nor unambiguously supported. Linking an image to an image search just in case it might be found elsewhere is nowhere near good enough. It's extra work for other editors, it's disruptive, it's the antithesis of AGF to uploaders. The speedy has the justification, " Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work:". Yet I do not believe this. I would believe the uploader's claim over A1Cafel's (I am tired of the stream of untruths from A1Cafel in these matters - their credibility vanished a long time ago). If this has been found elsewhere, then it's incumbent on the deletion requester (who has just stated that it has been) to tell us where that was! It's most likely that it's found here, if anywhere https://www.facebook.com/EmbassyofSwedeninMinsk/photos/ – but I couldn't find it. If anyone else does, please post a better link.

Even if this would be a legitimate deletion request and eventually requires deletion, it is not a legitimate speedy (because it is malformed and disruptive for other editors to have to continually clean up after A1Cafel).

So, I think we're at the level of needing a topic ban. This could be obviously be either from deletions, broadly construed, or else speedy deletions alone. Your thoughts please. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I did a thorough reverse image search on the example you linked and was unable to find the image elsewhere, not even edited or cropped versions of it. The conclusion is therefore that, to the best of my knowledge, the image uploaded by User:Lesnas ättling is indeed their own work and should not have been nominated for speedy deletion by User:A1Cafel. I support suspending A1Cafel from making any more deletion nominations, speedy or otherwise, and revoke any of their previous nominations before more contributors are driven away from Commons. ArticCynda (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not really active right now on Wikimedia's projects and have no time to read the hole discussion, but I confirm that I use to publish my own works (or, as an exeption, on the demand of the author who is not a wikimedian [21]).--Lesnas ättling (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I have previously levied a topic ban on A1Cafel, which expired at the end of 2020, for problems including:

• Incorrect speedy tagging (e.g. questioning "own work" claims on decade-old photos by trusted users, or tagging images because the creator in the metadata doesn't match their username when a little bit of research would connect the names, or tagging older Flickr imports after transferring newer duplicates)
• Starting DRs by blindly following one particular policy without regards to the specifics of the case (e.g. COM:TOYS without considering COM:HIRTLE, or COM:FOP without considering COM:DM)
• Importing duplicate, indiscriminate, or copyvio Flickr images
• Getting someone incorrectly desysopped for inactivity (this specific issue is unlikely to recur, but it shows a general trend of rushing into administrative tasks without understanding policy fully)

It seems like the problems have not stopped. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The topic ban nomination is a good idea, but I also think that if A1Cafel is still an autopatroller, that status should be revoked. In the meantime, it would appear that that speedy deletion nomination should be challenged. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• The previous topic ban was news to me. With that, and this coming so soon afterwards, this is clearly someone with no interest in changing. So that would have to be a topic ban on all deletions, not just speedies, and it should be indef, with a substantial minimum before any revocation of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I would support a permanent topic ban per above outline, and the removal of autopatroller rights. If this user violates the topic ban, a user ban ought to be considered. Users need to be able to cooperate within the community; if they can’t there are other places to contribute off-wiki. SelfieCity (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support as well as removal of all rights until they gain our trust again, including file mover, since I do not trust A1Cafel with any rights and I feel like he's driven too many editors away. Special rights are only for trusted users, and while A1C hasn't abused any of them, he's lost our tust. SHB2000 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I was maybe thinking on just why not ban this guy indefinitely. He's evaded his ban for 6 months and still refuses to listen, drove many editors away in hoping to get them blocked, and calls my response to why I suggested to removing his rights a threat and tells me to go ban him on en.voy when he himself knows that's going to do nothing, nominates decades old files for deletion, questioning about it's authenticity and also nominates files for deletion because it's too small.

He's been given too much opportunities, and it's time for this to come to a halt. Anyone else thinking the same? SHB2000 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The majority of this user's recent contributions consist of thousands of automated imports of low value images from Flickr, interleaved with abusive deletion nominations. If they were banned as suggested by SHB2000 it would not be a loss for the wiki considering the damage they are causing to confidence of new contributors. ArticCynda (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Its the new users who find a photo on social media or the newspaper and join Commons to upload it that we should be watching out for. They aren't here to positively contribute so why are we so concerned about them? Gbawden (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

We can't ignore the fact that A1Cafel is often right in their DR's - particularly round FOP. If they aren't around to help remove the copyvio's and other files that we cannot host - who will take this workload over? They are contributing to Commons, even if sometimes they make mistakes (intentionally or otherwise) Gbawden (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not about the mistakes, but the number of editors he's driven off commons. SHB2000 (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I recognize that he is genuinely trying to do the right thing, but I think the problem is a lack of adaptability. This script has repeated several times over: He makes several good deletion nominations and then a few bad ones, and is gets advised what the correct policy is. Afterwards, instead of thoroughly reading up on policy, he is usually careful to avoid making the exact same mistake again but does not ultimately absorb all the important copyright rules and apply them appropriately on a case-by-case basis. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Oh boy, I haven't opened so many tabs at the same time in my browser to gather so much questionable behaviour and to reconstruct the timeline on user conduct in a very long time. I support imposing topic ban on initiating speedy deletion and via deletion request. Not including the current discussion, this editor has been subject of at least four other discussion for user conduct related to deleting files within the past 1.5 years. Here is a list of discussion on A1Cafel regarding deletion-related matters:
  • In April 2020, A1Cafel was blocked from using flickr2commons via Special:AbuseFilter/208 (this block was removed in June 2020)
  • In May 2020, there was a proposal to ban A1Cafel from making deletion requests. That proposal had limited input and stalled with no action taken.
  • In August 2020, due to the disruptive behaviour presented in yet another deletion discussion about A1Cafel, King of Hearts placed editing restriction on nominating images for deletion as already presented above.
  • A month later, in September 2020, the aforementioned blocked from using flickr2commons was re-applied again due to improper file renames as seen in Special:AbuseFilter/208 (this was removed in February 2021; note that the "notes" in AbuseFilter had the wrong year written down)
  • In April 2021, another round of discussion was made due to A1Cafel using "Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work" as deletion request rationale. Stalled discussion due to limited user participation led to no action being taken.
• Based on what I saw, it should be no surprise to A1Cafel that their behaviour has irritated others. And I think the community has exhausted its patience this time around. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• In which case, a topic ban from renaming too. They can still request renames, just not action them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• If the topic ban in 2020 didn't produce a change in behavior, the next step has to be stronger. Therefore, I  Support the proposal to take away all of his rights, as stated above, and leave him as an ordinary user, all of whose edits need to be patrolled, with no power to move files, rename them, nominate them for deletion, etc. If that doesn't work, the next step would have to be to suspend all of his editing privileges for x-amount of time. I was not aware A1Cafel had previously been subjected to a topic ban when I started posting to this thread and stated that I was not suggesting a userban. I still hope a userban is not necessary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I just realised that I never voted so  Support SHB2000 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• I previously stated in this discussion (though not under this sub-heading, I believe) that I believe only rights should be removed that are abused. However, in light of continued evidence and support for a topic ban, and a wider pattern of abuse of existing rights, as cited by OhanaUnited, I now  Support removing all rights per Ikan Kekek. SelfieCity (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment per Andy's comment about an artist uploading their own work and demanding a source, I'm thinking whether we need to start going on the block scale. SHB2000 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Just note: the topic user has blocked indefinitely on enwiki as checkuser-block. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Being blocked on en:WP is a matter for en:WP, not Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  Pinging @Zzuuzz, Bbb23 as enwiki Admins who might have an opinion on the matter.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• (I was asked for opinion) From an enwiki perspective I don't have an opinion, and don't have substantive anything to add. The enwiki block seems to be what it is, and it looks like it was a good block. I have suspicions it might even be upheld if appealed today, but don't quote me on that. If there's any specific concerns from enwiki you're going to have to be specific, and any other socking concerns here you're going to have to ask a local CU or make up your own mind. zzuuzz (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Support ban from deletion procedures as there is a long history of bad attitude and wrong decisions, and despite multiple warnings and bans I see no willingness to seriously change or improve their behaviour. --Cavarrone (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support as per those above. The recent issues IMHO justify a topic ban at this present time. I'm sure they have good intentions and only want what's best for Commons however sadly this user has been a problem for some time. –Davey2010^Talk 16:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per above. A1Cafel has failed to engage with this discussion and the concerns about their behaviour, I had hoped they would do so and address the concerns and issue that other contributors have but since A1Cafel doesn’t wish to work collaboratively, sadly I think the removal of the auto patrolled flag and topic ban is the only option the community has left. Bidgee (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2021 (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.

Assistance with Kingwarnen

RESOLVED:

Kingwarnen was blocked indefinitely by Christian Ferrer due to sock puppetry. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2021 (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.

---

I require help in talking to Kingwarnen. They share a similar interest with me in uploading traffic signs to our repository. However, some of the ones they have uploaded, I am uncertain if they are real or not. I have been attempting to talk with them on my talk page for a while now, asking for sources for the ones that I am more dubious of, with little success. They never give me links when I request a source for a particular image, forcing me to go digging myself often with limited success, and do not appear to care about the importance that all their images be verifiable.

An example of what I am trying to address is File:Uganda road sign W16.svg. The sign number W16 is missing from the manual, and so Kingwarnen freely admits to "filling in the missing spaces". Their intentions are entirely good I have no doubt, but we can't just presume what the missing image is. Another example is File:Mauritius Road Signs - Warning Sign - Checkpoint.svg. This sign is a copy of that used in Bangladesh and Nepal. All three countries are heavily influenced by the United Kingdom, but that does not mean they all use the same signs. Sadly, I can't find a source for signs used in Mauritius at all, so I have no way of verifying that image. Kingwarnen has not been helpful in my search for a source either.

I have tried very hard to be friendly and collegial with Kingwarnen, and am finding it exhausting because they are not responding to the main point I am trying to get across. They have uploaded many images which I trust are accurate, but also some which based on my experience and knowledge are questionable, and I simply want to verify them. I don't want to nominate them for deletion and appear antagonistic, but what else can I do? Fry1989 ^eh? 16:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I ain't doin nuttin! All I did is add signs that are missing in the actual world. Not mess anything up. Kingwarnen (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

So is anyone going to help me with this or what? Fry1989 ^eh? 00:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Highly likely to be a User:Jermboy27 sock, rather knowledgeable in uploading and the fact they are uploading hoax/non-existent road signs. Bidgee (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That is possible, however Jermboy27 did not tend to upload anything useful. It is this mix of true and questionable/false which is confusing me. Would a checkuser request be in order? Fry1989 ^eh? 16:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Tell that to this guy! Kingwarnen (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the point of making allegations against other users of being a sockpuppet of an account blocked ten years ago? If there is no hard evidence against the sock allegation, it just looks like bad faith which immediately derails this request for help.

@Kingwarnen: do not link to off-wiki accounts on Twitter unless they are directly relevant or Wikimedians who have chosen to publish their off-wiki accounts on-wiki. If it is read by anyone as an attempt to out or doxx someone, this can lead to a rapid WMF office action. --Fæ (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What I am trying to tell Fry is that he needs to add categories to my files and he won't do them for me. Kingwarnen (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I am adding categories to files, albeit more slowly than you would like. However, I am also trying to maintain a level of reliability. These signs are real world things used by real countries, and as niche as this particular interest may be, there are people out there that trust us as a source. I have tried very hard to reach out to you and convey the importance of reliability, and at the best of times you tell me to go search for myself and at the worst of times you don't even acknowledge my requests for verification at all. I have so-far treated this as a communication problem, which is why I have reached out to others for help. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Kingwarnen made a change to File:Mauritius Road Signs - Prohibitory Sign - No Right Turn.svg, which I reverted based upon this source (which can now only be accessed via the Wayback Machine). They just reverted me with a nonsense rationale. Will someone please do something? Fry1989 ^eh? 16:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh my god, Fry! This shit again? The slash is mirrored for a reason cause of Cypriot rule since I noticed in the Cyprus Road signs PDF a few years ago. It's not my fault I made new and interesting road signs in the Wikimedia Commons. Literally, guys, he must be joking. No way he is that dumb about sources. Kingwarnen (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I (now) have a source. You do not. Don't go down this road, I've been down it and it isn't fun. If you don't revert the file to match the only source we have, an admin will do so and lock the file so you can no longer alter it. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I do not. But it doesn't mean you have to snitch. All I did is mirror the slash and you suddenly didn't care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingwarnen (talk • contribs) 00:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

SNITCH?!!! Are you out of your mind or is this how you genuinely communicate? You also called me a vandal, so let me explain what vandalism is and is not. Vandalism is changing an image against its source and then going on some bizarre attack calling others snitches and trying to connect Cyprus with Mauritius which are two very different and very far apart countries. Vandalism is not what I do, I improve images to the best of my abilities. And to be clear, I make the best road sign images here on Commons out of anyone. That's not to brag, that's simply a fact, because wherever possible I draw mine according to the official specifications and in millimetres so they actually match the exact measurements, whereas most users draw them in pixels or extract them from PDFs with all the inherent flaws contained within.

It is clear this user is not being cooperative despite my efforts. I am asking an admin to revert File:Mauritius Road Signs - Prohibitory Sign - No Right Turn.svg to match the source provided, and to deal with Kingwarnen however they see fit. Fry1989 ^eh?

Please also note that Kingwarnen has repeated their behaviour from November 2020 on File:Jamaica road sign R20.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Kingwarnen: I reverted File:Mauritius Road Signs - Prohibitory Sign - No Right Turn.svg as per the source provided by Fry1989. Don't revert again. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fry1989: I understand your frustration, but File:Mauritius Road Signs - Warning Sign - Checkpoint.svg is currently used in 5 wikis, and thus we have an issue with COM:EDUSE. IMO the file obviously fails the point "providing knowledge; instructional or informative" as it is simply not true for that file, indeed the image is not providing knowledge, neither it is instructional nor it is informative" as we don't know if it is indeed a sign used in that country... However in the same policy page, 2 or 3 line below, we have "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose...". I wonder what to do here, with our current policy. Maybe that policy could be improved a bit though, especially for such cases. I can not speedy delted it, but I can nominate it for deletion if you want, but I don't give guarenties about the outcome. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It is in use because it was put there by Kingwarnen. I don't mind going through the normal DR process if that's how it has to be done. I simply want these images to either be sourced or removed. As I've pointed out, Kingwarnen has uploaded some images that I have been able to verify, but there are others I can not and they refuse. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fry1989 and Christian Ferrer: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mauritius Road Signs - Warning Sign - Checkpoint.svg.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 19:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I nominated two similarly unsourced images earlier in the day. I can nominate others, or if it is deemed more appropriate I can provide a list of suspect images for a neutral party to nominate. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The sign you metioned File:Uganda road sign W16.svg is used in most British colonies (Nepal, Bangladesh, Singapore, Mauritius, but not Uganda), which is why I added it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingwarnen (talk • contribs) 19:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kingwarnen: How do you know that? Please sign your posts.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kingwarnen: I do also have to ask for a source for your most recent uploads of purported Malian road signs. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking for source shit again? Cause I found a source for the Stop sign in Burundi. Here Kingwarnen (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am. To put it quite simply, I don't trust you. You ignore my requests for sources for specific images, and you deflect to unrelated topics. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

There remains to be a resolution to this issue. At this point, should I just do a mass DR of the suspect files and force Kingwarnen to defend them there? Fry1989 ^eh? 15:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fry1989: Thanks for starting Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Kingwarnen.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Support blockage. The user also refuses to sign their posts. In addition, please see unresolved section Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 89#Kingwarnen (talk • contribs • block log • filter log).   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocking Kingwarnen was not the route I was planning on, but since it has been proposed by another user, I suppose it at least warrants discussion. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Support for either being incompetent or being a troll (I can't decide which!) - If you're going to provide road sign images you quite obviously need to provide sources to back these up .... what you don't do is ignore source-warnings ... and just continue uploading like everything's tickity boo. We already have issues with fake flags being created .... certainly don't need fake road signs too. –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In light of the CU check below both accounts should be indefinitely blocked for not only the apparent creation of fake road signs but for also sockpuppetry (neither have been blocked yet due to this discussion). –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• FYI Fry1989, Bidgee, Fæ, Christian Ferrer, Jeff_G., A CU check was done at (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kingwarnen) - Kingwarnen and Ipswichguy are the same person. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Support per above. Bidgee (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Support block per CU results. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• I blocked Ipswichguy, however I don't know if the main account has to be blocked, and if so, how many time. Another administrator may take a decision. Or maybe we can wait to see how the activity Kingwarnen evolves. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Christian Ferrer, Thanks for blocking the sock account. The sock account whilst sneaky they didn't really do any damage so if it were socking alone you could block the main account for anywhere from a day to a week .... but in this specific case the main account's uploaded fake road signs, came across in a trolling or incompetent way and socked all at the same time so with all these considered IMHO they should be indeffed. I don't really see any point in allowing them to continue editing here as so far all's they've done is upload fake road signs and refused to provide any sourcing for them which is a major concern here.

The only alternative to indeffing would be to have them topcbanned from roadsigns altogether (so no uploading them, speedying them, nominating them and participating in any DRs on them). –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, it seems to be consensus for a block, and the behavior of that user tend to potentialy "damage Commons and disrupt its collegial atmosphere". So I blocked the account indefinitely. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

---

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

User:Inda19712003's uploads

Would an admin mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/Inda19712003 since pretty much all of their recent uploads appear to cases of COM:NETCOPYVIO. It appears that this user is not really familiar with COM:L and seems to think that any images found online are OK to upload to Commons. This could just be a good faith misunderstanding, but I've already tagged nine as copyvios and there appears to be many more. Some of the images probably originated in the news websites cited as the source, but others are sourced to blogs and other websites which are unlikely to be the original copyright holders. In none of the files I've tagged so far was there any indication that the image had been released as claimed by the uploader and my guess is that they just picked the license that seem most acceptable without giving it really any thought. Maybe a block isn't warranted at this time, but I've leave that up to an admin to determine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Inda19712003 for you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this Jeff G. Inda19712003 has been warned by another editor and all of their uploads have been deleted; so, perhaps this nothing more that needs to be done for the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. All Inda's uploads are deleted. No activity after warning, so block is not needed. Taivo (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Kim Leung

Copyvio after last warning. SebïFïg (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. No copyvios after last warning. Taivo (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Zindahtohpyalabharde

Zindahtohpyalabharde (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has uploaded many copyvios (I've tagged two and a couple of others are derivatives of these) while everything else is just edited photographs or maps (the maps could be Commons maps that have been edited, but are missing the attribution trail). I've had to block the account on en.wiki due to a wide range of disruption (and possible sockpuppetry -- that was brought to notice by Number 57 but which I'm not entirely familiar with). The uploads have to be deleted. —SpacemanSpiff 12:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. At moment block is not needed. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Meow2021

Meow2021 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

It has recently come out in a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard discussion over on en wikipedia (full discussion diff of special interest) that Meow2021 has taken a large number of images from wandeegroup.com and uploaded them here tagged as 'own work'. The images do not appear to be freely licensed so this looks to me like copyright violation. They say that some of the images are taken from that site, and some are photos they took themselves. I think there are reasons to doubt that, and Meow2021 has now signaled that they're not going to contribute any more so I think it falls to the community to clean up the mess without further cooperation from this user. I don't interact with this project much - please let me know if there is somewhere else that I should have posted this instead. - MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Uploads of User:Adamcitizen

Most, if not all of this user's uploads are copyrighted files or files which lack proof to verify the tag given to them stating that they are public domain or close to it. There were several notices posted on their talk page warning them about this, but it appears they have gone unheeded. The user also appears to be replacing non-free files uploaded locally with proper tags on frwiki and enwiki with the version they upload on Commons with an incorrect license. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked Adam for a week. A lot of his uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit war potential w/ User:RandomUserGuy1738

I happened to see a photo on an article and it looked super weird and very teal and decided to try to improve and color correct it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Bill_Clinton_at_a_movie_screening_outside_the_Family_Theatre_of_the_White_House_(07).jpg

The next day, the original uploader seems to have reverted it back without explanation. I have switched it back to the color-corrected version again and asked the user to leave it, but it almost seems like a bot since the user uploads a TON of photos. I'm just trying to lend a hand and improve the look of the photos. Any suggestions? -- Avanu (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Because your color change is contested it is preferred to upload a new version of the file, as is explained here: Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#Controversial_or_contested_changes. Elly (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. No admin action is needed. Avanu, you can create your own version under new filename. Taivo (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Flackseven

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

Upload-warring against established consensus on File:BlankMap-World.svg. --Seryo93 (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked Flackseven for a month and fully protected the file, because it is widely used. Taivo (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Username promotional for SKTGraphics

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

Uploading user promotional for matched SKT Graphics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremith (talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked SKT indefinitely due to inappropriate username and deleted all his/her contributions. Taivo (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Loicchaffard - copyvios

Loicchaffard (talk · contribs) continues to upload copyvios [22], [23], [24] after a very clear warning not to (diff), and after half-a-dozen of their earlier uploads have been deleted as copyvios. A short block might be in order. @Loicchaffard: --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The recent uploads by this user have been deleted, and Loicchaffard has not uploaded anything since. If any new copyvios should occur though, please re-report and a block will be in order. De728631 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Anny1190

Hello. I proposed to delete several files from this user that were tagged "own work" when they were clearly copied from websites. They have been deleted since. Then I proposed to delete File: ShahjahanShamimFacebook.jpg because it comes from facebook when explaining him that it can't be personal work and he can't copy copyrighted content. He re-imported this file under a different name, still as own work: File: MusicArtistShamim.jpg. Those files were deleted again. As sysop, can you explain him more ? Supertoff (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

may be I mistakenly mark this option, but these images are essential for writing an article, I have all images original files. please help me how can I upload those images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anny1190 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Anny1190, does that mean that you are the original photographer or do you just have copies of those files that were given to you by the copyright holder? Either way, since the photos were first published at Facebook we need a permission from the actual copyright holder that needs to be sent by email. Please contact our Volunteer Response Team about this. De728631 (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, how to copyright holder sent an email and which email address, please tell me instructions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anny1190 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC) Please check this ticket number [Ticket#2021081410006708] is it correct format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anny1190 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The ticket can only be checked by the Volunteer Response Team since they have special permissions that other users here do not have. Please inquire at COM:ON. De728631 (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Anny1190 (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC) Thanks for your help, I have one question, the owner of the pic already opened a ticket number, how many days need he will get reply ?

@Anny1190: Discussion continues via email in Ticket:2021081410006708. We await permission from the photographer. Please only sign at the ENDs of your posts, per COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anny1190: Who is the photographer?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, if you meant who captured those images then its me, I captured his photos using my camera. Anny1190 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anny1190: Thank you. Please write that info in an email message to permissions-commonswikimedia.org with COM:CONSENT and the following in the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2021081410006708]. See also COM:VRT.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff for clear instruction, I just sent an email using that ticket number. Anny1190 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

have you checked my email, please give me permission to re-upload Anny1190 (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Please help me to fix the problemAnny1190 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anny1190: Please stop asking for updates every few hours. The Volunteer response team consists entirely of volunteers and they have a huge backlog of emails to deal with. Requests such as yours may takes several days if not weeks to be processed. As you have been told before, if the permission has been accepted, the file(s) in question will be restored automatically. So, unless they get back to you by email, there is nothing that can be done right now. De728631 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok sorry. yes, I know they working hard. Thanks for your reply and I will wait for update Anny1190 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anny1190: You're welcome. This appears to have been resolved as of 04:01:35 (UTC). Please confirm.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes problems are fixed, Thanks jeff and other team member for helping me Anny1190 (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anny1190: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)