Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 110

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

Range block for 2603:7000:B8F0:960

Can someone more comfortable with rangeblocks please block the 2603:7000:B8F0:960 range for a few days per the behavior at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo de hey duggee - 2014-actual.png (and a few other DRs). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

For some clarification, specifically this. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Special:Contributions/2603:7000:B8F0:960:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy, SHB2000, and Yann: Thanks. The most succinct representation is special:contribs/2603:7000:B8F0:960::/64. For reporting, {{ip|2603:7000:B8F0:960::/64}} will do.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Is that (how to refer to a range for this purpose) documented somewhere that it should easily have been found? I would never have considered "special:contribs". - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This is explained in w:IPv6 address#Networks. I just copy-paste the URL. Yann (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Normally I'd just append /64 to the IP in question to get the relevant /64 range. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I concur with Yann. Two colons in an IPv6 address or range are an abbreviation for lots of zeros. I don't remember exactly when or where I picked up "special:contribs" (probably from reading diffs on meta), but I first recorded my use of it in m:srg 3 years ago in August of 2020 in m:special:diff/20352496 as archived at m:Steward requests/Global/2020-08#Global lock for Itsrobloxhereyt. "contributions" is such a long word, I immediately took to that abbreviation, which works everywhere I've tried it, even on language wikis other than English. Yes, I hack URLs.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree that's the normal way to write an IP range. I still don't get: is the "special:contribs" (or a longer equivalent) compulsory in this context? Because I would never have guessed it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: We don't have user or talk pages for ranges. The best complete alternatives we have are what I wrote at 12:09 and what Yann wrote at 11:34 on the 13th above. An obtuse alternative like "the /64 surrounding 2603:7000:b8f0:960:3274:dab1:db2e:1198" is easier for me to report, but I don't think it's easier for Admins to use.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Readthispage

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

Readthispage appears to be a w:WP:NOTHERE issue/single purpose account. All uploads have been 1) crops of Commons images to focus more closely on women's breasts (e.g., to File:Lana Rhoades 2-2017 cleavage (cropped).jpg cropped from this; File:Tanya Tate at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2016 (25037741523) (cropped).jpg cropped from this; etc.); 2) fan art/COM:NOTHOST AI porn; and 3) screenshots of pornstar's breasts. Their en.wiki contribs provide additional context: they have been exclusively to replace images in pornstar bios with ones that more prominently feature their breasts (e.g., [1][2][3]--all of those reverted) and to create a userpage sandbox article on "Bouncing breasts". Discussion seems needed. Эlcobbola talk 13:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think your instinct is correct. I'd say indef them and zap their uploads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
1. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Readthispage for the last images. Yann (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Rostyslav Zhvarnytskyi

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

Could someone explain to the user why the video game Yandere Simulator isn't in the public domain? He seems to have convinced himself that it is for some reason Trade (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Last warning sent. Yann (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Ssr

Ssr (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) rude and aggressive comments, threats: [4] [5] Komarof (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like their goal is to get blocked for personal attacks at every project they have ever edited. May be we should help them here. Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
No matter how big contributions are? Just to destroy people you dislike using Wikimedia tools? (Ymblanter is the sole author of a series of unsuccesful diffamation campaigns against me in EWP)
Well, when you make success, what is the advantage for Wikimedia? Destroyance of a many-years contributor and you personal pleasure of that? And you are an admin with this approach? --ssr (talk)
You are lying again. No surprise.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Kill me --ssr (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Did anyone ask you to interfere here? Are you having knowledge of permission problems the topic is about? --ssr (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The point of the topic is your incivility, which you also demonstrate right here. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The point of everything here are deletion requests based on copyright claims. My behaviour means nothing. --ssr (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ssr: Aye, there's the rub.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. --A.Savin 13:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have had to decline their unblock request, and left a friendly note. I hope they don't make this into an indefinite block but instead learn. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Pamphili

Pamphili (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This user is a puppet of e.g. User:Livioandronico2013, User:Fiat 500e, User:Labicanense, User:Rione I Monti and User:DellaGherardesca. Same camera and same kind of spamming their own photos all over Wikipedia. After being blocked user reappears with a new account. Disembodied Soul (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. Эlcobbola talk 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:MCGAMER YOUTUBE

Uploads non-free stuff (in good faith) Kelly The Angel (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. Due to large number of copyvios 3 months block (second block). Taivo (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Liepnieks

This user is uploading many copyright vioations. Each one of their files that I checked is easily found on the web and falsely claimed as own work. I don't have the time to check all their uplaods, so perhaps other users can have a look or maybe an administrator can delete based on COM:PCP. Marbletan (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Marbletan: I tagged the remaining files for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Marbletan (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Marbletan: You're welcome. You forgot to ping me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. The user did not stop after warning and I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio and sock

Tyih (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and சூர்யநாராயணன் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seems same user due to same copyvio and edit patterns that I observed in ta.wiki. I think all of their updates should delete and you may do check user. I just report here and admin can take action. ~AntanO4task (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@~AntanO4task: I notified the latter user, too. This appears to be lock evasion by Sweetindian (Sweetindian (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) ).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User Zeus2107 and copyvio

Zeus2107 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads so many copyvio images including unauthorized recreation of logo and flags. Admin advice & warning to the user is much appropriate. ~AntanO4task (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@~AntanO4task: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zeus2107‎. Yann (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

none of these files are own work all taken from twitter or Instagram

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Amirshakiba1380 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Milad.jenabi.1994

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Kallerna

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

This is to ask for review recent (sysop) actions by Kallerna.

a) I had blocked Karelj for a duration of 3 days for uncivil comments. Latest was this one, which comes as very disrespectful towards the photographer, however Karelj is well known for other disrespectful FPC "reviews" such as this one, for which I already had warned him, which he opted to ignore completely.

b) Several users agreed on obvious incivility of such comments, such as: Aristeas, SHB2000, XRay, Radomianin.

c) Nonetheless, Kallerna came "out of nothing" and unblocked the user -- completely out of process, without seeking any discussion, neither with me nor on Admins' noticeboard, also there wasn't even an unblock request on Karelj's talk page.

d) The unblock comment was "Groundless block [...] Silencing user who do not agree with you?", which I find libelous obviously false and uncivil, as neither did I ever discuss with Karelj in any sort of disagreement, nor did I vote or otherwise comment in the same FPC nomination whatsoever.

e) Similarly poor was their comment on my talk page ("Please do not block users who do not share the same views as you", etc.).

f) Further discussion on my talk page with Kallerna on this matter turned as useless.

g) Therefore, Kallerna's behaviour should be reviewed in terms of: 1) incivility -- due to false claim of myself blocking a user because of contentual disagreement; and 2) obvious violation of Commons:Blocking policy, in particular: "To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block".

The sysop Kallerna I'm going to notify on this thread.

Thanks --A.Savin 22:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

1 to what A.Savin said. I also find Karelj's refusal to communicate a major red flag – not just for the above but also for "But the image here looks, like from child, who receivd his first photoaparate and learns, how to operate with it". Kallerna should have discussed this beforehand, instead of unilaterally unblocking and making spurious accusations. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I am not going to get involved here, as I am already part of the discussions about incivility on that nomination page. I just wanted to make people aware that Kallerna is one of only 3 people opposing this FPC nomination (which has more than 20 support votes), so when judging the possibility of a conflict on interest one should consider this fact. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
This – thanks for mentioning it, as that too hasn't been mentioned before. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that 1. Karelj's comments are quite rude, if not disrespectful, 2. Kallerna's unblock is out of process. If you don't agree with a block, please discuss it instead wheel warring. Yann (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Yann, thanks for your comments. I have explained my actions in the user talk pages of A.Savin and Karelj. There is also a lot of conversation about the possible rudeness of Karelj in the nom page. I reverted the block due to it being inadequat, as pointed by fellow admistrator Christian Ferrer. —kallerna (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
@Kallerna: Would you also like to explain your possible conflict of interest as mentioned by Kritzolina above? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
@Kallerna: I wouldn't have blocked Karelj at this point, but your hastily unblocking is nevertheless an issue. It sends the wrong message. Yann (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you, I should have contacted another administrator here and let someone else revert the block. However, the user had been wrongfully blocked for two days at that point, so I did not want to wait any longer. —kallerna (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
A showcase example how not to address a complaint about one's own behaviour. --A.Savin 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Kallerna, if you snarkily try to dodge attempting my question (or A.Savin's) by Dec 2, I will start a nomination to desysop you. Sysops need to be held accountable to their actions; not answering questions raised towards you about your potential misuse of tools is a red flag and is unsysop-like behaviour. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I would support that. Kallerna is good photographer, but definitely not good for the sysop team. As a (possibly offtopic) side-note, look at their talk page (the QI promotions). They have uploaded masses of images of contemporary buildings in South Korea where there is no FoP. Many have been deleted already. A sysop should have at least a very basic knowledge what to upload on Commons and what not. Kallerna seems not to have this knowledge. And this arrogancy is the final straw. Thanks --A.Savin 13:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@Kallerna: courtesy ping – 2 days left to answer my/A.Savin's question before I will start a desysop nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
1 day left, Kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've been travelling the last week all over Europe (at the moment at airport) and have not seen these comments. I'm sorry, but I do not know why you have this motivation to de-admin me. All I did was unblocking wrongfully blocked user. You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you. I'm here to contribute to the project, not to discuss with trolls. —kallerna (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@Kallerna Are you calling SHB2000 a troll here? Kritzolina (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Wow, that's some serious baseless accusations right there, Kallerna. "I do not know why you have this motivation to de-admin me" – I want Commons to be a project with sysops that has sysops who know how to use their tools properly. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Currently both sides seems to be rather over provocative. You all should cool down and try not to the escalate situation. -- Zache (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
It would be useful to know exactly how I'm provocative, however at least I didn't insult a long-term contributor and Wikivoyage admin a troll. --A.Savin 14:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
In this case you were from start threatening with consequenses [6], [7]. From that things did go in couple days from mishandled blocking/unblocking to deadmin vote. However, being admin not about competition, but co-operation and i would say that more fruitful course of action would have been just to explain why you gave the block and ask why it was lifted without any threatening. So that there would be understanding between admins why they did what they did. The discussion could have taken so much time that original three days block would have been irrelevant, but it doesn't afaik really matter. If initially blocked user continues bad behaviour there would have been new blocks because that, if not then problem was solved anyway. --Zache (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
"Silencing user who do not agree with you" is clearly disrespectful, uncivil comment, especially given the fact that it's also false. Kallerna, you still didn't response how come that I'm "silencing users". This block log comment should be hidden at the very least. --A.Savin 13:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Could a third admin please hide this comment? Thanks --A.Savin 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done I hid the edit summary. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. --A.Savin 17:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
@A.Savin, Kritzolina, Yann, and Abzeronow: Since it's December 2 and Kallerna did not respond, I started a desysop nomination which can be found at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship). Apologies in advance for any formatting errors (I'm new to this process). Pinging everyone involved in this discussion. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I understand that one may see the edit summary as insensitive, but might it be worth keeping it public for the duration of the de-adminship discussion be worthwhile so that the log can be seen by participants? @A.Savin and Abzeronow: Would either of you have an objection to this sort of thing? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, temporarily unhiding is no problem. --A.Savin 03:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with temporarily unhiding if it is necessary. Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Per request/consent. GMGtalk 01:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I have closed the de-admin request as inadmissible per policy. Commons:Administrators/De-adminship states: "Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal;". From the above discussion I see nothing that can be called consensus. Personal comment: There should no room for uncivilty, there should be more blocks for uncivilty, and such blocks shall not be removed. Supporting a hostile environment should not be seen as acceptable conduct of anybody, especially not of an admin. --Krd 14:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Wow, Commons really lets sysops get away with such misuse of tools – I thought it was pretty clear from this discussion that Kallerna's behaviour was inappropriate. Oh well... --SHB2000 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, we can of course accuse Kallerna of lifting the block and ignoring questions on purpose, but we can hardly accuse anyone here on Commons of not having commented in this thread. --A.Savin 04:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll admit I severely overreacted when I wrote that comment above. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I think A. Savin hit the nail right on the head in the discussion above: «Kallerna is good photographer, but definitely not good for the sysop team.». Well, sure. I mean, Kallerna might also be an excellent driver, a keen model railroader, or a loving spouse — but it doesn’t matter. Being a good photographer is only relevant for Commons in as much as they publish their good photography with a suitable license. It doesn’t follow necessarily that a good photographer would also be a good curator of photographs and other media, let alone a good sysop thereof. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
For the record, I think A. Savin's block was harsh but within bounds of policy as Karelj was being disruptive by their behavior of making disrespectful comments. Kallerna's unblock was totally against policy, sends the wrong message as Yann said above, and I'm also concerned that they show no contrition for the unblock or the lack of communication beforehand. They also have not addressed that their COI in the matter. I also concur with Krd that we cannot support a hostile environment. Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @A.Savin: I would only suggest that the original post needs reworded per COM:NLT. There are many ways we can express our view without using legal terms like libel. GMGtalk 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Having had a bit more time to look into the matter... No, one admin should not reverse another's actions without discussion unless it is egregious misuse of the tools that leaves room for little interpretation, something of the type that you start looking for a Steward for an emergency desysoping. I would expect an acknowledgement of this standard as a bare minimum from Kallerna. Having said that, it's a little on-the-nose to be arguing over incivility and the response from A.Savin is "bla bla", which very much comes off in text as being frustrated and not super keen on discussing the issue on equanimous terms. GMGtalk 22:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

In broader terms: undoing a block is almost never (maybe literally never?) an emergency. Unless I'm missing something, in this case the block (whether justified or not) had one more day to run! Commons can do without any individual contributor, myself included, for a day. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: Since you said you were travelling (see above), I waited before writing this. Hopefully you can answer now.
Do you maintain you position, i.e. that your unblocking of Karelj was justified? Also do you apologize for calling SHB2000 a troll? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
1 GMGtalk 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2 --A.Savin 14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I've been informed privately that Kallerna will be indisposed until at least the end of the holidays. I would suggest that we have a touch of the spirit of the season and recognize that this can be resolved, but that waiting a touch doesn't necessarily constitute a crisis. GMGtalk 20:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    • @GreenMeansGo: that's fine with me if Kallerna is genuinely taking a break; there is nothing emergent here if they are not actively using their admin privileges. When they are back, though, this needs to be on the radar. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jmabel here, there's no rush to this. Hopefully, they will answer questions after they come back from their break. Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
      I agree – a lot of people will be on break in the next 3 weeks, myself included. As long as they answer our questions and apologise to A.Savin, that's good with me. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Agree with Krd that these tactics more look like "ducking away" rather than like real lack of possibility to respond. Nowadays, even when being on travel (as for most regions of the world esp. Europe), you don't have to stay offline all the time. --A.Savin 15:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
        Yeah, very reasonable, especially if there are pending complaints about you and you don't have any arguments left in your defence, except "I don't discuss with trolls". --A.Savin 02:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
        I agree. I'm only a little sympathetic because often I don't have internet access while travelling and plan these months beforehand, but I want a definitive date from Kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
        But Kallerna, could you give us a rough date of when you will be back? --SHB2000 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
        • @SHB2000: Given that Kallerna literally hasn't edited any WMF project since 3 December, it is very unlikely that they will even see your question until they are back. Certainly they are doing no harm while absent. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
As this seems to take indeed longer, I'm adding a 30 day archive blocker in code here -> (). Best regards --Schlurcher (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
On enwiki it's sometimes labeled "ANI flu". DMacks (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I laughed my ass off when I read that article (and found w:Wikipedia:Oops Defence). SHB2000 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Counterpart

Hi everyone, it seems that my answer is needed here. First of all, I want to apologize everyone involved this waste of time - this is not the way we should spend time on Commons. I also apologize SHB2000 for my choice of words, I should have not called you a troll. I however still wonder your motives to use so much energy on this matter: I suggest focusing on more positive and constructive matters.

So to the case here. Karelj made a controversial comment, and he was blocked by A.Savin. Not everybody thought the comment was evil [8]. I unblocked Karelj after two days of block, and did it without discussing about the matter or asking someone else to do the unblocking. This was obviously a mistake. However, some users agreed on lifting the block and Karelj did only beneficial contributions to Commons while unblocked.

Then I guess we are in the actual start of the problems discussed here. I told A.Savin that I lifted the block, and got quite rude replies (and also removal of comments). I did not want to waste everyones time, and I was passive. This was another mistake.

I see it rather odd that most participants here see controversial block with rude comments less harmful to the project than unblocking active editor. And I also want to emphasize that I do not agree with Karelj on most matters - I only reverted the block because I thought it was inadequate. And like said I should have not done it without discussing about it first. —kallerna (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No satisfactory statement for me. The fact that this "waste of time" (which is actually true) had to be gone through we owe only you, Kallerna.
And I also want to emphasize that I do not agree with Karelj on most matters... Let me reveal a secret -- I *do* agree with Karelj on most matters (at least on FPC), I just don't find it okay at all the way he writes it down, including shallow and often disrespectful comments, poor English, etc. So, here we go again: how did the block have anything to do with disagreement, as you noted in the unblock comment? Kallerna, may I finally have an answer please? --A.Savin 14:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I see, that was also incorrect assumption by me, I'm sorry. The comment was unnecessary. —kallerna (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Hm, I am a bit confused by what you think is rude and what is acceptable on Commons, Kallerna. On a scale of 1 to 10 - how rude was A.Savin's reply to you after lifting the block? And how would you place Karelj's comment that led to the block on that scale? Kritzolina (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Both are low on your scale, and either of those comments is worth of blocking the user. It is also noteworthy that the photographer herself was not offended, but the professionally offended around. The reason why I mention the coarseness of A.Savin is purely due to the fact he blocked another user due rude comments. —kallerna (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@Kallerna: I cannot even guess what "the professionally offended around" means. - Jmabel ! talk 06:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, I undestand it in this context like this: Other people in the community, those who are more sensitive or vigilant about offensive content, took issue with the comments. -- Zache (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
And where do you see a comment like "professionally offended" on this scale? I actually would love to hear numbers ... Kritzolina (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I also don't see any satisfactory statement. You explicitly pointed out that you were not personally involved, but you are also not an admin who is generally active in blocking or unblocking users. What was your business in removing this block, overriding the rationale of an admin who is generally active in blocking or unblocking users? --Krd 09:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Blocking an active user should not be made without discussion. Default position should be unblock, not block? Generally I find it again odd that blocking an active user without discussion is ok, but unblocking is not. You are correct that I am not a active admin, but I have done my share of blocking vandals in other projects. —kallerna (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Krd. --A.Savin 15:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
1 to A.Savin. At least thank you for the apology, kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
If you were wondering why I'm spending so much time on this issue – well, that's because I want Commons to be a place where admins actually use their tools properly; not a place where admins get a snarky layer of protection for wheel-warring. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears there is no more feedback, so it's time to conclude? --Krd 15:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like this thread isn't going anywhere. Killarnee (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Krd and Killarnee: It looks to me like immediately below there is a pretty strong consensus that we should have a discussion on possible deadminship for User:Kallerna. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree. Krd 20:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, anyway 14 support 3 oppose votes would be a successful result if this were an RfA, so despite weak participation we can assume consensus. Pinging SHB2000 and Jeff G. As said, I would support desysop although this is kind of a borderline case to me -- which is the reason that this time I wouldn't like to start such a desysop procedure myself -- however only Kallerna and no one else we owe the fact that this actually pretty minor issue had to come as far; so yes, after that half-hearted apologies I still stand by my opinion that Kallerna is a miscast as a Commons admin. Actually, it would be WAY better if Kallerna would spare us the timewaste and resign voluntarily. Thanks --A.Savin 22:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
So, are we good to make the second de-adminship discussion? --SHB2000 (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
As stated above, I'd support. --A.Savin 13:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Reading between the lines of special:diff/838734061, a Admin should close the following section so someone may start the second de-adminship discussion. I am hesitant to even close the following section because I opened it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the desysop procedure should be started first, and then subsequently this ANU thread be closed; similarly as in the 1989 case. --A.Savin 15:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@A.Savin: So what is stopping you from starting the second de-adminship discussion?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to make the second as I flopped the first. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Deadminship for User:Kallerna

  •  Support. This subsection should clearly show Bureaucrats whether or not there is a consensus because Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship) was deemed "inadmissible".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Had Kallerna written in this statement sth. like "I've been travelling the last week all over Europe, no time to read this discusion, but meanwhile I see that it was my mistake, I shouldn't have unblocked Karelj without discussion, and it is also not true what I said that A.Savin wanted to be silencing a user who disagreed with him, I'm sorry for that", then we could have closed the whole thread straightaway and move on, but seeing what they actually wrote... No way. --A.Savin 16:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Defending uncivil behaviour by being uncivil and overriding normal procedures on the way is not what I expect from an admin. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support as the nominator of the now-invalid thread; what Kritzolina and A.Savin mentioned. Thanks for starting this subsection, Jeff G.! --SHB2000 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not as extreme as A.Savin, but Karelj shouldn't have been unblocked without discussion, and Karelj hasn't even seemed to hear that the edit comment was as much of a problem as the unblock.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support not to discuss with trolls ... ouch Killarnee (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Neutral on de-adminship, but in favor of starting a formal process to discuss it. It doesn't worry me as much that Kallerna did the wrong thing in the first place as that the way they've handled this (including apparently not understanding that non-admins are allowed to participate in this page, and calling another user a "troll" for doing so). If Kallerna believes this was fine on their part, then that's a problem. If they understand at this point that they blew this -- in more than one respect -- then maybe they are liable to grow into the job. - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose GMGtalk 17:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do not believe this isolated incident rises to the level of a desysop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
    At least an acknowledgement from Kallerna would be good, but no, they've yet to acknowledge why their actions were problematic. Had they done so, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. 1989 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment terrible unblock on the basis of both procedure and what I'd call a degree of involvement (karel and kallerna having more or less the same style of participation at fpc, and this being about fpc participation), but to the extent this is about that one unblock I'd say this should be closed with an unequivocal warning. I'd prefer to see a pattern or at least another example of bad judgment with tool use to support here. Stopping short of opposing though, as I think it's reasonable to say "we should have a deadminship conversation" which is all this section is deciding. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
    Right, "we should have a deadminship conversation".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment What Jmabel said. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per OP and Jmabel. --Daniele Fisichella 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Jalapeño (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Schlurcher (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC) . The following quote shows are huge misunderstanding of Commons policies: You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you. (the part before the comma should be irrelevant)
  •  Support Their only block log entry is the one under discussion here, which has a taste on it's own. The attitude shown above, plus ducking away, holiday season or not. --Krd 08:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Schlurcher. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I agree with Jmabel above. I'm not there yet as far as thinking Kallerna should be de-sysopped, but the de-adminship conversation should be allowed to move forward. Abzeronow (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I have been reading this entire conversation for the last one hour and I could not find a "fair acknowledgement" without ifs and buts. KoH makes a sensible statement that this is kind of a rare incident but as SHB2000 has noted a clear acknowledgment from Kallerna is missing, plus per Krd. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I didn't originally think it justified action outside of a slap on the wrist, if even. But if Killarnee supports it themselves then I don't really see any reason not to take the tools away. Plus as others have pointed out it's not like they have acknowledged the issue. It's weird how unwilling admins are to admit they made a mistake sometimes. Totally a self-own. So whatever. Just take the tools away and be done with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
    Me? Killarnee (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Killarnee: It appears @Adamant1's mistake. Kallerna and Killarnee are too closely sounding names. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, I meant Kallerna. My bad. I struck that part of my comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support despite Kallerna's comment above. Yann (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I can understand that A.Savin's block for Karelj's comment in the FPC nomination appeared harsh. Probably few admins would have blocked here. Still, the comment was disrespectful and I understand the desire to enforce a more civil communication within the FPC nominations. Few admins ever went ahead to enforce civility in FPC nominations. As Karelj had been warned before, this did not come entirely unexpected. It should be noted that A.Savin was not involved in the discussion of this FPC nomination but kallerna was with a comment that was at least as disrespectful as that of Karelj. The subsequent unblock came without discussion despite being involved in the discussion of the FPC nomination. Remarkably, this is the very only sysadmin action by Kallerna blocking or unblocking any user since becoming an admin in 2009. In the unblock comment Kallerna asks Silencing user who do not agree with you? while giving much reason to question their own motives behind the unblock. All this could be a singular event during a long tenure as admin. Then, however, we need a clear path forward which allows us to hope that this remains singular. Comments like I'm here to contribute to the project, not to discuss with trolls are not helpful in this regard. Eventually, Kallerna apologizes for it but not without recommending to focus on more positive and constructive matters while finding it rather odd that most participants here see controversial block with rude comments less harmful to the project than unblocking active editor. I do not find this convincing as it appears half-hearted and comes without any statements regarding a future approach to resolve such conflicts. I think a regular process where we see whether Kallerna has still the trust of our community as admin is warranted. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that the block was unnecessary, and that A. Savin was uncivil, but neither is the issue here. Cheers, Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support An admin getting de-admin for admin abuse?...if only there were people with balls on that other project.....and they call us the inferior project..--Stemoc 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm closing this thread, as Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship 2) has now been started. --A.Savin 01:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Lets document here too that the result of the vote was: keep admin status. --Zache (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I will also add my observation from the voting page that based on the voting comments blocking Karelj with rationale repeated very disrespectful comments at FPC recently was incorrect. Some of Karelj's voting comments were loosely written, but nothing written by Karelj in 2023 qualifies to be described as very disrespectful. In this case, instead of blocking the user should have been explained what exactly is wrong with comments so much that the admin thinks the writing style needs to be changed. (ie. Explaining how a comment was disrespectful ) Because there were no warnings and the block was given for actions which doesn't seeminly warrant it, I think removing the block was the right action, even though there were problems in unblock process. I just wanted to write this down as much of this section discussion was against Kallerna's actions and response seemed to be based on the assumption that the initial block was uncontroversial. (though there were other well argumented reasons too) --Zache (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Zache Isn't this already breaking m:UCOC?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not able follow what you mean? (ie. I know UCOC, but could you explain where this referes) --Zache (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Closed Let's not beat a dead horse please. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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


Erreur de localisation d’un site photographié

Bonjour, ma requête concerne le manoir de Cléhunault, qui se situe sur la commune de Saint-Martin des prés, et une photo mise sur Wikipedia le localise à Lanrivain. D’autre part la photo est déja ancienne, et le manoir est mieux mis en valeur actuellement. La photo et surtout la publication ont été faites sans autorisation des propriétaires (mon mari et moi). Les informations qui accompagnent cette photo sont fausses. Ce manoir est inscrit ISMH et sa chapelle est classée. Nous sommes ouverts à la visite gratuitement, et j’informe les visiteurs que les photos ne sont pas autorisées. L’erreur, publiée, quant à la localisation, nous fait du tort. je vous avais déjà contacté à ce sujet et vous n’avez malheureusement rien fait. Il est triste de voir que vous puissiez publier de telles erreurs, sans aucun contrôle préalable, et sans en tenir compte lorsque l’on vous informe des erreurs grossières de vos publications. Je peux contribuer à vos publications, mais à condition que ce qui est faux soit retiré. Ma contribution peut être des photos récentes, et surtout l’historique de ce manoir, les dates, horaires et conditions d’ouverture aux visites, ainsi qu’éventuellement des événements particuliers. LOUVEARGENT (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour,
Comme vous ne le mentionnez pas, je suppose que ce sont les photos de Category:Manoir de Cléhunault. J'ai corrigé les articles dans Wikipédia, j'ai renommé les photos, et corrigé leur description. L'erreur vient apparemment de la confusion entre la commune de Lanrivain et un hameau du même nom dans la commune de Saint-Martin-des-Prés. Vous pouvez ajouter des informations dans fr:Saint-Martin-des-Prés. Vous êtes bienvenus pour importer vos propres photos. N'hésitez pas à me demander si vous avez des questions. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Sintela

Sintela (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has uploaded multiple files without permission; a couple I've nominated for speedy deletion as copyright violation, and the rest I've nominated for semi-speedy deletion as "no permission." I dream of horses (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Suyash Kumar Singh

User:Suyash Kumar Singh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is a single purpose account on Commons and enwiki whose only edits have been promoting themselves on their user page and uploading personal images. Despite their user pages being speedy deleted several times, they continue to recreate it. I've now blocked them on enwiki as NOTHERE. Could a Commons admin take appropriate action here please? Voice of Clam 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeed, indef. Yann (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

DarkWorld305

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Flower1004

Flower1004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistently uploading copyrighted image and falsely claiming at "own work" and also falsely licensing as under CC. Also re-uploading same image that was flagged for CSD to circumvent. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done All their uploads were done at the same time. Gave them a final warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

神手阿丁

神手阿丁 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  sockpuppet of Nipponese Dog Calvero, blocked on enwiki. DefenderTienMinh07 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User:BHO8964

For some reason they insists on requesting the renaming of this file, despite having been denied three times and reverted one. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely and deleted multiple empty categories. Taivo (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

IlMarcheseDelGrillo

IlMarcheseDelGrillo (talk · contributions · Statistics) is, per metadata of uploaded pictures and their crosswiki activity, a sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. Not it was created a day after Pamphili (talk · contributions · Statistics) was created. Block and tag advised. A09 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

DiGeozalyan

DiGeozalyan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues uploading clear copyvios after the last warning from Marcus Cyron last December. Günther Frager (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Copyvio is deleted. Taivo (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

LDH8964

LDH8964 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

See § User:BHO8964 above and [9], clear sockpuppetry going on here. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 12:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Who is the master account? Yann (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: I'd assume it's User:BHO8964. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Actually it is from Category:Sockpuppets of Nipponese Dog Calvero. Yann (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

7-cm Mr Chung from Hong Kong

7-cm Mr Chung from Hong Kong (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Highly disruptive en:WP:SPA created only to vandalize. Nominated several featured picture to deletion with only to disrupt Commons. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This user should be indef. blocked and all their edits should be reverted. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Due to its nature, the DR should also be deleted. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
This is also clearly a sock and an attack account. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Prototyperspective and "AI Art Application and Improvements Handbook" on Wikibooks

I am noticing a pattern in DRs and I'm not sure if it warrants admin action or not. If it does, it shouldn't be by me, as I am active in many of these and related DRs.

The pattern is: an AI-created image is nominated for deletion as being out of scope, then Prototyperspective (talk · contribs) adds it to "AI Art Application and Improvements Handbook" on Wikibooks, and then someone notes in the DR that the file is COM:INUSE.

Bluntly, the only thing any of the images on that Wikibooks page have in common is that they came up in DRs, and I am unconvinced that the page is anything other than an attempt to game COM:INUSE.

Looking to get others' opinions on this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: That looks fishy to me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: are you saying The Squirrel Conspiracy's characterization of this looks fishy, or Prototyperspective's conduct? - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: The described conduct.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
If that is an accurate description, then that is certainly not OK. I'd like to see that backed up by diffs, though, so that we don't each have to go searching for evidence ourselves. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Convenience link: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AI_Art_Application_and_Improvements_Handbook - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I can explain it to you and I've been open about it:
  • that handbook is not a priority to me but when I see DRs I a) sometimes see the relevant AI images and think about how they could be useful in the context of the DR and b) may find spending some time to expand the wikibook worth my time.
  • Nothing at INUSE suggest that would be "gaming it" and if it is I didn't know but I'd then suggest this is made clear there, that page also says "realistically useful for an educational purpose" where the wikibook makes the application and realistic educational usefulness clear.
  • If you don't consider the uses in that book "INUSE" then you can always just ignore them which is already done. While I don't think deleting AI images even when clear usefulness cases have been clarified and remain unrefuted is within bounds of current WMC policy even if they were not used anywhere, if you agree that it would be then I guess it is.
  • Moreover, the book is new and so new images are added as I come across them now, I haven't substantially changed it again for quite a while. And for the Roman Kubanskiy images, those were some of the very few available for illustrating a section and I added all the good-quality images for that application to its section, not just these.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: : Sorry, here are the diffs:

Worth noting that when the Giovanna IV images were deleted, Prototyperspective put the redlinks back in the book, calling it "unwarranted censorship deletions".

I think that all of this taken together paints a pretty clear picture of why the wikibook exists and how it's being misused. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've voiced similar concerns. Nearly every image in that book is, or was at some point, the subject of a deletion discussion on Commons, and it's not because someone's been going through the book to pick images to nominate for deletion, and it certainly isn't just a weird coincidence either. COM:INUSE is meant to prevent the deletion of images which projects are legitimately using, not as a way to "game" deletion discussions on Commons. See also Commons talk:Project scope#Outdated (does not reflect current admin practices): policy amendment for in-scope exceptions. Omphalographer (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Nearly every image in that book is, or was at some point, the subject of a deletion discussion on Commons Very false.
I added images based on their relevance and quality so all of them should be high-quality for the described application. I wonder though why people complain about it here rather than replacing the image with a better one if there is one. In any case, current policy hasn't made clear that INUSE only applies to files that were INUSE before the DR but whether or not that is the case doesn't matter to my freedom to use images as I see fit. If you'd like to restrict this freedom then please add a note like Images that are currently subject of deletion discussions are not allowed to be used in any other Wikimedia project. If they are used there they should be replaced by other users and are not legitimately in use. That would be something to discuss at the policy page. I apologize if my edits to the wikibook I started are considered problematic. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I share the Squirrel's concerns about misuse of Wikibooks, and overall advocacy of out-of-scope AI-generated images when they were told many times that such images are not welcome here. Yann (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  • It's not a "misuse of Wikibooks", you and e.g. Squirrel just don't consider the file-uses in it legitimate which is fine to people.
  • Out-of-scope images made using AI software should be deleted.
  • The deletion requests – which usually nominated large numbers of different files at once – and village pump discussions that I think you're referring to had some people arguing for usefulness and use-cases of AI software in the context of images as well as some against such; there is no policy that says that images made using this novel technology are generally not welcome here but it's certainly the impression I get which may or may not be a problem or a good thing for a good future of WMC. I don't indiscriminately explain specific usefulness cases for images in deletion requests but only those where I can see a realistic educational value (e.g. for few images of a long list of files nominated at once) and voted for deletion in many occasions, while Squirrel wrote here and here Due to both the copyright and ethical concerns, I am always in favor of deleting AI art, especially when we have any non-AI generated images that don't have those concerns.. Again, if you don't see this Wikibook's file-uses or uses of files during DRs as legitimate then users have clarified that ignoring them is fine.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with complaining about someone's advocacy in an actively discussed issue. I could appreciate him being less voluminous, but he's discussing on a live discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Either way, the constant, personal badgering and tirades about it really to stop. It's certainly not a collaborative way to participate in discussions. Same goes for the walls of text with multiple bullet points. @Prototyperspective: please just make your point next time, leave out the personal comments when you do it, and move on. Everyone knows what your opinion about AI artwork being hosted on Commons is at this point. We don't need it screamed in our faces every there's a DR for AI artwork. Also, stop bludgeoning discussions by responding to everyone who disagrees with you. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I never made a personal attack. I think you made several against me if you refer to ad hominem. I would see a point about replying too often if it was coming from somebody else but you are just as much replying as me and most of my comments are replies to you, often to correct misinterpretations or twisting of what I said earlier. I noted that I only ever saw you vote delete and the quote above is quite explicit in admitting this even when not considering your comments in regards to AI images in general. I was trying to reduce my volume but I think I'm allowed to make a few arguments when some of my images are to be deleted without even a deletion rationale explanation and unaddressed explicit clear usefulness cases being clarified.
Again, I'm trying to and already did reduce my volume but you are posting as much if not more than me in regards to this subject. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I never made a personal attack "The user seems to be fed up with AI images", "The user is opposed to AI images", "that it can be useful is enough of a reason to not ban it based on your unsubstantiated assumptions and quite clear anti AI bias", just to name a few of the many examples out there. I'm not the subject of the deletion requests and I've also repeatedly told you that I'm bias toward AI or artwork. Yet your still repeating that I am and in discussions where my personal opinions about it aren't even relevant. So yes you are and have been personally attacking me.
Also, in DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated science fiction you made a main point along with adding 9 bullet points that added absolutely nothing to the discussion outside of just being a needless wall of text. Just write a paragraph or two with your main points and leave it at that. There's no need to flood the DR with multiple bullet points. It's just extra noise that comes off like bad faithed Gish galloping. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This is not a personal attack but may be relevant to the DR so I mentioned it to provide context. It can be relevant that you only ever voted for delete on the many AI-related DRs you participated in and object to AI images on WMC in general. Can be not is. In contrast, you made several ad hominems against me such as Your probably one of those people who think Bitcoin is going to replace fiat currency any second now to aren't you? Lmao. to name just one. With comments like these I hope it's a bit clear how my volume is hard to make smaller since usually you keep making another reply to which at least a brief response seems needed. No, I've not personally attacked you. All of these point made there pertain to the subject and elaborate specific ways specific images can be useful see COM:EDUSE. You nominate a very large number of images at once so I made a brief text for each. I also asked for why a user who voted delete considers the file "OOS" (out of scope) which I thought was due if more than headcounts matter in DRs. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
It would be relevant to the DR if I had a history of spurious, bias DRs related to AI artwork. I don't though and I've told you multiple times I'm not bias towards AI artwork. So your claims about my position in regards to it is patently false and intentionally so. It's not "providing context" or relevant to a DR to go off about how the nominator has a position that they've told you multiple times they don't have. All your doing is poisoning the well for other voters by mischaracterizing my position when you know I'm not bias towards AI or AI generated images. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Telling is different than actively demonstrating; your indiscriminate mass-nominations appear to show a strong bias in how you treat AI works even if you deny you have one or even think you don’t have one. You also have a tendency to make condescending remarks towards people you disagree with and bludgeon discussions at least as much as Prototyperspective, as seen in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated cyberpunk. Personally I think you both need to dial back here and stop using deletion as a sparring ground on this obviously controversial topic. Dronebogus (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
There's plenty of other DRs besides the one you linked to where people vote delete or say something I disagree with and I don't respond to them. So your claim that I have a tendency to make condescending remarks towards people I disagree with or bludgeon discussions at least as much as Prototyperspective is patently false. I have zero problem responding to people in a DR if they are just going to attack me or otherwise make false comments about the deletion request though. And that's all I was doing. Whereas both you and have made plenty of condescending remarks and bludgeoned discussions when no one even said anything about or to either one of you. At least when I respond it's to address something the person said about me and I'm asking for them to clarify things. Whereas your just whining about how everyone is out to get AI or some dumb nonsense like that. Regardless, if you don't want me to respond so much, cool. Stop attacking me by lying about how I'm bias towards AI artwork when I've told both of you multiple times now that's not my position and I wouldn't need to. Otherwise, I'm going to correct you. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Prototyperspective seems a great fan of AI images and thinks many of them are within project scope when many other users think they are not. That much is no problem; different perspective and opinions are why we have discussions. However on deletion requests Prototyperspective sometimes seems to have trouble assuming good faith from others who disagree with them, accusing them of being "obsessed" or "biased". Repeatedly on DR when I have voted that something is Out Of Scope, they challenge me to explain what I mean by that (the first time I did so) and argue that my stating something is OOS does not make it so (technically correct, but that's why we have more than one person looking at things to make determinations). I think I should note that Prototyperspective *does* sometimes vote for deletion of AI images, especially when they are bad quality. Now to the initial topic: Yes, adding images listed for deletion to somewhere on Wikimedia so they would be "in use" and thus thwarting the deletion request does seem to me to very much fit the definition of Gaming the system. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
    I get constant bad faith allegations and even ad hominems against me of which I quote d an example above, yet I'm being accused of mentioning in a brief way that people who call for deletion of AI images a) only ever voted delete in AI-related DRs b) quite explicitly back calls to have all AI images not be allowed into WMC regardless whether or not they would be in scope otherwise c) quite explicitly admit this in these discussions and with quotes like Due to both the copyright and ethical concerns, I am always in favor of deleting AI art, especially when we have any non-AI generated images that don't have those concerns. How would this not be a bias in regards to whether an AI image is within scope or not? It doesn't mean your vote isn't relevant, just that you seem to be against all current AI images to begin with. At the same time there are attempts to silence me. I always ever made points that are arguments that pertain to the subject manner and are clear relevant specific arguments; for example I don't write OOS fantasy illustration as a full explanation for why something is outside scope since that is not an explanation. If you still think I was making a comment there that was not in good faith please also link to it so the context and full text can be read. I noticed how people nominated like 100 AI images at once and have done so for a while now, "obsessed" may not be the right word and I apologize if I had chosen wrong wording of what I meant to briefly communicate. In contrast to the people complaining about me here – I very often vote, always with explantory rationales – for the deletion for AI images. Again, I can use images that are in DRs elsewhere and that is not gaming the system and there is no policy whatsoever that would restrict my freedom to use them elsewhere; as said you can just ignore these uses since you don't find them legitimate; people have already said that ignoring these uses would be fine since these uses are not legitimate. It's quite astonishing how much people complain about when they're doing arguably worse things like just calling things fan art when they clearly aren't or starting mass nominations of 50 or so images at once dismissing arguments in advance right from the start as handwaving or accusing me of various ad hominem things. I do see how I should change for example my volume while nothing of that sort has ever come from Infrogmation or Squirrel who wrote the above quote. Basically every AI-related DR has at least to gather at least 3 keep votes since that is roughly the number of delete votes they always, no matter how educationally valuable and high-quality, they seem to get, often without any discernible explanation. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
    Would it be correct to say that you consider putting AI images up for deletion into use as an appropriate tactic to counter what you consider a bias against AI images on Commons? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
    No, and I never said that. Also I just removed a further image from the Wikibook.
    Relevant concerning the word bias that I used: Bias against AI art can enhance perceptions of human creativity […] We find that people devalue art labeled as AI-made across a variety of dimensions, even when they report it is indistinguishable from human-made art, and even when they believe it was produced collaboratively with a human. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
    Certainly there's findings from research papers that people in general devalue artwork if it's labeled as made by AI. But you weren't citing those papers in deletion requests when you brought up bias and the comments where you said it were aimed at specific users. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
    (Just an FYI to the last comment I left, which I reverted. Apparently I misread the conversation between Prototyperspective and the user who removed the image. My apologies to @Prototyperspective: ). --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Gasforth-2021

Gasforth-2021 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload copyvio multiple image. メイド理世 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@メイド理世: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. I also gave them a final warning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
ok メイド理世 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. One week block. I deleted speedily one file and nominated one for regular deletion as likely copyvio. Taivo (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Utkarsh555

Utkarsh555 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploads non-free files Kelly The Angel (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kelly The Angel: hasn't yet been given a proper warning, and you didn't notify them you were posting about them on this noticeboard. You might start there, which does not require action by an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The phrase "Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing" (bold in original) appeared thirteen times (!!!) on Utkarsh555's talk page before they blanked it and has subsequently been added three additional times. How is that improper ("hasn't yet been given a proper warning") warning? Эlcobbola talk 20:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
This is also a sock of Utkarsh Pandey (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Yann (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
ahh, they are apparently great at blanking. ─ The Aafī (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Utkarsh Pandey/Archive. ─ The Aafī (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I reblocked this account indef. for socking. They already have a collection on Commons. Yann (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

David S. Soriano

User was blocked twice last year for uploading out of scope personal artwork (initially hundreds which were deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI images created by David S. Soriano).

They have uploaded more out of scope personal artwork since that second block expired in August. Belbury (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: Can previous verdicts on their digital/AI work being out of scope be applied to delete their uploads here, or should I raise another DR to discuss them? None of the images are in use. Belbury (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
They should be deleted, but a regular DR may be best anyway. Yann (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Jesse Daniel Brown

Jesse Daniel Brown (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has a long history of self-promotion and uploading of personal pictures. They were indef. blocked in the en.WP for self-promotion. Here, they uploaded several personal out of scope pictures that were deleted. That didn't stop them, and they uploaded several others. They were warned twice. Today, they used their user page and their talk page for self-promotion. This is a typical case of en:WP:NOTTHERE. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 16:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kacamata: I have deleted their userpage and indeffed them. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd have not issued an indef block if they were not previously blocked on en-wiki. This is reasonable. Causing disruptions despite being warned and blocked elsewhere, of course, an indef-block is warranted. Thanks for the report. I'd let the images run procedurally. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi Thanks. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 18:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

177.76.209.102

Hi, This IP made many edits today, and the days before. Among the few edits I checked, I reverted 3 as inadequate. So I blocked the IP for 3 days. I don't have the time to review more edits now. Help needed. Yann (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Putting Special:Contributions/177.76.209.102 here for convenience. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Nordin Aghzenay Bakouh

Nordin Aghzenay Bakouh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  All photos uploaded by this user in the Category:Larbi Messari comes from Youtube but I am not sure they are copyright free. Could an Administrator verify them, especially because numerous uploads from this user have been deleted for the same reason according to his talk page and he seems to have reloaded some under different names such as "CONDOLENCIAS MUHAMMAD VI.png" which was deleted under « File:CARTA MONARCA MUHAMMAD VI DANDO LAS CONDOLENCIAS POR LA MUETRE DE MLM.png ». Pierre cb (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Last warning sent, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nordin Aghzenay Bakouh‎. Yann (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Raid5

Raid5 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

The user “Raid5” is constantly “pinging” (spamming) my account with alerts. (See a screenshot.)

Of the 25 (twenty-five) last alerts, 25 are caused by “Raid5”. This kind of attention seeking is unpleasant and compulsive, and most of those are merely repetitive nitpicking. The user seems to me to think this as a game or as a social media, like Instagram, where you “follow” certain users and comment on everything they do. Unfortunartely that feels like persecution or cyberbullying (cf. Griefing).

If I am indeed thoroughly so evil and wretch’d, why is it up to this one user, Raid5, to keep calling it?

This user is very quick to comment and modify anything I do here. For instance, when I uploaded the screenshot, it took less than 2 hours for the user to comment it on my talk page in a foreign language (in a condescending tone) and to make a pointless revision, merely in order to seek attention.

I would guess the quality of my contributions here is neither better nor worse than that of most other users in the community. However, that user has been targeting me for a long period of time, as it feels to me, with the intention to drive away an experienced user.

Another problem have been vexatious complaints about missing “essential information” (one example) and unfounded deletion requests (one example).

There are other uploaders who care less about templates and typography and source information than I do, but I seem to be the only one who is constantly scolded and alerted by “Raid5.”

Yet another issue are removals of relevant categories, like this one and this one, which I do not understand.

Please prevent this user from alerting me constantly (especially in edit summaries — it’s rather pointless). Most of those demands are irrelevant or matters of taste, or more general issues which many contributors could equally be blamed for, and which could well be attended to tacitly. I have noted the user’s demands, but constant harrassment does not recommend them. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mlang.Finn: Hi, and welcome. In Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo, I see a "Muted users" section. You might want to use that. Help is at mw:Help:Notifications#mute.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I doubt muting would meet the need here. I don't think Mlang.Finn would be happier to simply go without hearing about it as someone removed categories from their uploads that they considered correct, and nominated their uploads for deletion on arguable grounds. - Jmabel ! talk 02:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mlang.Finn: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=840025890&oldid=839970674&title=File:Delegation-for-Kekkonen-1973.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ETYK-Finland-delegation-1975.jpg&diff=840026320&oldid=839966990 (the examples of removal of categories) are arguably correct, unless you are saying that Urho Kekkonen is not a Finnish politician. I take it you wanted the category there because of other politicians in the photo. This particular issue of COM:OVERCAT is controversial. I'd probably have (in Raid5's place) left the category there or (in yours) restored it, and in either case would have added a comment that it refers to other politicians in the photo.
I've looked a bit at the other diffs and images here; I can't imagine a major sanction here. To be honest, the single most egregious thing I see here is one of your edit summaries ([10] beginning "CAN YOU READ?" (caps in original). I can understand why you may have been frustrated, but this doesn't look like a one-sided issue to me.
I'm aware I could give this more study, but I'm hoping to hear from an admin who has been more involved over time.
If you'd both agree to an interaction ban (stay away from each other's uploads) I'd be fine with that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Poistin kategorian, ettei Urho Kekkonen olisi ollut yhtä aikaa pää- ja alaluokassa. Kumosin muokkaukseni, koska kuvassa oli myös muita poliitikkoja.
Mlang.Finniltä on usein poistettu muokkausoikeus suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa häiriköivän muokkaustyylin, muokkaussotimisen, henkilökohtaisten hyökkäysten ja eston kiertämisen takia (Mlang.Finnin estoloki). Hän puolustelee sivistymätöntä käytöstään pitkällä kokemuksellaan Wikipediassa (Pohdintaa, Unblockables: ”How long they have been on Wikipedia, often stated more nobly as "length of service," will usually be in the mix. This may seem odd as we expect our long-term users to understand policy better than the newbies who would have been blocked for the same offense, but somehow this makes sense to some users.”). ”Muokkaajat, joilla ei ole riittäviä sosiaalisia taitoja saattavat aiheuttaa häiriötä. Vaikka häiriköinti ei olisikaan tahallista, se on silti haitallista Wikipedialle.” Suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa usea muokkaaja on puuttunut hänen huonoon toimintaansa.
Muiden käyttäjien neuvonnasta huolimatta Commonsissa ei ole kiinnitetty tarpeeksi huomiota hänen edelleen jatkuvaan vaivihkaiseen muokkaamiseen: hän muuttaa https-osoitteita http-muotoon ilman perustelua, poistelee pakonomaisesti otsikoita (Lähteen ilmoittaminen). Hänelle on vaikeata keskustella ja toimia yhteistyössä muiden kanssa. Commonsissa Mlang.Finn on syyllistynyt henkilökohtaisiin hyökkäyksiin esittämällä vakavia syytöksiä ilman todisteita, nimittelemällä minua toistuvasti naiseksi, pilkkaamalla käyttäjätunnukseni merkitystä, syyttämällä sukkanukkeilusta, vaikka häntä huomautettiin lukuisia kertoja. (Toisten käyttäjien syyttely, Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg, Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg).
”Another problem have been --- and unfounded deletion requests (one example).” – Category:Undelete in 2083, Tallentamasi kuvien linkit luokassa Undelete in 2083.
”comment it on my talk page in a foreign language” – User:Mlang.Finn ”I’m a scholar from Finland.” • Käyttäjä:Mlang.Finn ”Tämän käyttäjän äidinkieli on suomi.”
Pyydän, että ylläpito puuttuisi hänen projektille vahingolliseen toimintaansa ja huonoon käytökseensä. raid5 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't read Finnish at all; the following is via Google Translate. - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)I removed the category, so that Urho Kekkonen would not have been in the main and lower category at the same time. I reversed my edit because there were also other politicians in the picture.
Mlang.Finn's editing rights have often been removed on the Finnish Wikipedia due to disruptive editing style, editing wars, personal attacks and evading the block (Mlang.Finn's block log). He defends his uncivilized behavior with his long experience on Wikipedia (Reflection, Unblockables: "How long they have been on Wikipedia, often stated more nobly as "length of service," will usually be in the mix. This may seem Odd as we expect our long-term users to understand policy better than the newbies who would have been blocked for the same offense, but Somehow this makes sense to some users."). "Editors who don't have enough social skills can cause a disturbance. Even if the interference is not intentional, it is still harmful to Wikipedia.” In the Finnish Wikipedia, several editors have intervened in his bad actions.
Despite the advice of other users, not enough attention has been paid in Commons to his still continuous stealthy editing: he changes https addresses to http format without justification, compulsively deletes headers (Attribution). It is difficult for him to discuss and cooperate with others. In Commons, Mlang.Finn has committed personal attacks by making serious accusations without evidence, repeatedly calling me a woman, mocking the meaning of my username, accusing me of sock puppetry despite being pointed out numerous times. (Blaming other users, Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg, Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg).
"Another problem have been --- and unfounded deletion requests (one example)." – Category:Undelete in 2083, Links to your saved images in the category Undelete in 2083.
"comment it on my talk page in a foreign language" - User:Mlang.Finn "I'm a Scholar from Finland." • User:Mlang.Finn "This user's native language is Finnish."
I ask that maintenance intervene in his project-damaging activities and bad behavior. raid5 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
END TRANSLATION - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kallerna: as the only Finnish-speaking Commons admin, perhaps you can do better here than anyone else. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

To me it seems quite obvious that user raid5 is not the problem, it is the other way. If bad behavior continues, Mlang.Finn should be blocked for a short period of time. —kallerna (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Os1040

Os1040 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is another sock of Oscareduardo10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . They uploaded File:Oscareduardo10 Logo.png. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_109#Socks_of_IvanRamonTrillos for more context. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 22:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. File deleted, and protected against recreation. Yann (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I'd been leaving it unprotected so I can spot the new socks, lol. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

2405:201:6014:ca::/64

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Elie Mulenda

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files already nominated. Yann (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Jjsgood35

Jjsgood35 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  keeps uploading copyvio or unsourced photos even after being warned. All remaining photos should be checked by administrator. Pierre cb (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jjsgood35‎. Yann (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

sock user

டாக்டர் வா.செ.செல்வம் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has a sock தென்னை மருத்துவர் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and good to delete both users' uploads. Both are blocked in ta.wiki. I report for admin intervention. AntanO 14:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Master account warned, both files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
unblock my ip address and protect my account for future deletion. I need to publish this article தென்னை மருத்துவர் it's very important to know future generation in agriculture தென்னை மருத்துவர் (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Sure. @தென்னை மருத்துவர்: Since you don't understand, I also blocked your other account for one week. Please read COM:SCOPE. It will be longer next time. Yann (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Person 18.0

@Person_18.0 keeps tagging a picture of a menorah with a star of David on it as a Zionist symbol. See latest here. This user has been blocked before for inappropriately applying this template, as well as similar ones about China and Russia. Just as they have edit-warred over marking every single image of the letter Z as a symbol of Russian aggression, they are marking every random picture of a Jewish star as a Zionist symbol. Zanahary (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

More diffs: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Zanahary (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Uploads by Bigguy637

I have some concerns regarding some uploads from a user, User:Bigguy637. I reached out to them last night with a message on their talk page, regarding their incorrect use of the 'own work' for author/source, but I'm unsure how to discuss and advise on the use of the correct content license; as they've also been using "self|cc-zero" (The Creative Commons 0, with that extra "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it..." box around it.), which wouldn't be correct as they're all safety symbols, from years old design standards and legal acts, that aren't their own work, per Commons:Own work.

I also have some concerns that some of their uploads are not-free works and prohibited on the Commons. I've nominated a batch for deletion here Commons:Deletion requests/Portal 2 Safety Signs that I'm very confident on, but someone who has a better understanding of copyright, threshold of originality, etc might need to take a look. The Navigators (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

RZuo

User RZuo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has appeared to have continually used their rollback rights on reverting edits that are not vandalism or clear mistakes by other users recently [37], violating the COM:RBK policy limiting the use of rollback to combating vandalism [...] own mistaken edits or the clearly mistaken edits of another user. It should only be used for clear-cut cases, and without any explanation or edit summary. Since the user has been repeatedly blocked for incivil behaviour across multiple sites, I am unwilling to engage in further arguments with the user, and thus directly reporting this case to ANU for third-party review. LuciferianThomas 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@LuciferianThomas: "repeatedly" and a link to all of their contributions is basically saying "go work it out for yourself". Please link at least three examples of what you consider to be inappropriate rollbacks by RZuo. - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
All reverts since mid January. None of those are reverting vandalism or clear mistakes. LuciferianThomas 05:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Please provide diffs. Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
And remember, not every revert is a rollback. The " vandalism or clear mistakes" applies to the rollback tool, not to all reversions. - Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Please do note that the extra link I have provided has filtered their contribution with mw-rollback, which are definitely revert edits using the rollback tool. If you had even looked even one more second on the link I provided, you would have noticed that.
Diffs from the recent two weeks:
  • 842266448: Reverting Shizhao's notifications for another user on the other user's talk page without valid reason. Even if images are kept in deletion discussions, the notifications for deletion are still not "clearly vandalism", and as sent according to procedural requirements and thus not "clear mistakes".
  • 844337427: Reverting Jeff G.'s category move from a category requested for deletion by creator to a category with same function without reason. While they did notice their mistakes, it still shows their lack of thought before using the revert tool, reverting non-vandalism and non-mistake edits.
  • 845355575: Reverting my reasoned removal of the category move request, again without reasoning or further discussion. Again, non-vandalism and non-mistake edits.
From further down the history lane:
  • 762341849 (May 2023): Reverting Yrellag's removal of categories on a file, while on RZuo's next edit removing most categories that Yrellag removed again. Whilst RZuo did warn Yrellag's removal as vandalism, but if they basically repeat the edit that they reverted, then the reverted edit is clearly not just vandalism or a clear mistake.
The above show a clear pattern of failure to assume good faith, or to identify non-vandalism from vandalism. LuciferianThomas 02:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@LuciferianThomas: I think you are reading way too much into this. It looks like RZuo is a too quick to use the rollback tool rather than revert by other means, but none of this looks to me like big deal.
@RZuo: I believe LuciferianThomas is correct on one thing here: you should not use the rollback tool except for vandalism & blatant errors. Otherwise, you should revert the same way someone would if they didn't have this too (and a decent edit summary is usually in order). Probably calls for being more careful.
[to all]: but it certainly doesn't call for an administrative sanction. - 06:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)
Considering that the user has been partially blocked across multiple sites recently due to aggressive behaviour against other users (enwiki, zhwiki, yuewiki), there is no way that one can possibly believe that the user would even try to communicate about their actions. Per COM:RBK, Users misusing the rollback tool to revert constructive edits may have their rollback permission revoked. The same applies for its use for edit warring or content disputes. It is only reasonable to believe that they will not communicate about their use of their rollback rights, or even have a high probability in bringing their uncivilised behaviour on the other sites that blocked them to here on Commons if questioned upon. It is just impossible to assume good faith on a user who has already been known to cause trouble across sites. --LuciferianThomas 12:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Thesazh

Thesazh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload non-free movie poster. メイド理世 (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. Some copyvios are already deleted and I'll delete them more. Taivo (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

User:NewEraEducationDelhi

NewEraEducationDelhi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload advertising file. メイド理世 (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely, partly due to inappropriate username. Taivo (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Olivenza

For many years (almost a decade, you can check here) the Tm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) user has monopolized the category of the Spanish municipality of Olivenza, dominating what appears and what does not appear. He has turned it into a personal whim, where no one else can edit differently.

Up to five users (@Jl FilpoC: , @Discasto: , @Lopezsuarez: , @J.M.Domingo: and myself) have opposed their criteria in the last years, and Tm simply incurs massive rollbacks. Given that we are facing a with a situation that has been repeated for years, which is sabotage, I ask that an administrator intervene and put an end to this anomaly. CFA1877 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

When you bring up an issue to ANU, you are supposed to notify the user of this. I took the liberty of doing so since you did not. As Tm has said, Olivenza is disputed territory that is claimed by both Portugal and Spain, and de facto part of Spain. Having that noted in the category page is useful for historical context. Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You forget to mention that one user reverted edits like your in 2007, another user and administratir added in 2008 one of the categories that you are trying to surpress, and that the same administrator protected the page in 2009 for similar edits (that repeated itself in 2010, and reverted by 3 other users besides me). That in 2013 another reversion by an administrator of edits similar to yours
That in 2015 the present categories were added by another user and there have been there since then.
You also forget to mention that almost all (or all?) the users you say are deleted these categories are spanish and that there are zero portugueses that readded those categories besides me.
You also forget to mention that you are attempting to delete any mention of it territorial dispute
You also know perfectly well that this was previously discussed here in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_103#Tm_and_his_edits_concerning_files_related_to_Olivenza and there was no objections by any administrator to them. also this edits, as present, were not added by me but other user in 2015 and have been here since then. Tm (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: , the user Tm considers the category as their private property, regardless of the historical issue, it is a much worse thing. Only what he likes to appear...appears. Constantly revert any changes made by other users. That's not normal. CFA1877 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you provide diffs where Tm says he owns the category? If changes by other users amount to trying to revert any mention of a territorial dispute, I can see why Tm would so. Abzeronow (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: For example, Tm introduces redundant categories. It insists on introducing the category [[Category:Disputed territories]], when at the same time there are the categories [[Category:Territorial disputes of Spain]] and [[Category:Territorial disputes of Portugal]]...which are already part of [[Category:Disputed territories]]. Seriously? Where is the problem in not being redundant?
Then, there is an entry in the category that comes from the time when Wikidata did not exist. I consider that it is not necessary now, since Wikidata exists. I have observed that in many categories these types of entries have been eliminated for this reason that I point out. But if he doesn't agree, I'm willing to listen to his arguments. However. Tm should argue it and not just revert everything massively, as he has done for a decade with everything. CFA1877 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You claim that i "insists on introducing the category Category:Disputed territories, when at the same time there are the categories Category:Territorial disputes of Spain and Category:Territorial disputes of Portugal. Curious then that that i removed it, after you explained it for the first time as i said after you decided to talk i said that i removed it "as grandparent of Territorial disputes of Portugal and Territorial disputes of Spain". Tm (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
@CFA1877: If you keep doing reverts like https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Olivenza&diff=847599274&oldid=847599184, I will have to fully protect the category page until this comes to a resolution. Abzeronow (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Abzeronow: Explain that to Tm, who cannot wait for the end of this discussion and feels the need to make adhoc changes. I am willing to give in, but it would be nice if Tm facilitated the environment. CFA1877 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, I did check the page history, and the message wasn't there in 2022 with what appears to be the last stable version. So that revert does appear to be fine. Although Former Munipalities of Portugal and Alentejo categories should be put back in since those were essentially there in 2022. @Tm: Abzeronow (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I can answer for that. There no word of me claiming i own this category (or any other). i was falsely accused by another user of being a portuguese irredentist ("cannot use Commons as a platform to promote or spread your political views (irredentism or any other kind).", just because i said to this same user (not CFA1877) that "Portugal and Spain claim this territory as being theirs De Jure and no ammounts of whining will change that" and "There is a territorial dispute between Portugal and Spain, so those categories are proper. Portugal and Spain have its reasons to claim said territory so "let's get stuck to reality, the not fantasy" that you pretend that this dispute does not exist." Tm (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Olivenza&diff=prev&oldid=847582579 You also forgot (or did not see as this was made about 30 minutes ago) that you also blyndly reverted my changed the Category:Municipalities in Portugal and added Category:Former mmnicipalities in Portugal as i explained that "as the facto there is no portuguese municipality power since 1801, albeit Portugal still claim this municipality as being protuguese De Jure".
Also, in case you do not know, the fact is that there is a low key but activeterritorial dispute, as is it not a coincidence that there are no boundary stones between boundary stones 802 and 899, south of the de facto border south of Badajoz and west of Olivença. And these are facts, not fantasies, as the portuguese Army Geospatial Information Center is one of the organizations of the portuguese state responsible to mark and keep the border marker stones. Tm (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You also said in your talkpage that "Not to mention the (unrealistic) political view you have on this subject. Olivença ceased to be Portuguese territory more than two centuries ago, but you insist on maintaining the status of a Portuguese municipality and making it part of Alentejo." ("Olivença deixou de ser território português há mais de dois séculos, mas faz questão de manter o estatuto de município portugués e de fazerlo parte do Alentejo."). But you are completly wrong, when the simple lack of border markings west of Olivença just proves that there is an territorial dispute about the De Jure status of Olivença. Tm (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Tm, I think it's a miracle. A decade of lack of dialogue with other users...have been magically transformed into a flow of words. For that reason alone I think it's worth it. But now, tell me: are you going to change the way you act with other users in this category? Are you going to stop considering yourself the guardian-owner of the category? Are you going to stop monopolizing the category? I would appreciate a cordial response. Thanks in advance. CFA1877 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Just last year this was discussed in my and other users talkpages and in here (as linked above), so claiming that i had "decade of lack of dialogue with other users" is clearly wrong. And since 2007 several other users and administrators have reverted deletions like yours, so that fact alone proves who is what. Tm (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Let me remind you: you have had no dialogue. You have only reminded other users that you are in possession of the absolute truth. In a rather unpleasant way, too. If you had avoided that procedure, we probably wouldn't be here now. CFA1877 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, Tm, it sounds like you're willing to make changes. It seems that we will be able to reach a consensus. Would you mind explaining why there are "controversial" subcategories that you maintain? I would like to know, with a proper explanation. Also on the entrance. CFA1877 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
My explanations are all above, in my talkpage (as linked here), and in the previous discussions in here (as linked above). It were edits like yours that were reverted several other users since and was you that tried to revert edits that were in this category since 2015. Tm (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You claim that a text is redundant but should also know who added the first text about this dispute (hint, it was not me but J.M.Domingo) Tm (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake but it was also not J.M.Domingo who added the first text, but Lopezsuarez. Sorry for the confusion as both are users you called above. Tm (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
So, you have no problem with that. In that case, and with the changes you have already made, I think the issue can be closed. CFA1877 (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
For your information. I moved that text (a sightly compacted version) to the Wikidata item about olivença. Saludos. Tm (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
In good faith i informed you that i moved the deleted text to Wikidata, as it was a npov description, as you claimed it was redundant, as you said above "Then, there is an entry in the category that comes from the time when Wikidata did not exist. I consider that it is not necessary now, since Wikidata exists".
But now, in what i can only describe as an act of bad faith by your part, you started reverting my moves and, not happy in doing it, you are now accusing me of a political agenda as you said that "Wikidata is not a platform for political purposes". Tm (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a wikidata issue, not a wikimedia commons issue. But before making spurious accusations, I would like to point out that you have used this issue from Commons to break a consensus that you reached with @Lopezsuarez: in Wikidata a few years ago. Stop causing troubles everywhere you can. CFA1877 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You say that i have "break a consensus that you reached with @Lopezsuarez: in Wikidata a few years ago", yet i, as far as i can see, i never arrived at a consensus with him in anything in wikidata, as i can only find two interactions with Lopezsuarez
1 - This of an related subject but not about the core of this discussion in here
2 - And the fact that i merely reverted his deletion of any reference to the territorial dispute, as not not even the spanish official flag and the coat of arms he would stop from vandalizing by removing them) Tm (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
@Minorax: since this dispute is also on Wikidata now. Abzeronow (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand now, reading this discussion on your wikidata usertalkpage that you have the habit of using the accusation of "political purposes" on others.
Or are you going to deny that you accused another wikidata user added that the asturian (a regional language in spain) description of "categoría de Wikimedia" to around 500 similar items and you reverted those addictions by making the claim that those addicttions were made for "political purposes"? But you reverting all of them is not an "political purposes" as you justify that with "Empty editions, Wikidata is not a platform for political purposes. Return to the previous stable version"? Understood in that you stand. Tm (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Tm, you have no shame. You are spuriously mixing matters unrelated to this cause, just to spread the filth. I'm very kind to the immoral attitude you have. But no matter how much crap you bounce around, it doesn't take away the problems you've had with other users for years related to this issue. CFA1877 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You accused me of having a political agenda and so it is important to mention that you tend make this kind of claims (like you did just yesterday as i pointed in the asturian situation. Tm (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
And now, after i informed him, as i should, of W:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Report_concerning_user:CFA1877_2 opened by me, he reverted my text with accusations of "Trolling, Wiki-hounding". Tm (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with the problem that CFA1877 exposes. The user Tm tries to give an unreal image of Olivenza's situation. It is just another municipality in Spain, and the fact that Portugal does not recognize it does not make it a disputed territory. Portugal demands absolutely nothing, and Spain has been Portugal's main partner for a long time. Olivenza's category should adjust to reality. Lopezsuarez (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You claim that "Portugal demands absolutely nothing" yet the border is not marked between the border stone markers 802 and 899, precisely west of Olivença. Also the portuguese state gave the spanish state the reports about the lands that would be flooded by the construction of the Alqueva Dam and named that report "in the spanish state and territory of Olivença". These are facts, not what you say.
You also claim that "Portugal does not recognize it does not make it a disputed territory" is itself contradictory, as the Portugal only land borders are with Spain. Tm (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
And i never arrived at a consensus with you in anything in wikidata, contrary to what is claim. I merely reverted your deletion of any reference to the territorial dispute, as not not even the spanish official flag and the coat of arms you can stop from vandalizing by removing them) Tm (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Reading the English Wikipedia about this issue (which I've never heard before), Olivenza clearly IS a disputed territory, so Lopezsuarez' message above is plain wrong. You cannot expect to solve a dispute by spreading such lies. Yann (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Clearly?! I don't know what appears on Wikipedia in English, but it is based on real events. The reality is that in Olivenza there is absolutely no conflict. It is an administrative issue, in any case, and Portugal does not demand the sovereignty of Olivenza, they simply do not recognize Spanish sovereignty over that municipality. Spain and Portugal are friendly and partner countries, there is no diplomatic, military, or social tension. Lopezsuarez (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if it is a language issue, but "[Portugal does] not recognize Spanish sovereignty over that municipality" is exactly the definition of a territorial dispute. Yann (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
As Yann says, there is clearly a territorial dispute. Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Poppodoms

Poppodoms (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload copyvio image from Huawei. メイド理世 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User:T-Series7

T-Series7 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload multiple copyvio files. メイド理世 (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

now user talk page has vandalism. メイド理世 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, revoked talk page access. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI: So many socks

I have requested Check user at meta and found many socks. A few of them already uploaded some images that were deleted and again uploaded here. Rest of the images are clear copyvio.

Group 1

SwamyAyya566 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , AryaPadaiKadanthaAurelius (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , DonParlo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , كريشنا الداعي (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Group 2

17289ha (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Tamil career advise (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , சூர்யநாராயணன் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , 1gy9No (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Edu-info-goodwriting (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Btytatg (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

I hope admins can take proper action. AntanO 14:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@AntanO: it is not clear exactly what action you are requesting. Deletion of all uploads by these accounts as copyvios, or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Usually, we have to tag for deletion. Is it possible to delete copyvios images that already deleted, and uploaded again by 17289ha (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Also, screen capture images found at Btytatg (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and AryaPadaiKadanthaAurelius (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  also uploaded copyvios. In addition, is it possible to block these IDs due to copyvios and socks that found at Meta? AntanO 05:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Every copyvivo in meta is deleted. I just learnt that these should be uploaded in wikipidea, as non-free images with appropriate tags, logo, etc. And that 2 svg images are not copyvivo as code is modified (more than 50%). Others can be deleted. Sorry

17289ha (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand exactly what is being requested here. If some other admin understands, would you please say so here and take this on? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: This appears to be a request for blocks and upload reviews here on Commons. The checkuser page on meta implicated locked account Tyih, so I created m:srg#Global lock for socks of Tyih.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Shaiksadikace2king

Shaiksadikace2king (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload advertising file. メイド理世 (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Taivo. Yann (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, uploaded lots of spam, they got deleted with warning, uploaded the same spam again. Taivo (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete Silsilah Kiagus Muh.Saleh.jpg

Please delete image Silsilah Kiagus Muh.Saleh.jpg, because his lineage has been corrected by lineage expert Kyai Saleh Lateng, Updated image article File:Silsilah_Kyai_Saleh_Lateng.png Kiagus Syarkawi (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  1. File:Silsilah Kyai Saleh Lateng.png is illegible to the point of being useless.
  2. If you want to nominate an image for deletion, please start a normal deletion request.
  3. You might consider using {{Fact disputed}} on the file page if you believe a file is factually wrong.
  4. There is no administrative issue here, and certainly not a problem with some user's behavior, which is what this page is for. - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Socks and personal image : FYI

வா செ செல்வம் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Dr V S Selvam (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , டாக்டர் வா.செ.செல்வம் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , தென்னை மருத்துவர் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , டாக்டர் வா.செ.செல்வம் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Sathish1110 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

I have blocked the above IDs in ta.wiki, and I see some of them are blocked here. Can admin delete these users' uploads under F10 and/or G10. Just a file remains here. AntanO 09:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Il Nur

Il Nur (talk · contribs) removes deletion templates from their non-sourced derivatives. Quick1984 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Quick1984

Quick1984 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  выставляет мои работы на удаление, хотя я их делал сам, у меня есть карта России, откуда я вырезаю нужные регионы. Также он выставляет на удаление файли из ЖЖ, где автор разрешал их загружать в Викисклад и там у него свободная лицензия https://acer120.livejournal.com/168185.html. Прошу заблокировать данного Вандала. --Il Nur (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

he puts my works up for deletion, although I did them myself, I have a map of Russia, from where I cut out the necessary regions. He also exposes files from LiveJournal for deletion, where the author allowed them to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and there he has a free license https://acer120.livejournal.com/168185.html. Please block this Vandal--Il Nur (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Il Nur, At first, watch your tongue. Secondly, what do you mean saying ‘I have a map of Russia’? Are you it’s author or copyright holder? Try reading COM:DW. --Quick1984 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Да, у меня есть карта России, сделанная в ручную. Если карту России нельзя загружать, тогда выставляй на удаление все карты по России (Category:Maps of ethnic groups in Russia), всех авторов. И всех стран. (Yes, I have a map of Russia made by hand. If the map of Russia cannot be uploaded, then put all maps of Russia up for deletion) Il Nur (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Il Nur:
  1. Unless a deletion template came from a vandalism-only account, or something of the sort (clearly not the case here) you should not be removing it unilaterally. You may turn it into a full DR to start a discussion. If you continue to remove these unilaterally you will be blocked. And similarly for calling a user a "vandal" who clearly is not.
  2. "у меня есть карта России" is very vague. "Have" as in you drew it from scratch by hand, or what? Any map is to some extent based on prior maps. If the maps it derived from were copyrighted, there may be a problem here. It really helps to start from outline maps etc. that are clearly in the public domain of have clear rights. Is your master map available in some form online (even without a general license to reuse that master map?
Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Нет, моя основная карта не в интернете. Даже в этой категории Category:Maps of ethnic groups in Russia, много карт нарисованные на основе других карт, почему они тогда не выставляются на удаление? Il Nur (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Чем мои карты отличаются от этой и других карт? File:Mari people in Mari El by settlements.svg Il Nur (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think it is correct, you can delete all the files. I don't have any extra time or desire to do this. I think this participant is just chasing me and several other participants from Tatarstan, and most likely this new participant, judging by the manner of speech of User:RedBull1984. Who, in different Wikimedia projects and in different language sections under different nicknames, investigates and conflicts with Tatarstan participants, promoting pro-Russian imperial sentiments. I have no other explanations for the electability of nominating only one participant to remove similar works. Although there are full maps of regions on Wikimedia Commons, even downloaded from the works of acer120.--Il Nur (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Diniyar Khasanov

Diniyar Khasanov (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Continuous unfounded accusations of vandalism [38] [39] , despite explanations received from the administrator Jmabel: [40]. Quick1984 (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Do not pretend that you are conducting this activity with good intentions. Diniyar Khasanov (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done? One week block. Taivo (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Czarnybog

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    • What do You mean by "continued uploading" and "final warning"? I uploaded it only once after it was deleted and I don't recall any "final warning". From what I understood, deleted image didn't explain permission to use properly so I uploaded again with better licence template. I couldn't participate in deletion discussion since it was deleted expressly. I'm sorry, I understand from the "Please do not recreate deleted content" note in my discussion that appeared after I re-uploaded that I should have used "Undeletion requests" instead. I understand my mistake but please don't claim that I am some kind of recidivist. --Czarnybog (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
      • What Jeff meant by "final warning" was the warning that A1Cafel put on your talk page in 2021. I think enough time has passed between that and this incident (which I did promptly send a warning about when it was brought to my attention) that I think the new warning suffices for now. But I'd welcome input from an uninvolved party. Abzeronow (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
      @Czarnybog: You have five notices of copyright infringement (plus DR notices) on your user talk page. Which part of special:diff/575851014 and the warning you got when attempting upload did you not understand? Also, the DR ran for almost three months.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
      • A1Cafel is a person that at that time has been found to be abusing their authority and was banned from any sort of deletion procedure. We had whole discussion about it here - Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 93#A1Cafel_and_yet_more_abusive_deletions - and there is even my explanation in mentioned discussion. I was accused for copyright infringement and warned after I cropped images that were on Wikimedia for a long time and only later have been found to be in violation of copyright. I was basically paying for someone else's mistakes and I shouldn't have got that warning and there is community consensus about it approved by administrator. Don't tell me now that I'm still paying for A1Cafel's random deletion spree in 2021. One thing Jeff is right about. The deletion request about image re-uploaded by me was hanging there for 5 months, sorry, I got confused. Still, I don't understand why Jeff mentioned I have Deletion Request notices on my Talk page. How is that an argument for putting me on noticeboard? It's a common procedure and all of us got such notices. Even Jeff, I checked. --Czarnybog (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 Not done. Technically this is really uploading copyvio after last warning, which generally brings a block. Nevertheless I forgive Czarnybog the last time and will explain in his talkpage the situation. Taivo (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Jonathan el Yoni arenas

Jonathan el Yoni arenas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Hello All,

I am writing because the user @Jonathan el Yoni arenas: is still uploading material, he is not the author without authorization, even after all his wrongly attributed pictures are once again deleted [41]. Would it be possible to help with the situation, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
pour quelle raison faite vous cela ? Jonathan el Yoni arenas (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
To protect Commons and French Wikipedia.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Boryviterixvi

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

Uploaded files with Copyright status. Микола Василечко (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. @Микола Василечко: You should inform users when you report them here. Yann (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please see File_talk:Terminologiaondo.jpg and the file page’s history. I could reinstate the removed categorization and incurr in edit warring myself, or I could come here and report

for edit warring. Flipped a coin. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Or Tuválkin could have started a new discussion about the category in question (or can still do so), what my advice was, since (s)he apparently did not agree with the outcome of Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Terminology. Since there was no such new discussion in over a month, I went on implementing these outcomes. JopkeB (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Could somebody kindly deal with the IP making death threats on my talk page, and also trying to hack my account? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done, @Ritchie333, an administrator blocked the IPs. I hide the revisions which include their threats. Best wishes. Kadı Message 18:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Xoere

Xoere (talk · contribs) has uploaded several flags and other insignia and claimed them to be their "own work". This isn't accurate, so should some of these files be deleted? Kk.urban (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

However, it is possible that they created some of them themself. Kk.urban (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kk.urban: you seem to have made no effort to resolve this with the user yourself, nor did you notify them on their talk page that you posted this here (I'll do that). - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel Correct, I made no effort to resolve it with the user myself, because I thought it didn't really matter what the user thought about the topic, I was just asking if some of these images could be deleted. Kk.urban (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Most of these are probably fine (certainly an SVG accurately representing a 19th-century flag cannot be a problem, for example). I suspect these are "own work" in the sense that the user created SVGs from scratch, but in some cases (e.g. File:Flag of keller.svg) these may be derivative of copyrighted works. Certainly not an administrative issue, though some of these probably should be nominated for deletion. Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Kursant504

Hello,
I strongly suspect that the user Kursant504 lacks neutrality in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
This Russian user requests, in the majority of his contributions, the removal of images. However, all these images have one thing in common: they all have an informative character about the war in Ukraine and most are part of the Ukrainian public domain.
Some were taken by a member of the Ukrainian army and are, in my opinion, correctly labeled as such at the level of Ukrainian copyright.
Some have been placed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license by their author on the original media and are correctly labeled as such on Commons.
I have not had time to check all his deletion requests, but I think they should all be replaced at most by the {{license review}} template or simply refused.
What should one do when suspecting such an abuse?
Thank you for your response.
Christian28TMA (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

"I have not had time to check all his deletion requests, but I think they should all be replaced ... or simply refused." it sounds like a very reasonable request...Kursant504 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
You don't have to eat a whole egg to know it's bad. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that many pro-Ukraine Wikimedians agree that many of the photos are copyright violations, such as User:Abzeronow. My living in Russia is utterly irrelavent. If a photo has a label as being free because it was allegedly posted on a particular website, but the photo is not anywhere on said website, then it is proper to nominate it for deletion. If there is a contradiction in the license labels with one source saying commercial use is prohibited and another says it is free, it is fine to have a deletion discussion. If my Ukrainian photo deletion nominations are anti-Ukrainian, then my Russian photo deletion nominations are anti-Russian. We should all agree regardless of political affiliation that copyrighted works are bad for Commons because it deceives people about the copyright status of a photo. I would also like to note that a different editor demanded I get a very harsh block for deletion nominations that admins agreed were absolutely perfect and were eventually deleted (I wrongly assumed that I would not need to spoon-feed other editors an explanations of why colorizations are DWs - that means derivative works). Here are some examples of Russian copyright violations that I nominated for deletion using equally valid arguments as my ones on Ukrainian photos:
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R80329,_Josef_Stalin.jpg
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Анна_Ивановна_Щетинина.jpg
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Maguba_Syrtlanova_awards_(2022-03-01)_02.jpg
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Brujas_de_la_Noche.jpg
my, as you will say, "anti-Russian" DRs of poster with russian's army hero Commons:Deletion requests/File:A-davydov.jpg
and russian military photos Commons:Deletion requests/Fotos taken not from Mil.ru
and an "anti-French" one too Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Roger_sauvage_pilote_04959.jpg Kursant504 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 Comment A visit to the user page of Kursant504 on the Russian version of Wikipedia is very informative about his motivations regarding the war in Ukraine: he was blocked for contribution paid after numerous edit wars aimed at removing information about the war in Ukraine : User Kursant504
Christian28TMA (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
So what? You think that Ukrainians are either incapable of violating copyright, or are entitled to a special treatment exemption because of the war? Should only ethnic Ukrainians be allowed to nominate Ukrainian photos for deletion? That would be racism. But no, you just want to infest Commons with copyright violations because you want it to be an archive instead of what it is supposed to be - a database of legally FREE photos. You literally lied here and said I only nominate Ukrainian photos for deletion, and yet you have the nerve to comment in my deletion discusion about a photo of Stalin to lecture me on how you think Russian grammar works. You owe me and apology for lying about me, and the entire Russian people for treating us like we a stupid people who don't know how our own language works and do not have the right to write by Russian grammar rules. You have no ground to stand on here, because many pro-Ukraine users agree that I am right about copyright (pun intended) and most of my deletion nominations are successful (and even the unsucessful ones have legitimate evidence of copyright violation). Why don't you go back to pretending that Fyodor Ivanovich Kislov was a German State photographer and pretending that Ukrainian logo watermarks magically evaporate copyright? Kursant504 (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 Comment How do you justify, Kursant504, on the Russian language Wikipedia, the four reminders of Wikipedia’s rules, the nine edit wars, the three blocks, including the last one for paid contribution, all in 20 months, and all concerning the war in Ukraine? Does someone have a grudge against you?
Christian28TMA (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kursant504 and Christian28TMA: I strongly suggest to both of you that if you don't want to be blocked, stop attacking each other's character.
I don't see an administrative issue here at this time.
It is possible that Kursant504 is being more aggressive on copyright issues for Ukraine than he would be elsewhere. That's not actively commendable, but it's not something that calls for a sanction. If he was repeatedly making nominations few of which had merit, that would be a problem, but that doesn't seem to be the case. - Jmabel ! talk 22:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Cumbuco Silva

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Bekbal

Bekbal (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Recent batch of copyvios after long history of warnings and deletions. Quick1984 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done, the user was not warned previously, but considering large number of copyvios and 0 extant uploads I decided to block him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive deletion of content

Szymon Bielecki (talk · contribs) continued to delete information from the documentation of {{Paris transit icons/doc}} without explanation, despite me warning the user not to do that. I wish for assistance as I do not want to risk an edit war by reverting again and then the user doing the same problematic edits. --Minoa (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Minoa: I rolled back those edits and sent the user a standard vandalism warning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you for stepping in. Best, --Minoa (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Minoa: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Anon editor making disruptive DR requests

14.200.225.254 (talk · contribs) has been making a few non-sense DR requests ([42][43][44][45], just to list a few). Their latest one, they seem to show a lack of understanding or just completely trolling. Not only voting on their own nomination but closing a request and also reverting a good-faith editor and admin who removed the closure with a problematic edit summary. Bidgee (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not intending to violate the TOS, I'm just trying to make sure that there are no violations related to files on Commons:Licensing. I'm a humble person who doesn't like any violations on commons 14.200.225.254 23:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The whole reason is because I am making sure that the respective items are complying with their respective licenses correctly.
I'm sorry.
For everything 14.200.225.254 23:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Block, although I think more will be needed in the future.
I think that this is the same Australian IP editor who has been attracting attention lately for some railway-related editing 'against consensus'. Their behaviour on just this one DR has been problematic, especially given that their same incorrect rationale (copyrighted media needs to be deleted from Commons) has been used over a bunch of DRs recently. Even when corrected on these, they keep using it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for one-month. ─ Aafī (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:AK Photography 01

AK Photography 01 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  this new user uploads photos from unknown sources but calling his own work without META data to prove it. I flag them but an administrator should have a look. Pierre cb (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Already warned. I deleted obvious copyvios. @Pierre cb: For other files, it would be better to flag them with "no permission" rather than "no source". Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 Question I'm confused by @AK Photography 01: using file names like File:Bollywood Actress Medha Shankar & BJP Leader Shrey Mallick during the promotion of '𝟏𝟐𝐭𝐡 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐥' movie.jpg. I'm not very familiar with Indian politics, but that person doesn't seem to be the leader of the BJP. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, AK Photography 01 appears to be one of many single-purpose accounts involved in the cross-wiki promotion of two (possibly non-notable?) individuals: Shrey Mallick and Srijan Mallick. Marbletan (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Are we all just going to ignore the situation described above? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Counterfeit Purses

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G. Is this really the right place to be making jokes? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Counterfeit Purses: Not a joke.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. My username does not promote the theft of intellectual property, but let's say it did. Let's say it was "Download movies from the internet" or "IgnoreCopyrightLaws". How would that violate COM:IU? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Counterfeit Purses: People might come to you trying to buy counterfeit purses.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. This is just dumb. Please think before you report people for "user problems" Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I would say that unless there were some evidence that this user's activity here had something to do with counterfeit purses (it doesn't), there is no problem here, any more than there would be a problem with a user name like "Slayer Joe", "Street-fighting man", or "Trespassers W". - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This seems completely frivolous, and akin to saying The Squirrel Conspiracy's name promotes clandestine coordination of harmful acts. No reasonable person would consider this name a call to infringement of trade dress or a solicitation in the absence of corresponding edits/uploads, as is the case here. There's no COM:IU issue. Эlcobbola talk 20:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel@Elcobbola Even though, their discussion on File talk:28码脚型飞机杯（右脚）.jpg together with another user, is not quite good. Lemonaka (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
@Lemonaka What part of that discussion do you have a problem with? Surely the problem is the image of a sex toy made from a cast of a 5-year-old girl's foot? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
^^^^ WARNING: link probably NSFW. - Jmabel ! talk 07:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The whole thing seems pretty unsavory, but I think that is almost inevitable when dealing with such an image. - Jmabel ! talk 07:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Mini moon spherules

Mini moon spherules (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Please block the user preventing from uploading new files. As stated here, they are falsely claiming materials as meteorites and using Commons as a place of advertisement. Thanks! Bencemac (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Bencemac (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bencemac (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Sabil_Khoer_Al_Munawar

User is likely to have uploaded a large number of non-free images. I only spot-checked a few, and most of them turned out not to be his own work. 0x0a (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block and I deleted multiple copyvios. Taivo (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

How and when to move things from one category to a newly started category...

I left a note on User talk:隐世高人#How and when to move things from one category to a newly started category...

This is a phenomenon I come across fairly often... Someone comes across a category with a name they don't like, and decides, without consulting anyone else, to rearrange how the images and subcategories under that category should be rearranged.

So, they then go to each image and each subcategory, in the category, and, one at a time, put them in a new category, with a name they like better.

This results in leaving the old category empty. And empty categories are routinely deleted.

I think this is a problem, because even if, for the sake of argument, the newcomer's categorization scheme totally makes sense, the third party people who may have bookmarked the old category will get a broken link, a 404, when the old category is deleted because it is empty.

I requested User:隐世高人 to place a {{Move}} template on the old category, explaining why they thought it should be moved, or, alternately, initiate a discussion, by clicking on the button labelled "Nominate category for discussion".

I think I left good advice. If other people thought I left bad advice, I'll go back and tell User:隐世高人 my advice was not supported.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If the old category was either valid and correct (but not the same optional form of the name) or it has some long-established 'tradition' to it, such that we might expect there to be live inbound links, then I'd always use a {{Category redirect}}.
Also we're often too quick to delete empty categories, especially when they've only just been emptied by some out-of-process rename. As always, our policy on this is quite good, but it's rarely followed. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: Thanks for writing. I opined at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/02/Category:Coast Guard of Yemen.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Jachympe

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

This user repeatedly nominates images for speedy and regular deletions with spurious reasons, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kvíc (2020).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Josef Sušánek jako člen Dělnické tělocvičné jednoty v roce 1920..jpg. I declined all SDs, and warned this user, but special attention should be given. Yann (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: For File:Kvíc (2020).jpg, I'm confused. Are you saying that User:109.71.213.51 (who recently tagged this for deletion) is known to be the same person as User:Jachympe (the uploader)? - Jmabel ! talk 20:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes. This IP nominated the same images Jachympe did, and which were kept, including the 2 I linked above. Yann (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Top views of Mazda Automobiles

Hello, this new cat got an unfortunate name by me because of spelling:

Category:Top views of Mazda Automobiles

I did not find a delete function at my screen. Could you please remove it or, if you think it's better, put a link to Category:Top views of Mazda automobiles. Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards, Wikisympathisant (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done This not user problem. --Микола Василечко (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I did not find a better place to ask for. Regards, Wikisympathisant (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@Wikisympathisant: for the future, Wwhen you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. Also, you can always start a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion, just follow the directions on that page. But this page is for problems about user conduct, and presumably you weren't trying to report yourself for bad conduct. - Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Bemisztászi Szerkesztőség

Bemisztászi Szerkesztőség (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This users has uploaded numerous thumb size image claiming they are his own but without META. Numerous ones have been deleted so far but it is doubtful the rest is his own work. Furthermore, he just uploaded and AI composite photo of a fictional king that I flagged. All images from this users should be reviewed. Pierre cb (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, and files nominated by The Squirrel Conspiracy: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bemisztászi Szerkesztőség. Yann (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Mr Crazy Dragon

Mr Crazy Dragon appears to be a w:WP:NOTHERE account whose uploads have been personal drawings, derivative works, COM:NETCOPYVIOs and, today, blatantly anti-Semitic attack images File:Free pfp.png ("Glory for Germany; Jews are Idiots; Hail my Führer") and File:Free pfp.jpg ("I will imprison all Jews"). It is difficult to imagine any good faith reason to have uploaded these images. FWIW, user is blocked as vandal on bg.wiki. Эlcobbola talk 19:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Yes, right. Blocked, all files deleted (maps without source and attribution, and his cat). Yann (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Miguel Caamal

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

I wonder whether this guy is notable enough to have his selfies on Commons? Except that, nothing but copyright violations. I feel he uses Wikimedia to promote himself, see d:Q109648610. Yann (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

These should be speedied as per Yann. --Bedivere (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I have also requested the Wikidata item deletion over there. Bedivere (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hamed_officiiali

Hamed officiiali (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) non of these uploads are uploaders own works. All taken from google image or social media such as Instagram or twitter. please delete all files and block user account. thanksLuckie Luke (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged

Incorrect moves categories in religion structures in Ukraine. --Микола Василечко (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This and other editing and categorization must be stopped. This goes beyond reasonable limits. --Микола Василечко (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The user has some wrong editing purpose. User blocked (after en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute) for similar editing in EnWiki. And see here user problem. --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Stop him! --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Микола Василечко: it would help a lot if you would show diffs of some of the specific moves you consider problematic. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The link captioned above as "here user problem" was an unresolved dispute that never arrived at any sanction, or even warning, against anyone. - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The en-wiki link above shows that User:Laurel Lodged is currently on an indef-ban on en-wiki with an opportunity to appeal annually, and permanently topic-banned from editing en-wiki categories. - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
How is the above relevant to this complaint? Those comments should be stricken as prejudicial. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, having been banned from other WMF projects is relevant. No, it is not on its own enough to determine the matter at hand. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Example: user create new category Category:Eastern Orthodox eparchies in Ukraine and copied categories from Category:Eparchies of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and Category:Eparchies of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). What is the meaning? And the editors' war after my explanations. --Микола Василечко (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The meaning is simple: to put all eparchies of the Eastern Orthodox Church that are located in the sovereign territory of Ukraine into a single category. It pairs nicely with a sister category of the Catholic Church called Category:Catholic dioceses in Ukraine. Both are in turn parented to Category:Dioceses in Ukraine. Structures in a state is a parallel categorical tree structure of structures of an organisation, even if many of the oganisation's elements happen to be also located in the same state. There is no conflict. A category can legitimately be a member of both tree structures. Not all eparchies of a (largely national) organisation are limited to the state in which it is based. For example, the Category:Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Saints Peter and Paul is an eparchy that is located in Australia. The UGCC has many such eparchies for Ukrainian diaspora. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Why here Category:Catholic dioceses in Ukraine? Why copy to Category:Eastern Orthodox eparchies in Ukraine from Category:Eparchies of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and Category:Eparchies of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) if add categories Category:Eparchies of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and Category:Eparchies of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)! There is no logic. And contradicts over-categorization. --Микола Василечко (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Your poor English makes it difficult to have a dialog with you. I cannot penetrate what you are attempting to say above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

...

Don't place an item into a category and its parent. For example, a black and white photo of the Eiffel Tower should be placed in Black and white photographs of the Eiffel Tower. It should not be placed in both that category and the Paris category at the same time.
Shortcut
Logic categorization
MetaCat
Parent category		 Categories Subcategories files
Category:Eastern Orthodox eparchies in Ukraine Category:Eparchies of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine
Category:Eparchies of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)		 9 C
51 C and 2 F
User:Laurel Lodged categorization
MetaCat
Parent category		 Categories Subcategories files Subcategories files
Category:Eastern Orthodox eparchies in Ukraine Category:Eparchies of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine
Category:Eparchies of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
62 C and 2 F from Category:Eparchies of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and Category:Eparchies of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)		 9 C
51 C and 2 F

Laurel Lodged So you understand? --Микола Василечко (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

(belated interjected response) @Микола Василечко: I don't understand, and I'm an admin. You have a column here labeled "MetaCat" and nothing in it is a metacat. A MetaCat (you may want to follow that link) would be something like Category:Buildings by former function or Category:Artists by country. What do you mean here by "MetaCat"? - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: (MetaCat Parent category.) Отже, така категоризація правильна? Можна, я так само робитиму? В одну категорію додаватиму і категорії, і підкатегорії, і файли з підкатегорій? (Translation: So, is this categorization correct? Can I do the same? Will I add categories, subcategories, and files from subcategories to one category?). --Микола Василечко (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

...

I think that this matter can be quickly cleared up if the complainant can be induced to honestly answer a simple question: "Is Category:Simferopol-Crimea Eparchy located in Ukraine?". @Jmabel and Микола Василечко: . Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Crimea - is Ukraine! --Микола Василечко (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: , Crimea is generally internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Given the ongoing war, you should locate that category in Ukraine, but you can also include it in Russia since Russia has been occupying Crimea since 2014. Abzeronow (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
(also, Russia claims annexation, even though few countries recognize it, so it is a disputed territory, not just an occupied territory. Since the primary purpose of categories is to help people find things, not to comment on geopolitics, I'd probably -- reluctantly -- put it in both. Putting it "in Ukraine" is clearly mandatory, Russia possibly arguable.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Personally, I sympathize with the Ukrainians but since Russia has claimed annexation of various parts of Ukraine, I reluctantly would agree with it being put in both. Abzeronow (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the eparchy should be categorised as "in Ukraine". However, that undermines the complainant's case since the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (Moscow Patriarchate) has decided that the eparchy is not in Ukraine and so have kindly handed it over to the Russian Orthodox Church proper. So all OCU-MP eparchies are in Ukraine but not all eparchies in Ukraine are of the OCU-MP or even the UOC. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm afraid that it is you @Микола Василечко: who does not understand. If I understand what you're trying to say, rather impolitely I might add, you seem to think that there is a single parent / child relationship involved. This is not the case. Instead, there are two parallel tree structures involved. So an entity may be parented to two parents, even if those parents appear to be similar. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Government Website

Hello everyone. Dear members, my question is; any government website ⏬

https://chooser-beta.creativecommons.org/

⏫If the registration process is completed and the CC0 license is selected at the end, can the images on this site be freely used on Wikicommons and Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance.🙏 Redivy (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Or where does a government site need to register so that the images it contains can be used under a free license on wikicommons and wikipedia? Redivy (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@Redivy: That depends on the timing of the appearance of the announcement of the choice of CC0 waiver on that website and the appearance of the images on that website, and whether the choice is retroactive. However, how is this a user problem?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. This is a question, dear member, because we learn all the details from professional people like you before sending letters to certain institutions. If asked, let us answer. Redivy (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@Redivy: I see. The important thing for Commons users looking to verify licenses or waivers is that the choice of CC0 waiver is either plainly visible on the organization's website or social media, or communicated clearly via VRT (preferably with a carbon copy to you to keep you in the loop) and then a VRT-approved template.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Thank you very much for the information you provided, I will keep you informed if there are any new developments.
Thanks again. Redivy (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Redivy: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

user:Gunakahi is posting child porn

Looking at their uploads is self explanatory (one is called “A 14-Years Old Masturbate And Cum.jpg”). Worse, it’s not just some kid uploading his own dick— this user apparently acquired the image from a minor. Please block this user and if possible report them to the authorities. Dronebogus (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I've notified Legal. @Dronebogus: in the future, per meta:Meta:Child protection policy, it is probably better to notify legal on this than to make such a publicly visible report; the report can have the accidental side effect of helping someone identify and download the material before an admin sees the report and can deal with it. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but I wish there was a giant hotline button for “report gross legal violation” on all Wiwimedia sites. Otherwise I’m not overly sure what to do Dronebogus (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
There is, in fact, something like that, Template:Editnotices/Page/Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, but it's only on the main Admin Noticeboard, not the sub boards. We should probably fix that. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Please report incidents to [email protected].@Dronebogus Lemonaka (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus Hi, you may want to report it to WMF. Lemonaka (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

IP wiping text from category pages

108.16.119.78 (talk · contribs)

Newish editor (December 2023, <500 edits) all of which are to blank all text from category pages, mostly related to car models: e.g. [46] & [47]

Three editors have raised this and reverted, but there's no discussion or explanation for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Dashtshuleeg

Dashtshuleeg (talk · contribs) reiteratedly trolling, creating pointless deletion requests, not here to help. Bedivere (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment This seems to be a confused newbie. Sent 2 warnings. Yann (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
They've continued to make pointless nominations after the warnings Bedivere (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

GokuJuan

GokuJuan (talk · contribs) has just left two long messages with insults that violate the rules of civility (including intimidation demanding unblocking on Wikipedia in Spanish) for the simple fact of having detected some images with a dubious license (including a TV capture). The user is banned from other projects for unacceptable behavior and insults. Taichi (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI: This user is banned only on eswiki for being a sockpuppet (further details not specified). A09 (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@A09: GokuJuan is the master, was blocked as IP and also had a sock. But the main problem is about threats to users. Taichi (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, was warned in August 2023 because he uploaded a lot of copyvios. His responses were confrontational against the administrator who notified him. Shortly after ended up deleting his talk page. Taichi (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I think "insults" and "intimidation" is overstating the matter, but they are ranting rather incoherently, in a way that makes me doubt whether this person could ever be a useful contributor. - Jmabel ! talk 07:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Is someone useful and valuable if he tell you that you have an "illness" without any proof of it? Because that's what it says in the first line of the diff (obviosuly in Spanish). For my part, I am not going to answer this report anymore, I feel that some administrators need to better funnel the reading of insults. Taichi (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

...if you don't help me, I think I'll have to sue Wikipedia and the administraors involved, who are doing terrible psychological damage to someone who doesn't deserve it...

PS: Also legal threats at the end of the diff. No more words. Taichi (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The user attempted to remove the OP above, with an ES that appears to be a legal threat.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
While blocked, GokuJuan named another user on his talkpage a psychopath etc. I blocked him for a month without talkpage access. Taivo (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Emil.arg

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

This user, whose request to get autopatrolled rights on ruwiki has just been refused, has uploaded dozens of works by other people claiming they're his own creations. I nominated a few of them for deletion, and they were promptly deleted. By now I'm convinced that every single file that this user has uploaded infringes copyright. For one thing, the user doesn't know that copyrighted materials cannot be uploaded to Commons, as just yesterday he asked "whether he could re-upload the files with proper licensing". Nearly all of his uploads are from the book Вооружение и тактика кочевников Центральной Азии и Южной Сибири в эпоху позднего Средневековья и раннего Нового времени (XV - первая половина XVIII в.), an electronic version of which is available on VK (a Russian social media website that allows illegal file sharing). I'd say all the uploads of the user should be promptly mass deleted. Nataev talk 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I ask you to give me time to correct my uploaded files. I admit my mistake and will try to correct everything in my power. Since some files are taken from books, they will have to be deleted, but I will try to correct those files that are available on the Internet. Until now, I had little understanding of copyright law, so I ask for your understanding. Emil.arg (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I want to clarify. I admit that according to the rules, some files should be deleted, I am all for it, since this will be a lesson for me in the future. But please also take into account that I have uploaded some files that I took personally (my own photographs and the like), which do not meet the deletion criteria, because they were actually made by me. Therefore, the expression every single is an exaggeration. Emil.arg (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Even if we suppose you personally took the photos of the monuments in Kyrgyzstan, they will have to be deleted anyway as there's no FoP in Kyrgyzstan. You also stole the museum photos from other websites. For instance, this one. All of your uploads are low res and have no EXIF data, meaning they're not orignal files. Take this one. Most likely a scan of a photo by someone else. Thus, I still stand by my earlier statement: every single file that you've uploaded needs to go. Nataev talk 16:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
As I understand it, there is no way to fix at least some of the files? In this case, I will help you delete the files I downloaded. I would like to ask you for advice and point out specific mistakes I made so that I can avoid similar mistakes in the future. Emil.arg (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Stop uploading works by other people. "Files uploaded to Commons should be free both in the country of origin (as defined by the Berne Convention) and in the United States of America, and possibly in other countries involved, either through being properly licensed by the copyright owner or being in the public domain." Also, read the FAQ page to learn about how Commons works. In the meantime, admins will review your contributions and most likely delete them all. Nataev talk 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I drew files with images of tamgas of tribes and states myself. As I understand it, they do not fall under the deletion criteria, since I drew them myself, right? Emil.arg (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean the five png files? They do not seem to meet the threshold of originality and as such could potentially be kept. That said, I'm not convinced that you created them yourself, though. Which software did you use to make them? Nataev talk 17:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
1, 2, 3, 4 — Adobe illustrator c22 (PC). 5, 6 — If I'm not mistaken PicsArt (Phone), I also used various programs to improve the image quality. I took tamgas as a basis from sources available on the Internet. Emil.arg (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 — I personally took photographs when I was in the Minusinsk and Sayanogorsk museums (Russia), there should be no problems here. Emil.arg (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Emil.arg: Then upload original images with EXIF data. Since many of your uploads are copyright violations, how can we trust you unless you upload original images? Yann (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but it feels like you're treating me like I'm a vandal. I have already expressed my deepest apologies for the violations and have myself set some of the files to be deleted. Tomorrow I will go through it again and finally solve this problem if the administration does not have time by this time. I didn't understand the rules and I apologize for that, but in any case there are images that I personally took myself, so it would be unfair to remove them. Such measures, in my opinion, are already too much. I read on the Internet what EXIF is - if I understood the meaning correctly, then I do not have the opportunity to download again from the original device, since I sent them to myself and did it quite a long time ago. It makes no sense for me to deceive you, I highlighted only those that I actually did myself, and I set the rest of the files that violated the rules for deletion (tomorrow I will also go through them, I missed some part). When making a decision, I ask you to take this into account. Emil.arg (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
No one is accusing you of vandalism, but of repeatedly infringing copyright. You can't simply pinky swear you took those photos yourself and expect us to believe, especially in light of the fact that you have uploaded a huge number of works by others as your own. It's as likely that you simply downloaded those photos from Facebook, Odonoklassniki, VK, Telegram, WhatsApp, etc. So, unless you can upload the original files, I doubt any of your works (except for the five simplistic patters in png) will be kept. As for your claim that you "have myself set some of the files to be deleted", it's another lie, as you haven't yet nominated a single file for deletion. Nataev talk 21:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
You are mistaken, I have already nominated some of the files for deletion and they have been deleted. You can verify this here. Emil.arg (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The file was deleted at 00:03, 14 February 2024, so you could've nominated it for deletion any time after I left my comment at 21:39, 13 February 2024. Anyhow, that's not the point. Of the 98 files you uploaded, only 27 have been deleted so far. That number should be nearly, if not exactly, zero.
Meanwhile, after seeing this comment, I wonder if a ban is in order. You simply don't seem to understand, nor does it seem that you want to. Nataev talk 03:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I set the files to be deleted when I first wrote about this, you can ask the administrator Yann about this. I told you that I only set part of it to be deleted, so today I’ll do that too. Emil.arg (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Is the F1 suitable for quick deletion? Emil.arg (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Emil.arg, just writing "F1" isn't sufficient, as other users like Túrelio might not fully understand the reason. When nominating a file for deletion, it's best to explain why. You can simply indicate the source using the code {{Copyvio |1= |source=WEBSITE OR BOOK (WITH A PAGE NUMBER) WHERE THE ORIGINAL FILE COMES FROM}}. For instance, see this edit. At least, leave a link to this very discussion. Nataev talk 18:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyhow, seeing that no action has been taken, I've created a mass deletion request. Nataev talk

User:N.K.BALA

N.K.BALA (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is uploading thumb images, likely from websites, and many of them have been previously deleted for copyvio. This user should be banned and all his uploads deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done No recent uploads, but last warning sent, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by N.K.BALA‎. Yann (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

new account

please block Hamed Mirani Media (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  this account belong to Hamed officiiali (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and delete both uploads Luckie Luke (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Obvious sock, file deleted. Yann (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Marium Alberto

Marium Alberto (talk · contribs), after one year of block for repeatedly uploading copyvios, has reiteratedly returned to their past behavior that led to their previous blocks. Several files in the last few days and weeks have been deleted as copyvios. I think a sanction is deserving given their relentless, unapologetic behavior. Bedivere (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Four blocks were enough. See also their abuse filter log.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked indef. However, until now, we have accepted FoP for Spain, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/File:JoseAtaresMonumento 1.1.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Casef 147 faking sources and license reviews

Casef 147 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has a long history of copyvios, but for their most recent edits, they seem to be trying to mislead other users with inaccurate sourcing and marking their own uploads as reviewed:

Seems like the user is unable or unwilling to properly source and license images. I thought the history of copyvios was a competence issue, but faking review templates to me seems deceitful. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 year. I was tempted to indef because faking license reviews under other editors' names is especially egregious and all of their uploads ever have been copyvios. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

USer:KFCPeggi2013

KFCPeggi2013 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  only input threatening files here and threats on other wiki. Account created for vandalism, likely a sockpuppet of UnderArmourKid (talk · contribs) to banned indefinitely. Pierre cb (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I was closing some deletion requests on the January 27th, 2024 list when I happened upon a large number of deletion requests by Dane-3051 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Most of these requests were alleging copyright violations (usually cited as being from Facebook). Nearly all were images of military equipment from Myanmar. The files were primarily uploaded by three users: Haruno Sakura from Team-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), TTL(Facebook) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and KMK from Myanmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (though there are some of Dane-3051's own images which were nominated for deletion as copyvios too!). None of these nominations provide any evidence and some were blatantly false (such as nominating US Navy images with US Navy EXIF). The attribution to Facebook also seemed suspicious because Facebook strips out camera EXIF and yet all the images contained consistent camera EXIF with other images uploaded contemporaneously by the users. I noted that two of the uploaders do not have a spotless record when it comes to copyvios. I did a few spot checks with reverse image search and none of the chosen images came back as a hit. I voted keep on most of the DRs, but I would like someone else to take a closer look in case I am missing something. There is still something that seems off about this on both sides. Some of the later images I commented on seemed difficult for a civilian to obtain and some are of oddly low quality despite having good resolution. They are educationally quite valuable images though (many are heavily in use) and it is worth being deliberate about this I think. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, My account is a fake account of Dibosh Chakma. So I request that this account should be blocked too. I uploaded US Navy photos from the flickr then later on added permissions copying them from other photos. Most of the photos I requested to be deleted because these photos are edited and uploaded without proper authorisation. I did that before too. so now I want all things to go right. and sorry for everything. Dane-3051 uploaded every picture is taken from flickr and shipshub website. so I request you to delete those pictures. Dane-3051 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Dibosh Chakma (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) is not yet blocked. In these edits, Dane-3051 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) edit warred to again remove ticket permission, and to incompletely allege File:FAC(M) 492 of Myanmar Navy.jpg (uploaded by Myo Sann (talk • contribs • block log • filter log)) is a copyvio, while omitting the subpage, transclusion, year, month, day, proof of copyright violation, and notice to the page creator; they also added unlinked info about the block of the uploader on the file description page and changed to an unsubstantiated copyvio tag and edit warred with me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't mind being blocked. but as you know that Myo san was blocked for so puppetry, and his published works are a result of copyright violations so his works must be removed. Dane-3051 (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Dane-3051: That is a logic error. Sockpuppetry is not equivalent to copyvio uploading and you have yet to prove that this file is a copyvio.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
well, in those particular pictures, the tickets that have been provided are fake. Also they are taken from another reviewed picture. Dane-3051 (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ninjastrikers: You are still a VRT Agent, can you or another such Agent substantiate that claim about Ticket:2020122510001507 having been faked from another reviewed picture? I see four other hits for it in filespace.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: No other useful information are provided in the Ticket:2020122510001507 as it only consists of the permission text for File:Myanmar_Air_Force-radar-1.jpg, File:MN-491.jpg, File:UMS_Minye_Theinkhathu_at_a_ceremony.jpg, File:UMS_Minye_Theinkhathu_at_a_naval_exercise.jpg, and File:FAC(M)_492_of_Myanmar_Navy.jpg, which is generated from release generator. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 13:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • File:FAC(M) 492 of Myanmar Navy.jpg
    File:FAC(M) 492 of Myanmar Navy.jpg
  • File:UMS Minye Theinkhathu at a ceremony.jpg
    File:UMS Minye Theinkhathu at a ceremony.jpg
Can you please explain those elaborately? Dane-3051 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
https://www.pinterest.com/winkhaing698/myanmar-navy/ This is the link of the photo File:FAC(M) 492 of Myanmar Navy.jpg which was originally taken from Pinterest.
https://www.myanmardigitalnewspaper.com/my/73ncmeaak-ttpmtteaare-ncpttlnnyneathimamtt-ttiukkhiukrerengup-sngbheaaccreyaany-mngraisingkhsuu this is the link of the Myanmar digital newspaper. from where File:UMS Minye Theinkhathu at a ceremony.jpg this photo was taken and later on cropped.
Dane-3051 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I nominated these 2 files with the URLs you provided. But these are not the sources of these files, as they are smaller than copies on Commons. Yann (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Haruno Sakura from Team-7

I checked Haruno Sakura's uploads and concluded that (s)he forged the metadata. According to metadata, all photos was taken on the device Gionee P5 mini. The Gionee P5mini is a smartphone released in April 2016 with 5MP (2,560 x 1,920 px) camera[48]. Oddly, most of the photos were timestamped before 2016, and all of them exceed the maximum dimensions.
Here is an example:
File:MA-firetruck.jpg
  • Camera model : P5 mini
  • Create Date : 2018:12:16 09:01:37
  • Exposure Time  : 1/33
  • F Number  : 2.8
  • ISO  : 81
  • Image Size  : 4000x2668
corresponds to a photo from Myanmar government website.
  • Camera model : NIKON D810
  • Create Date : 2018:09:25 09:50:04
  • Exposure Time  : 1/80
  • F Number  : 5.6
  • ISO  : 2000
  • Image Size  : 2000x1333
And another example is File:MA-Type-81-MLR.jpg, corresponding to a photo published on blogspot in 2014. The text has been intentionally cropped out. 0x0a (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Impressive work. Thank you. I have deleted the images from User:Haruno Sakura from Team-7. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I blocked "Haruno Sakura from Team-7" for a month. Faking EXIF data is a malicious attempt to hide copyvios, and is a no-no. I would even support an indef. block as VOA, as no real useful edit by this account. Yann (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, My account is a fake account of Dibosh Chakma. So I request that this account should be blocked too. I uploaded US Navy photos from the flickr then later on added permissions copying them from other photos. Most of the photos I requested to be deleted because these photos are edited and uploaded without proper authorisation. I did that before too. so now I want all things to go right. and sorry for everything. Dane-3051 uploaded every picture is taken from flickr and shipshub website. so I request you to delete those pictures. Dane-3051 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
this picture also had a ticket. But later on it was found that this picture was taken from a website. Finally it was removed. So in that case all the other pictures of Myo Sann with tickets must be rechecked and removed if copyright is violated. Dane-3051 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

TTL(Facebook) & KMK from Myanmar

 Comment: GPS coordinates points of photos from both TTL(Facebook) (talk · contribs), and KMK from Myanmar (talk · contribs) are pointing the exact same location. Probably they are the same user or they forged the metadata with the same method. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 10:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
That would be a reason for a block. Could you please create a request for check user with all the evidence? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
A checkuser request has been created. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 13:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: The evidence was stale, please handle based on behavior.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


I believe the two users, like Haruno Sakura, also falsified the metadata and scaled-up the photos. Metadata shows that their photos were taken with vivo 1811 mobile phone. This phone was released in November 2018, according to the website. There's suspicion that the timestamps of many of KMK from Myanmar's photos show that they were taken before that date.

This photo "File:Shaanxi SX-21090 Myanmar Army.jpg" uploaded by TTL(Facebook) was posted on Blogspot as early as 2014, not 2019 as he claimed. Likewise, photo "File:Inlay Jeep-2.jpg" was prevoiusly posted on a forum in March 2020. 0x0a (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, based on this, I blocked "TTL(Facebook)" for a month, and deleted these 2 files. Any evidence for "KMK from Myanmar"? Similarity of geolocation is not really an evidence. If they are 2 persons in the same unit, they could have similar pictures with the same geolocation. Yann (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I replied at COM:Deletion requests/File:MA-MAM-01.jpg and COM:Deletion requests/File:MA-KS-1M-2.jpg. 0x0a (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@0x0a: Thanks. It seems Dane-3051 was right about these two. @IronGargoyle: Does the upscaling explain "oddly low quality despite having good resolution"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, My account is a fake account of Dibosh Chakma. So I request that this account should be blocked too. I uploaded US Navy photos from the flickr then later on added permissions copying them from other photos. Most of the photos I requested to be deleted because these photos are edited and uploaded without proper authorisation. I did that before too. so now I want all things to go right. and sorry for everything. Dane-3051 uploaded every picture is taken from flickr and shipshub website. so I request you to delete those pictures. Dane-3051 (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
It should be noted that မင်းရာဇာ (talk · contribs), an alternate account of KMK from Myanmar (talk · contribs), stole a photo from Getty Images in the same way. 0x0a (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for socking. Files mentioned above deleted. Yann (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
sorry to re-open this thread. There is two more users who uploaded Myanmar military-related photos with the same vivo 1811 phone. Please also check the uploads of Tabinshwehti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Myo Sann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 14:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ninjastrikers: I reverse searched the remaining uploads by Myo Sann, but found no earlier hits. That might be because Facebook banned Myanmar military-linked pages in 2021. I'm not sure if forging metadata is a sufficient reason to nominate them for deletion. 0x0a (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@0x0a: That would be enough as a violation of COM:EVID policy, but Yann blocked them already.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Jdbxhdjdjdjd

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

Adds vandalic texts in the captions [49] ("Skibidi Bop Yes Yes Yes"), [50] ("bastard loser"), [51] ("son of a whore"), [52] ("and why the fuck would you sniff it?") 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 08:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Also Commodeprd (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Same reason
[53] ("The little hedgehog runs and laughs, the grass tickles the hedgehog, the grass is over, the gravel has gone, the hedgehog has come home without a prick", [54] ("Vladimir Putin"), 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 08:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I reverted multiple vandalistic edits. Taivo (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy
Dudbdudiwo (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Probably a sockpuppet [55], [56]
Similar vandalic edits [57] ("shit"), [58] ("amogus🥵🥵"), [59] 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 08:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if I've gathered enough information, but can I submit a request for checkuser ALL of these accounts? 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 08:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kelly The Angel: You can; there's certainly enough behavioral evidence. That said, it looks like this person only does one account at a time, and there's a limit to how far back CU data goes, so if there are sleepers, the CU might not find them. Still probably worth the effort to request the CU though. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_110&oldid=854773007"