Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section]		 User problems
[new section]		 Blocks and protections
[new section]		 Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Second opinion on unblock request of User:Kazimier LachnovičEdit

The recently blocked User:Kazimier Lachnovič started an unblock request. I asked some questions and think there is a real will on constructive contribution. So I would suggest to unblock the user and give a second chance. But I would remove the filemover rights. Are there opinions against the unblock? Ping @A.Savin: as blocking admin. GPSLeo (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I keep this link at my homepage since March 2021, so I have doubts that the user is capable of contributing constructively. However, if the result of this discussion is that they get unblocked, it must be made absolutely clear to them that their behavior on Commons was not acceptable in the past and must not be repeated. (Much of their contribution is moving their own uploads, so I am not sure removing the filemover is a good idea). Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of the specifics of Kazimier Lachnovič's past behavior, it's ridiculous to block them just for opening an ANU complaint against an administrator. I don't see how anyone being even slightly good faithed about this can't see that Yann, Pofka, and Guido den Broeder are working together to push a Lithuanian nationalist POV. Which clearly entitles Yann miss using his administrator privileges. Both times Yann was reported recently Guido den Broeder played defensive for him and got the person blocked. Guido den Broeder and Yann also play defense for Pofka any time there's ANU complaint opened having to do with him. Not to mention Pofka requesting Kazimier Lachnovič's filemover rights be removed. Which was also voted on by Yann, who subsequently removed the rights after Czalex raised concerns that it wasn't justified. Whatever the case, there's clearly something going on here with the three people involved in this using Yann's tools to push a POV and he shouldn't be able to remove someone's rights after voting in support of the proposal regardless. IMO it's a massive conflict of interest. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
As i neutral, i agree, the user is a crat on be-tarask wiki and has been around a very long time, to block him for 6 months here even though he has no prior blocks here IMO itself is admin abuse, we want people to lodge complaints against admin (s) on this project without the fear of being attacked or blocked as we have seen that this is the only project on wikimedia (outside of enwiki) where admin abuse is pretty high.. his work here has been good, we need more editors from his region on commons, quite a lot of Eastern European images here needing proper re-naming and re-categorising, lets stop blocking people here cause their opinions are not the same as yours.. The block was harsh, one week would have been justifiable but honestly, 6 months is bordering on admin abuse..Blocking contributors is not how you build a project, this should have been wikimedia's motto..--Stemoc 05:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a natural blocking for political reasons and nothing more. Block a participant for a request against an administrator, the actions of the administrator against whom a complaint was filed. On the basis of which some Wikimedia Commons administrators seek to actually discredit Wikimedia Commons (and, accordingly, in whose interests such discrediting is) by changing the correct names and descriptions of images to incorrect ones, as discussed above, on the basis of amateur original research and contrary to the trustworthy source of this image (the book of the recognized heraldist and historian Anatoly Titov, a member of heraldic societies of Ukraine, Poland, honorary member of the All-Russian Heraldic Society). The administrator had to not just silently close the corresponding deletion request, but to argue for his actions that were not trivial (from the point of view of the internal rules of Wikimedia Commons). Kazimir is very interested in what exactly his "unlimited edit-warning, personal attacks, and trolling" was about: he asks for specific examples (with diffs) otherwise it looks like slander (as in the case of the same slander about him from Ymblanter "who called me "a Nazi" in public" and from Pofka "who call Lithuanians as rubbish", who himself is not modest in epithets, but at the same time no one pays attention to it - "And btw a Belatusian law is a law of a criminal terrorist state"). For their part, as Adamant1 and Stemoc correctly noted, it looks more like an abuse of authority by the administrator. Or the removal of participants for the purpose of revenge for the fact that they wrote a complaint against him. It's not the first time I've come across this, and if earlier it didn't go beyond "verbal" skirmishes, now it looks like some administrators decided to take someone's side to the detriment of all the rules. But it already really looks like a kind of mockery, Лобачев Владимир was banned for the joy of the Profka for no apparent reason, and A.Savin referred to the blocking being made because of his blocking in the Russian Wikipedia, while Savin himself carefully forgot that he was also blocked in two sections of Wikipedia at once, in Russian, in 2019 temporary blocking, and German, in German, indefinite, there he was one of the administrators. In the Russian Wikipedia, he was accused of introducing advertising content 1, 2, 3, 4. However, in the case of Лобачев Владимир, the actions of the administrator who blocked it are now being considered by the arbitration committee, that is, the blocking may also be recognized as illegal, but A.Savin konencho decided not to pay attention to it. Therefore, the actions of this administrator cause extremely strong doubts. Johnny Moor (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
My assumption of A.Savin's dishonesty is only confirmed. He started hitting on me for leaving complaints to him on the discussion page. It looks like he decided to shut up everyone who is dissatisfied with him. I assume that his next action will be my blocking. I think that this administrator cannot perform his duties. Johnny Moor (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
"Dishonesty" is a personal attack and it is, indeed, a blockable offense here. Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Of course, it is already clear that you want to shut up everyone who has complaints. Even openly threaten it. Of course, because you have the power, and you can use it here any way you want. While others will be able to do everything. Why then this discussion page, if administrators can block complaints about them using their authority and playing with the rules? Of course, some will refer to the rules. Johnny Moor (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
No, what is clear is you were blocked for an indefinite duration for copyright violations in 2018, unblocked in 2020, had zero useful contribution ever since, and all your contribution are complaints and personal attack which are not even to the point. Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
You know, it's risky to contribute when, due to ignorance of some rules, at the very beginning, your work may not be called yours. And because of some previously uploaded works that were not mine, I admit that it was not completely sorted out, and I was banned. But when I was blocked, everything else that was actually mine was deleted when I couldn't defend myself because I was banned. And you certainly don't make personal attacks. If I have good useful photos or images, of course, I will post them, but while I'm busy writing articles in the main project, you know, it's quieter there and not such an electric atmosphere. Johnny Moor (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Putting aside your personal issues with Johnny Moor for a minute, A.Savin blocked Лобачев Владимир after he was mentioned in passing by Pofka in this ANU complaint. The complaint has nothing to do with Лобачев Владимир and there's zero evidence that he has done anything since his last block to warrant being blocked again. In the meantime, I've asked A.Savin why he did the block on Лобачев Владимир's talk page. Which was then bridged by Pofka going on off about how обачев Владимир was blocked for 1 year on Polish Wikipedia and some other nonsense about his behavior on other projects. Which has nothing to do with обачев Владимир's behavior on Commons. A.Savin never answered me though. If nothing else, you'd have to agree that administrators should at a minimum say why someone is being blocked. Let alone should a block reason be provided after the fact, by random users, and/or be purely about behavior on other projects.
No where does Commons:Blocking policy say administrators can block people for their behavior on Wikipedia. Administrators are not somehow above having to justify their actions either. Especially in controversial situations like this one. If anything Commons:Blocking policy makes it clear that controversial blocks like these should be discussed before hand. No one discussed обачев Владимир's blocked. Pofka playing defense for A.Savin and citing behavior on other projects definitely doesn't meet that standard either. At the end of the day either A.Savin should give a legitimate reason for the block or обачев Владимир should be unblocked. Period. A.Savin's unwillingness to discuss or reverse either block after multiple people asked is an extremely negligent way to handle this though. More so since you and Pofka are playing defense and acting like his mouth pieces. There's zero reason he can't just speak for himself and justify his actions without either of you prattling on his behalf. It's not your or Pofka's job to litigate the whole thing on his behalf like your his public defenders or some nonsense. Either he can justify the blocks or he can't. If not, then cool. Take the L and reverse them. It isn't that complicated. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Why are you pinging me? I was very clear in this thread why I am here and what I think. I have no issues with Лобачев Владимир, though, as pretty much everybody else on this project, I am dead tired to read multi-screen rants by users reverting each other for years in this stupid Lithuanian-Polish-Belarusian flag dispute, and I would likely support any initiative which would remove them from the project. Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I apologize if the ping caused any issues. I'm glad you just want to see this whole dispute with the flags resolved though. The reason it hasn't been is because one side of the disagreement (say me, Kazimier Lachnovič, and Лобачев Владимир) have been treated in an extremely unfair and frankly authoritarian manor by administrators (mainly Yann, but whatever). While the other side has been able to act however they want with zero consequences. The report ANU report I filed a few hours ago for Pofka breaking the warning not to mess with Лобачев Владимир files is a perfect example of that. I was blocked for a week by Yann a few months ago just for responding to a message Guido den Broeder wrote me on this board. Even though I wasn't warned not to talk to him and he was allowed to continue messaging me even after I was blocked. I didn't even have anything to do with the original dispute either. I was essentially an innocent bystander to the whole thing until Yann and Guido den Broeder decided to come after me.
Whereas, someone like Pofka can repeatedly target Лобачев Владимир and his files without any kind of consequences and even after receiving a warning. So the only reason "this stupid Lithuanian-Polish-Belarusian flag dispute" is still occurring is because the people responsible for it aren't facing consequences for their actions. Whereas, random people that have essentially nothing to do with it are being blocked. Be my guest and sanction Pofka just like everyone else has been though. At this point he's literally the only person continuing it by continuing to nominate Лобачев Владимир files for deletion after he was told to leave him alone. Personally, that's all I'm asking for. That the people who are actually at fault here have some kind of repercussions instead it being completely one sided. It really shouldn't be that hard. This isn't going to be resolved until that happens though. If nothing else the authoritarian, one sided nonsense is just exacerbating the issue. It's clearly emboldened Pofka to continue his harassment and targeting of Лобачев Владимир. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
In all your complaining in this thread, I do not see a single diff that supports all the name-calling you're enjoying. Both sides think they are in the right and anyone who block one of the participants or tells people to knock it off is accused of all sorts of names. It is really not that difficult to not fight about the filenames for flags, especially since the filename doesn't actually change the encyclopedia articles but people have to celebrate what little victories they can get in life. If you are serious, post a reason why the editor should be permitted to return here rather than continuing to rant about the admins who made the mistake of getting involved in this. I don't think unblocking people who say "we have an argument but I didn't start it" is particularly productive. There is zero on the talk page that evidences actual contrition, just excuse making for why Kazimier isn't at fault ever even when they claim they accepted a solution (evidenced by someone else doing a rename and then not reverting or stirring up more drama). I'm sorry but "I have only caused a limited amount of headaches, please unblock me because I could have make everyone's life more miserable and I didn't" isn't that encouraging. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1's claim that @Yann, @Pofka, and @Guido den Broeder are working together to push a Lithuanian nationalist POV [1] is delusional slander. Neither Yann nor Guido den Broeder have any clear connection to Lithuania. It is frankly impossible that Dutch, Lithuanian and French people would somehow work together to push Lithuanian nationalist POV.
Commons:Blocking policy clearly states that harassment is among the reasons for a user to be blocked. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
{{ping|In the ANU complaint I filed below this Pofka literally said "Being Lithuanian myself, I cannot ignore clearly distorted Coats of arms of Lithuania when I encounter them in Commons categories." So he's clearly doing pro-lithuanian editing. In the meantime, there has multiple ANU complaints where Guido den Broeder tried to have me blocked because I voted to keep lithuanian flags that had been uploaded by Лобачев Владимир, which Pofka at the time was claiming were hoaxes. Guido den Broeder also made it clear he was trying to get me blocked because I voted several times to have Pofka blocked. So again, that's literally their positions. Both of them have made it clear that they are doing pro-Lithuanian edits and have came after people (well mainly me) for getting in their way, and they have repeatedly done it together. In the same DRs and ANU complaints. In the meantime Yann has had multiple opportunities to block Pofka for his role in the whole thing, which no who is being half good faithed about this is going to argue has been 100% above board. Instead though Yann has repeatedly sided with Pofka and Guido den Broeder while being extremely harsh toward the other side. You can just look to the ANU complaint I opened below this, where it took Taivo to block Pofka for violating the warning that Yann gave him.
Does that mean they are working behind the scenes together as paid actors or something? No, of course not. But they are clearly working together. Literally everything having to do with this somehow involves the three of them and they always side with each other. Period. That's on them for not being more neutral in how they handled things. Especially Yann. He had multiple opportunities to handle this in a more neutral, fair way and didn't. So I'm just calling a spade a spade. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I oppose an unblock of Kazimier Lachnovič because that would almost certainly mean the recommencement of those endless multi-paragraph sections on this noticeboard regarding centuries-old coats of arms, which would involve the same users over and over again. Frankly, no one wants that. After all, it is very doubtful that a person would change their decade old habits so quickly, if ever. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Not that I'm name calling in the first place, but it's not like the other side of this has had to provide any diffs for any of the claims they have made about the people who were blocked. Let alone do I see you or anyone else asking for any. That said, I encourage you to look at A.Savin's talk page, where he was unwilling to provide diffs for the behavior that he supposedly blocked Лобачев Владимир over. Be my guest and apply the same standard to the other side though and have A.Savin provide diffs of Лобачев Владимир's supposedly problematic behavior. I'm happy to wait for them and then I'll be glad to provide diffs for whatever you want me to.
Same goes for the name calling. Get back to me when you or anyone else on your side gives one iota about the name calling and accusations Pofka and others have been throwing around for months now. Then maybe I'll care. In the meantime, I could literally give a crap about the nonsense with the file names. It doesn't negate the fact that Kazimier Lachnovič didn't deserve to be blocked for six months just for opining an ANU complaint about an administrator's behavior. You just can't argue the block on the actual merits. So you deflect to irrelevant nonsense, like me supposedly calling people names or whatever. Maybe follow your own advice in the other ANU complaint and stay on topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I oppose unblocking. It is strange to read this discussion where the main arguments proponents of unblocking users claim how bad others or opponents are. In my opinion measures taken against Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев Владимир are very belated and only partial. Those users are busy with systematic fact falsifications and pushing sectantic historic narratives. Kazimier Lachnovič deserves the indefinite if not the global ban for his activity which brings huge harm to wikipedia. His activity in Wikipedia Commons is just a small part of historic falsifications.

In be-tarask.wikipedia.org articles for "Lithuania" (Літва in Belarussian, but it is replaced with derogatory term Летува́ - the neologism "invented" by Belarussian nationalists denying the statehood and historic legacy of Lithuania.) https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0

Just imagine how long some editor would be allowed to edit wikipedia if he/she would rename article for "Americans" as "Yankies" and the page for "United States" as "New England".

Kazimier Lachnovič and other editors on be-tarask.wikipedia.org created a small imperium of lies and other impudent falsifications of history. According to this be-tarask wikipedia, Smolensk, Vilnius, Bialystok were founded on ethnic Belarussians lands, and Belarussian ethnic lands correspond with Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%82%D1%8D%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%8F_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%9E

Self-regulation is not working on be-tarask.wikipedia.org. On contrary, it looks like it is a safe heaven for several wikipedia abusers for spreading fringe historic theories and who use wiki as a their fringe blog. --- Ke an (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the appeals to block people (be it Kazimier Lachnovič, Лобачев Владимир, or anyone else) based on their behavior on other projects to be insincere at best. If not completely unfounded in policy and detrimental to the project at worst. Since a good portion of users contribute to Commons due to intractable problems they have had elsewhere. That said, I started Commons:Village_pump#Blocking_people_for_behavior_on_other_projects so it can be discussed. Since both of Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев Владимир blocks seem to come down things they have done elsewhere. So I think it's something that needs to be settled one or another. IMO though, both of them should be unblocked if there isn't a clear consensus to block people for things they have done outside of Commons. Really, Kazimier Lachnovič should be unblocked anyway, but he differently shouldn't be blocked over some nonsense he did on be-tarask.wikipedia.org or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:43, 16

January 2023 (UTC)

Kazimier Lachnovič is blocked for his disruptive editing on Commons with all evidence. The problem is that his WP:NATIONALIST editing appears in all projects he is involved in. So the current ban doesn't solve situation and is too mild. -- Ke an (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ke an: He took a month off from editing before he filed this ANU report, which is what led to the block. If his edits were actually that bad though why wasn't he just blocked back then instead of a month later immediately after he filed the complaint? You can't have it both ways where he's supposedly doing such bad systematic fact falsifications that it deserves a six months block now, but it apparently didn't deserve one at the time when he was supposedly doing it. Like what if he had took 6 months off and then filed the ANU complaint. Realistically how are you going to justify a block for his editing at that point? Really, it should have either been done at the time when he was doing it or not at all. Otherwise the block just seems extremely spurious and like revenge for starting the ANU thread. You can't just claim someone's edits are a super massive issue and then not doing anything about it until months later when they open an ANU complaint about an administrator's behavior though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
They apparently believe they are blocked for being Belarusian, which demonstrates zero understanding for what they were actually were blocked. I guess we can stop here and take a break until they get back in half a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
That's a rather bad faithed stretch of what he said. Although if it was I think that line of argument has some merit to it all things considered. I'm not saying it's the main factor here or even one in the first place, but Belarusian/Russian editors are clearly being treated differently then say Lithuanian ones. Worse? I'm not going to go that far. But differently? I think it's just objectively true Belarusian/Russian editors are treated being differently then ones of other nationalities. At least in this case, if not others. It's not like Pofka and others haven't brought up the nationality of the people involved or similar talking points either. So I don't see what's wrong with Kazimier Lachnovič saying they might have been blocked because they are Belarusian when other people are saying similar things. Or are Lithuanians the only ones who are allowed to talk about nationality? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
1) They are blocked for bad behavior on Commons, not for being Belarusian, but they still do not seem to understand that their behavior was bad. I guess an appeal saying "Sorry, I see that what I was saying and doing was too much, I will be more considerate in the future" would have their block lifted. Instead, they explain the they are right and everybody else is wrong. 2) This is factually incorrect that Russian or Belarusian contributors are treated differently than anybody else. I am saying this as somebody who is on a regular basis being (erroneously) called a "Russian admin".--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"They are blocked for bad behavior on Commons." Cool, be my guest and provide some diffs of the problematic behavior that both of them are supposedly blocked for then. Especially Kazimier Lachnovič since he took a month off of editing before he opened this. In the meantime, I'll ask you the same question I asked Ke an. If Kazimier Lachnovič's edits were that much of a problem why wasn't he blocked when he was actually doing it instead of a month after the fact when he opened the ANU complaint? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not know. As far as I am concerned, they should have been blocked more than a year ago and for indefinite duration. But I am involved, so I did not block them, and they took it as a permission for an infinite number of reverts and for calling me a genocide supporter (doubled down today). Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, well. I just noticed Pofka has been nominating Лобачев Владимир's uploads for deletion since at least July 2021. It doesn't seem like he's been very successful either about it either. Right or wrong, I don't see how anyone being at all good faithed about this can responsibly argue spending a year and a half targeting another user's uploaders isn't harassment. Especially considering Pofka hasn't even successfully had the images deleted. I mean, even if I buy the whole thing about Лобачев Владимир spreading propoganda Pofka has clearly violated Commons:Harassment in the meantime, which no seems to care about. Yet I make a few off hand comments about Yann within the context of this discussion and he reports me for supposedly harassing him. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't find this whole thing at all creditable. I appreciate that you didn't block him since you were involved in the dispute though. I wish more administrators would take that position and not block or threaten to block people to resolve disputes that they are involved in. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: Sorry for not having responded earlier, but I was not sure and wanted to wait for further comments, also by Kazimier himself. I think, given his latest comments on his talk page, I fail to see good faith and civility and so it would be uncalled for to lift the block at this point. I have no opinion though, whether the block should be extended to indef, as some participants are demanding. Regards --A.Savin 16:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Massive image deletion requests by user A1CafelEdit

I am extremely concerned about the large number of images that are being sent for deletion by user @A1Cafel: . While some of the deletion requests are completely valid and justified, many others seem to be using invalid arguments or simply lying (say that those sculptures remain in a refrigerator) in order to have the images removed. This is concerning to me because it appears that the user is attempting to use the low threshold of legality or technicalities to their advantage.

I believe that the user exhibits a typical pattern of a deletionist, someone who actively seeks to delete content without proper justification. This behavior is harmful to the integrity and reliability of Wikimedia Commons and should be stopped. It is important that all users adhere to our guidelines and policies, and that any requests for deletion are thoroughly evaluated before being acted upon.

I urge the relevant sysops to investigate this matter and take appropriate action to address this issue. We cannot allow users to abuse the system and undermine the trust of our community. Wilfredor (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your statement. I didn't lie on anything, and I didn't abuse the system. The FOP issue of the ice sculpture is properly discussed at the VP discussion. You simply denied them and blamed me for acting as an deletionist. I understand that your are frustrated because your valued image was being nominated for deletion, but copyright is copyright. There are lots of nice and beautiful images are being deleted due to copyright issue. Similar cases like this was ended up deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have not taken the time to evaluate their recent behavior, but will note for the record that they were topic-banned in August 2021 from all deletion processes and unbanned in August 2022 from DR (leaving in place the ban on speedy tagging). Disclaimer: I supported both actions. @Wilfredor: Could you provide some more examples from the last few months? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    So far, I will say that while I disagree with A1Cafel on the merits of the ice sculpture case, I do not consider it a sanctionable offense to nominate it for deletion since it's reasonable to hold the opposite view. However, the evidence provided by Andy Dingley is worrying. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't see any instance of lying. I empathise with Wilfredor but I believe FOP applies here and it cannot be kept. The biggest problem with A1Cafel is how often they are right in instances like this Gbawden (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
No, it was a request by IP 58.153.52.39. --Túrelio (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
So they did ignore an administrator's decision to delete this as a bad name and used it despite that. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Enhancing999: It is because User:EurekaLott seems to oppose the move at this Cfd. It should be moved to the original name to be fair. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
So you deliberately ignored the admin decision? Enhancing999 (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This is a typical A1Cafel edit (stripping the disambiguation from Category:55 Public Square (Cleveland)). It's not obviously against policy, it's perhaps even in accord with literal simpistic reading of policy, yet it's also obviously pointless, unhelpful and very likely seen as a negative change. We just don't need changes like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No, you didn't. This is a typical action for you: you moved it because you felt like it, you then scratched around for whatever feeble support you could find. So maybe you tried to delete something because you argue that ice isn't permanent, or in this case because one comment in a discussion aligned with your own opinion. But EurekaLott said two things here, and the important one was "None of those should've moved before an admin closed this discussion". You pre-empted any decision, just to have your way. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to see more evidence of problematic DRs/behaviour - A1 followed the advice given from VP so cannot be held responsible for their actions in this specific case (they were potentionally told the wrong information so only did what they thought was best). Maybe a site-wide RFC should be held on the sand/ice sculpture issue but either way I'm not seeing any lying or deceitful behaviour from A1. –Davey2010Talk 14:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Yann: What makes you actually think that "display [of ice sculptures] is permanent as long as the sculptures exist"? From my understanding of FoP laws, nearly anything that is displayed only a couple of months (and was not planned to be displayed much longer) is of course a temporary installment, no matter if it's destroyed just after removal or not. Regards --A.Savin 15:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, that's how it is usually. I have never seen ice sculptures moved anywhere. And I remember such discussions on Commons. If the artwork is destroyed after its display (intentionally or otherwise), then the display is permanent as long as the artwork exists. Yann (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • comment - the VP discussion was from 2013, its very obscure and had only a couple of voice with no real outcome. There was no real effort in there from either side to provide links to actual law. The recent discussion here open on that VP discussion appears to show that the images should be kept, again nothing in the way of actual legal precedents. I would say the use of that VP discussion from 9-10 years ago is very big stretch to use for nominating something. The speculation about the sculptures ending being stored in fridges is just that speculation without supporting links beyond Commons. Permanent display is a real issue, es[ecially as we could consider deleting many other images just because they no longer exist, as an example there are significant amount places currently being destroyed globally, are commercial fruit trees where the fruit is picked the tree trimmed each season, or flowers that last just days/weeks in public parks are they now temporary as well? I'm finding that User A1Cafels use of a vague discussion and the lack of real support evidence as a foundation to nominate items for deletion very disconcerting at very least @A1Cafel: cease further deletion nominations, and put all current nominations on hold. Failure to do I would support sanctions being put in place. Gnangarra 16:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Note: I saw this raised off Commons on telegram, that was a bare link. My interpretation is from reading the discussions linked. Gnangarra 16:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I share your concern. A1Cafel does two things here: bulk uploads Flickr images without checking their copyright status, and castigates other editors who've uploaded Flickr images, finding the most tenuous of reasons to delete them (see A Photo of Toys Donated by State Department Employees (46212820822).jpg). After some long topic-banning, at least they've stopped threatening to block other editors.
As a deletionist, they will of course raise much support from others. They'll be an admin before long. Under the letter of policy it's hard to find fault with some of their nominations either, because international FoP is more restrictive than many realise and we do have to observe this. But A1Cafel is far from a collegial co-worker over this. They are adamant that other's work must be deleted, yet when the same questions are raised about their own uploads, their behaviour is somewhat different. In particular, slicing off the entire subject of an image so that it passes de minimis might make the results permissible, but are they still of any value for SCOPE? See The Wall Street Bull (5934546528).jpg / The Wall Street Bull (5934546528).jpg / Charging Bull (28919670730).jpg. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
If the deletion request would be speedy deletion requests I would agree. But in all cases I saw there were copyright problems or questions on these files. So I do not see why this behavior should be considered as harmful. GPSLeo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
There are speedy deletion requests by the IP that conveniently helped A1Cafel. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@A1Cafel: You should stop nominating images for deletion, except for obvious copyright violations. There are enough work to do in obvious cases, so there is no need for you to create controversial DRs. Yann (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I promise I will stop nominating ice sculpture files. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@A1Cafel: Not only ice sculptures, but such files File:A Photo of Toys Donated by State Department Employees (46212820822).jpg as well. Yann (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • But to A1Cafel, all files are "obvious" copyright violations, and they are "urgent" too. This qualification will not help. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with Yann: this activity is disruptive, in particular when aimed at files that are not copyvios. @Davey2010, a recent example of misuse was for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Le fonti della ricerca, where A1Cafel nomiated for deletion a set of files that had WLM permission. From this, it's clear that the files are not checked (otherwise the template of WLM would have been seen) in order to delete as many files as possible. Of course mistakes are possible, but in this case they are very often made.
    I suggest a block on all relevant namespaces. Ruthven (msg) 13:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Ruthven, So I've never participated in WLM and don't have a great understanding of it but am I correct: Organisers speak directly with the government etc and if permission is granted then you can upload images from that country providing it's within a specific month and that the WLM template has to be applied and that FOP is not applicable to WLM images (because special permission has been granted), Is this correct ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Davey2010 Yes, that's correct. The organizers (which are Wikimedia chapters usually) contact the authorities that own the rights (mainly for recent artworks and/or freedom of panorama) in order to release the work under free license (usually it's CC BY SA 4.0). Certain chapters even publish all the permissions obtained, but they are considered a trustable source (the organizers check all the uploads and the permissions, at least the ones I had contact with). Sometimes the permission is very generic, e.g. "The City Council of Y grants the permission to publish photographs of the work X under CC BY SA 4.0 license", thus no month or template conditions apply. Ruthven (msg) 12:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    Hi @Ruthven, Brilliant thank you for explaining this and replying back to me,
    In that case IMHO A1 should be re-topic-banned from DRs, I mean mistakes do happen I've made a few mistakes myself but the nominating of File:A Photo of Toys Donated by State Department Employees (46212820822).jpg and the nominating of WLM files are all careless nominations and show a blatant disregard for any policies that we have here (DEMINIMIS etc),
    The examples given by Andy above also raises some eyebrows, A topic-ban may be the best solution to this mess. –Davey2010Talk 17:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Comment - Just to note A1 has been blocked by Mdaniels5757 for 2 weeks for socking Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/A1Cafel. Non admin comment. –Davey2010Talk 20:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

YannEdit

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

Admin supervoting with illegitimate rationales.

@Dronebogus: I think you should move ahead and avoid battleground behaviour. This is not constructive. Admins do not “supervote”, they close deletion requests and provide a rationale. You are free to follow process and open an undeletion request if you disagree. And I assume that you are well aware that Yann reverted the other edit you mention. You are misusing COM:AN/U here. Please keep in mind that per COM:SCOPE samples of AI images are surely welcomed to the extent where this does not conflict with copyright law and where this can be used for illustrating corresponding articles. There are still considerable concerns in regard to copyright that need to be resolved and COM:SPAM is still valid. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yann has made multiple dubious closes on the same rationale, with one being after the revert. He participated in both discussions and closed against consensus. There is evidence of a systematic issue here. Dronebogus (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The revert was seemingly begrudgingly done only after me and multiple other users complained about it on his talk page: User talk:Yann#Supervote at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated art of a French maid teasing the viewer.png. That’s not exactly an immediate acknowledgment of misconduct. Dronebogus (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Dronebogus: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated art of a French maid teasing the viewer.png is still open, so please do not misrepresent things here. Please follow process, remain civil and avoid unnecessary drama generation. Any claim of “systematic issues” in regard to DR closures is not helpful if DRs are not even closed or if you haven't opened a undeletion request so far for any of it. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I've seen similar issues where Yann closed DRs against the consensus and then ignored subsequent questions about it. The last time I checked admins don't get a pass on the guidelines and policies. Two of which are following consensus and discussing issues. Related to that, Yann has had 5 ANI complaints opened about their behavior now and all of them seem to follow similar themes. Any normal, non-administrator probably would have been out on their ass after the first or second one. Let alone would they have not been blocked or at least reprimanded at this point. How many complaints is it going to take before it becomes a “systematic issues” and something is done about it beyond just disparaging the person who opened the complaint or tepid hand waving? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Diffs would be great. Dronebogus (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been like a year. Here are a few examples though. I'm sure there are more out there. With this and this deletion requests I had nominated the files for deletion because they blurry duplicates of extremely similar files. The uploader of the files Matsievsky had voted keep on both of them for clearly nonsensical reasons, which he had been spamming in every deletion request I did for files he uploaded and I had filed multiple ANU complaints against him for. Although, I still took the time to explain in more detail why I had opened the deletion requests. Yann then came along and closed the DRs as keep without allowing for other people to comment because there was supposedly "no valid reason for deletion." There clearly was though, or at least there should have been more discussion about it beyond the uploader troll voting. Same goes for this DR and this one.
in this DR he closed it as keep when the keep voters' logic was clearly flawed. I then wrote him a message about it on his talk page, which he ignored. So I re-opened the deletion request. He then tried to derail the re-nomination by immediately voting keep and the file was subsequently deleted after a couple of people throw insults around. With Commons:Deletion requests/File:I. Robbins & Sons logo.tif (sorry, but I can't link to it for some reason), I had G7ed the file right after I uploaded it because the image was cropped wrong. He subsequently turned it into a normal deletion request when there was zero reason to not just speedy delete it like I had requested. There's also been multiple times where he reverted my edits, ignored follow up messages I left him trying to resolved the issue, continued reverting me, and then accused me of vandalism or some other nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Yann made the correct decision, the other "newbie" admin did not. Just because you failed to understand licenses doesn't mean Yann's decision was wrong, as Tm pointed, you made a poor DR and it was closed correctly. Those images should have never been deleted but i didn't bother to fight it because i realise that this project now has a lot more new admins who don't actually understand licensing at all just like you don't.--Stemoc 23:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
And as M.nelson pointed out and you convently ignored "The DFAT site plainly says "all material presented on this website is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license". Facebook clearly isn't the DFAT website. Even if I grant you that the DFAT thing wasn't clear, there's still the precautionary principle which should have been the default since there clearly wasn't a consensus about it. That said, I could really care less what the minutia of any single incident is. The fact remains that Yann clearly makes decisions that go against the consensus, good practices, and he has an issue with not discussing things. So be my guest and disregard the DFAT DR. There's still multiple problems with how he acts regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
who? someone whose knowledge of licensing rights is just as bad as you? People here who generally tag stuff for speedy are not necessarily people who understand how licensing works...as i said on that thread and many like that which you don't seem to get is that DFAT stands for department of foreign affairs and trade so apart of images related to their foreign minister or their trade minister (and assistants), they would not upload to their official site at that multimedia link (which might i add is a new website, did not exist earlier this year and the Australian govt seems to have made a lot of changes since Albanese became PM) images from their embassies but they still own rights to images taken by their images and in this case had you bothered to read the right embassy website instead of the wrong one, you would have noticed they link their social media websites in their facebook, twitter and instagram (if you scroll down a bit) and at the bottom of their page, the copyright section leads back to their main site which as i have claimed and other more experienced editors on this site have said multiple times, applies to ALL their SOCIAL MEDIA SITES as they don't allow uploads of images directly to their websites so just like the US, they allow it via their official social media website and flickr sites and what consensus are you talking about? A1cafel? the serial meatpuppet who is also under investigation for tagging things for DR without understanding licences or WikiVirusC who has 120 edits to this project so was probably another meatpuppet who probably has zero idea of how any licensing works due to only have less than 130 edits here (or is a banned user which is usually the case), Yann was right to ignore votes by people who either have long history of not knowing how licensing works or any history and I'm disappointed at the new admin for not doing the same. Mind you, I don't even like Yann, we go a long way and I'm not a fan of his nor is he mine but his decision was correct, maybe had you bothered, even slightly to look at the image i uploaded that you were so hell bent on deleting, it was even tagged by DFAT [Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade] as belonging to them (their photographers were at the event and they took the images) and yet because of your insistence and lying it was deleted, I didn't fight it cause i'm tired of dealing with fools on this project.. this project is overrun with just as many trolls as its enwiki counterpart so lets not detract from the real issue here which you tried to derail by posting about this specific DR which you were completely wrong about..If you were trying to prove a point that Yann is a bad admin by providing evidence that actually worked against you, then you did not do a good job... just saying.. Stemoc 06:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
M.nelson literally cited the DFAT website's own licensing terms. Are you seriously going to argue that the Australian government wouldn't have just said all images they upload regardless of the site are PD if that was really there intent? Let alone that if someone explicitly states that images on a specific site are PD that it means everything they publish everywhere else on the internet is also public domain? Get real dude. I wasn't even hell bent on getting the image deleted. I just wanted a second opinion because Yann was coming after me for other stuff at the time and it seemed like he was making some bad decisions. That's it. I could really care less if your butt hurt that an image you uploaded got deleted. The point in DRs is for people to give their opinions on if a file should be deleted. Not for specific admins to close DRs after a single, clearly ridiculous comment just because they are targeting the user who did the deletion request. I probably would have been fine with the outcome of the first DR if Yann wasn't the admin who closed it though. Hell, I'm pretty sure I even asked him about it on his talk page and said I was thinking about re-opening it, but he ignored me. Either way, he had plenty of opportunity to explain why he decided to close it as keep. I can guarantee I would have accepted whatever explanation he gave me. I'm just not going to have my time wasted by an administrator who's clearly being biased and targeting my edits.
It's not like I didn't give him the opportunity to discuss things though. Check out File:Nayacalevu, Nawaqanitawase and Habosi June 2022.jpg on his talk page. I left him 4 messages over a week about it, all of which he ignored. So I re-nominated the file for deletion. What do you expect at that point? Seriously, how many times should someone have to ask an admin about something and be ignored before they can re-nominate an image for deletion? Personally, I think 4 messages over a week is a pretty reasonable standard to justify re-nominating something. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Your first request (IMO) was pretty specific about Fiji about Tm responded with a different explanation. I don't like the instant close but was Yann's close so ridiculous based on you misreading the Fiji issue? The entire second discussion was on Australian law not Fiji as your first comment and ended up being more complicated. I don't think it's really a renomination even though it was. While Yann voted to keep based on the prior discussion (which I find a bit simplistic), it is not as simple as you thought, even if we got the right result in the end. I don't like the entire antic but the actual administrative action of the first close isn't that off the wall. It may be a lesson for admins (Yann as well) to at least wait a day and let a response happen (I mean we have discussions open for months) and that may be the lesson here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
TM has like 15 ANU complaints and has been blocked multiple times for vandalism. He also copied and pasted the same insulting message into multiple DRs that I had opened around the same time that he voted on that one. Which I assume Yann knew about. In the meantime, Stemoc has a problem with us going with A1cafel's opinion about it because they are supposedly a serial meatpuppet, cool. I don't think that's great either, but then the same standard should be applied to TM. The fact that Yann closed it the DR in favor of TMs opinion when they were clearly voting in bad faith and have a record of reports/blocks is just ridiculous. Sure, the solution would have been to leave the DR open until other people could respond to it, but there's zero legitimate reason that it shouldn't have been the obvious thing to do at the time. Unless Yann is just that negligent. The fact that he ignored the four messages I left him about it either means he's completely negligent in the performance of basic administrator duties or he specifically closed it as keep because he was targeting my edits and didn't want to admit as much. Neither one is acceptable behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Tm has been on this project for over 16 years and if in that time you were never blocked here, it means you are doing something wrong and should be indeffed..he is loyal to the project without being intimidating or bordering on harassing other users, you are not, be glad all the experienced admins here bar 2-3 are inactive or you would have been indeffed a long time ago , his comment regarding this issue is 100% correct and its YOU who doesn't seem to get it, he isn't the issue here, you are. First you made a stupid DR request which was rightfully ignored by Yann and when you made the same request again, he chose to ignore you but implied so in the DR that your DR was bogus, you made the wrong assumption, you said the wrong things as you could not tell the difference between the Fiji embassy to australia and the australian embassy to Fiji and instead of apologizing for your mistake, you decided to double down instead starting a new DR even though we already told you that you were wrong, your whole comment here is leaning on the fact you made a mistake and a newbie admin who doesn't know better since a few of us has been involved in the DFAT project for over a decade deleted the images because it was in the DR for 4 months, do you know why no admin deleted it in that timespan? because its a FREE IMAGE rightly copyrighted and released under the right licence, you know what, I'll Link Mdaniels575 here and ask him if he closed that DR because he understood what was happening or did he not even read it fully and deleted it without realizing an admin and an experienced editor (me) had both voted keep but he saw that the "delete" numbers were higher and deleted it because of that, his mistake has set a precedent as i have worked a long time getting a lot of images correctly copyrighted on this project and if this is the direction the project will take, then its a poor one.. Stemoc 22:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Calm down and cool the personal attacks. Remember I only opened this because Yann closed two DRs out of order. If you want to fight over this personal vendetta take it to a new thread. Dronebogus (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
This is... a lot. I confess that I have not read all of this thoroughly, but gather that you disagree with, among other things, my closing of the discussion here. I have re-reviewed that discussion and stand by that closure. I realized that both "an admin and an experienced editor" made remarks in favor of keeping it, but the strength of the other editors' arguments (particularly M.nelson's) outweighed yours. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
actually, no, it was your failure or lack of knowledge in this area which was the issue, have you even read the Template:DFAT?, it basically links to http://embassy.gov.au which links back to DFAT's list of embassy pages which they run or control which DFAT which to this day no one has bothered to spell out stands for Department of "FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE" which means its run by the Foreign Ministry of Australia.. and as i pointed out on the DR, DFAT even made the effort of tagging that image as theirs and yet you think someone who has no knowledge on this area made a better point even the template basically proves my point.. repeatedly.. you have been on this project for less than 4 years but somehow you assumed an admin who has been here for over 18 years and an editor who has been on wikimedia for 16 years were the ones who were wrong? I always knew this project has been failing for a decade, didn't realise it was this bad.. and @Dronebogus, I only popped up here cause Adamant1 decides to use the one example for where he feels Yann was wrong when the reality was, it was him who made a mistake and doubled down instead of apologizing and letting go..I ignored the DR then cause i have no faith in this project anymore but i won't sit by and allow these same trolls to attack the few who keep this project running..A lot of us lost faith in admins in this project after the INC debacle but i think its about time those same admins did what was right by getting rid of the rotten apples on this project... this project already has a bad reputation , you can't make it even worse anyways.. Stemoc 04:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
"Adamant1 decides to use the one example for where he feels Yann was wrong." That wasn't the only example I used. Either way, if I made a mistake about it cool. At least there was a chance for multiple people to give their opinions beyond TM. Who again had cut and pasted the same exact insulting keep message into multiple DRs. It's not like you couldn't have done an un-deletion request if it was that cut and dry though. Hell, maybe I would have given it a second look and agreed that it shouldn't have been deleted.
Look, I get it. You think it isn't a valid example of Yann doing something wrong and that everyone who thought it should be deleted just doesn't understand copyright law. That's fine. I never claimed to be a copyright lawyer. In the meantime there's plenty of other examples of Yann acting wrongly. So be my guest and toss this particular one out if you don't think it's valid. Making a big stink about it now, 6 months after the fact and in a random ANU thread really isn't helpful though. That said, I'm more then happy to give the whole thing a second look if your willing to do an un-deletion request. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I have hardly seen a single edit by Yann around this whole topic of AI-generated images that has met the standards we expect from an admin. Closing complex and ongoing DRs within a day is just part of it. Even when admitting that they were wrong [2] they've done that badly, by reverting themselves rather than striking a comment that ought to have stayed as part of the clearly visible record. Supervoting is certainly part of it, they seem to not understand the role of an admin and the restrictions upon it. An admin who expresses an opinion in something like a DR should then not be the one who closes it. (And to do so prematurely, in agreement with their opinion, certainly does raise questions of their fitness to hold a mop.) We don't expressly forbid an admin closing a discussion that they've been involved in, but this should only be in a case where the conclusion is clear and unquestioned. These are anything but. We do not yet have policy on AI images and how SCOPE applies to them (see COM:AI generated media), so this is far from clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    I thought AI images obeyed by the same SCOPE as every other image? Trade (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
But Yann's claim is "AI images without educational use, specially erotic or sexually oriented images which are not used, are out of scope on Commons."[3] They're claiming some special status for AI images. Now Commons has a long tradition of this: "educational" means "stuff I like" and "stuff I don't like" means "must be deleted immediately". But there's nothing to back this up.
There is nothing about AI images that says "sexually oriented images" must be deleted, any more than for non-AI.
COM:INUSE has no different meaning for AI images than for non-AI images.
Even "educational use" has the same meaning for AI as it does for the other non-AI anime-styled character images that we have here. We can question that, and how "educational" some moe images are, but that should be an overall issue, not one restricted arbitrarily to AI images, because a handful of admins have taken against them.
AI images can, of course, have educational scope. Even the anime stuff. Benlisquare uploaded a series of them with just that purpose (before their bulk deletion and Benlisquare's indef ban). AI image generation is a novel technique of obvious importance and I for one want to learn about it. So yes, I want to see series of images where small changes to the prompts etc. can have a visible effect. Even if the anime subject matter is anime-styled and a bit on the leery side, so that I find myself having to defend it and Benlisquare here, when I'd really rather be doing anything but! But I'd rather do that than bulk delete the lot on spurious grounds. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
If you don't think a media file is subject to the project scope because it was created by an AI, I don't know what to say. The licensing issue is one portion of the scope requirement but whether the media is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" is something that matters. Clearly nonsense AI-generated images do not qualify under the project's scope and this undeletion request reflects a consensus for educational purpose being some sort of restriction. As to Yann, for all the complaining I see in these discussions, the actual undeletion request does not consider the close a bad close. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
No, Yann is the one claiming special pleading on scope with the “sexual images” complaint. I don’t know where you’re going with this. Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Throughout this discussion, Ricky has either failed to get the point, or has deflected away from it. Here he starts by stating the precise opposite of the point, and railing against that. Then goes back to his old argument, that if licensing makes one image unusable (e.g. for COM:DW), that changes the definition of SCOPE to then exclude any similar files as now being out-of-scope. It doesn't, that's a separate issue – we often have images that are valuable and a key part of scope, but we can't have them because of COM:LICENSING. He also seems to see no distinction between an AGF uploading of images as Benlisquare and 冷床系 have done, vs an obvious US political attack image. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
AGF? Trade (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Assume Good Faith. It's one of our policies. We should act on the basis that Benlisquare and 冷床系 were acting for the best aims of Commons, even if their intentions didn't work out right, unless they're strong evidence that they're acting against the community. Indef bans were a failure to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dronebogus The undeletion request shows that there is a consensus for that but keep on complaining that everyone who disagrees with you is violation of the 'consensus' you few editors have created which fails worse and worse whenever it gets to a large discussion. @Andy Dingley There are two separate issues. If there is a licensing problem, that is one issue. You keep ignoring the educational purpose requirement. We don't just let every freely licensed image be here. Otherwise, I don't see all of Benlisquare's images as uploaded in good faith given the firestorm that followed. You can either play dumb and keep up the "I really don't understand why people find AI images from prompts of big-boobed anime teens and Mohamed offensive" or not. There isn't a huge difference between offensive images of Joe Biden and offensive images of Mohamed uploaded specifically to piss people off on an article about stable diffusion to me. I get it: you think if it's AI work, it can't be spam because I have no idea why and that isn't consensus here, or let's ignore that most people don't want to humor boundary-pushing nonsense. Now, as to the subject here (Yann), the undeletion request isn't showing a consensus that the close was wrong. Are you still going to rehash the same fight here or argue it there? People are rightfully asking what educational purpose you all have for the images and the only example Trade has proposed is adding a third AI-generated image to a single article that already has non-AI-generated images of the same subject. You can either ignore the demand for an educational purpose or actually work on arguing for one. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I never proposed adding it to the Japanese Wikipedia article. Trade (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I don’t care about the consensus at undeletion, which is basically a second, fairer deletion discussion that has generated a perfectly valid conclusion. I’m more angry at Yann for engaging in supervoting based on their own, made-up pseudo-policy. You keep steering this off-course, saying “Yann was basically right, though” when my point is that Yann was right… for the wrong reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

TilmannR is correct. I forgot what the issue was precisely. Either way, there wasn't any arguments supporting what uses the images did have since the entire mess got overshadowed with the drama. Trade, what was your proposal? I'll double-check that discussion again but that was the only place *I* could think of which is putting words in your mouth. For Dronebogus, I hate admin voting in discussions before closing them but that is permitted on Commons and unless there is evidence of seriously bad closing (even though get reversed), I don't think that qualifies as problematic enough for an admin to lose the mop (if there is a way to lose it). Unless you plan on complaining about practically every admin close, it's not a strong claim. Staying on the point here, are we down to a complaint that Yann is closing discussions (properly or at least not improperly) after having voted (proper here even if not great) which isn't being reversed at undeletion requests? Is Yann's analysis different from the undeletion discussion? Even if it was (and I don't disagree), it's not so far off that it's even "reversible error" so to speak. I see other comments about other closings above but this is very disjointed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

So you made up a complaint about "offensive images of Mohamed uploaded specifically to piss people off" that never existed. And you wonder why I don't take you seriously? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I made a mistake on what the second drama the uploader caused. I admit that. Feel free to criticize me because I forgot the English drama was also headscarf drama and not Muhammed drama after the anime image drama. Either way, care to stay on topic and discuss Yann and/or that undeletion discussion? Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

AlterbulatEdit

Alterbulat (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alterbulat

Here's another one where Yann wants to be judge, jury and executioner. Alterbulat is blocked (by Yann) for uploading "unfree" files (claimed as own work). Their uploads are nominated for deletion (by Yann) because the editor is blocked. DRs are closed immediately (by Yann), allowing no discussion or chance to study the images involved. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

When will you stop being a pain? Admins have been doing that since the creation of the project. These qualify for speedy deletion, so what's your problem with blocking and deleting them? Yann (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
When you start following the policies that you, as an admin, are required to follow.
Why close DRs like this immediately [4][5], so that there is no chance for any other editor or admin to see what's going on? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not see why we should give this user time do answer. The user was asked multiple times if the files are own work and never answered or indirectly said that the files are not own works. But why do you create a deletion request page for these files when you delete them immediately @Yann: ? Normally we delete such files direly without adding them to a deletion request page. If we get would get VRT confirmation that the files are own work we could undelete them. GPSLeo (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Because there is a specific rationale for deleting them (copied from Facebook), which is not in the VFC list. You can aslo see that I listed the files for deletion in 2 other batches: one for small size and missing EXIF data, and one for inconsistent, possibly fake, EXIF data. This user is blocked for 6 months, so they won't be able to answer into the DR. Yann (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Not allowing blocked users to participate in the deletion requests of their files seems like a pretty big flaw tbh. Trade (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
They can reply on their talk page and sending a mail to VRT is also possible for blocked users. GPSLeo (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
And it's not like every image that was uploaded has been deleted. This one is from Flickr and seems fine. Still, anyone can argue that we should give this uploader the benefit of the doubt for these images at the discussion page. Either way, people can propose a policy change. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Expecting a blocked user to somehow litigate multiple DRs on their talk page is kind of ridiculous. Especially if they aren't even indeffed. Also, from what I can tell it doesn't seem very clear that the images aren't his own work to begin with. So is there a reason why the files couldn't have just been dealt with after he was unblocked? Like honestly, why the rush to immediately delete the files? It's not like DRs don't take multiple months or even years to be resolved in a lot of cases already anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This has been policy forever. If you want to propose changing it, fine, but to complain that one admin is wrong because they are following the current policy sounds background-y unless you actually proposing a change in the policy. You won't change blocking policy at ANU. Feel free to go into every deletion discussion involving a blocked user and arguing for it to be canceled on procedural grounds that the uploader should be unblocked to comment but it won't succeed because no one wants to wait around and have to remember the problems later. The uploader can ask to be unblocked, can offer to provide an explanation, can submit to VRS via email, or a host of other things.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: "This has been policy forever." Where does the policy say that if someone is blocked that it means their uploads immediately and automatically qualify for deletion? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I’m pretty sure that only applies to non-productive users. Dronebogus (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Ricky81682, File:Мечеть в селе Гелдаган Курчалоевского района Чеченской Республики имени Макки Даудовой.jpg neither is from Flickr nor seems fine. It was from Instagram in 2017, when it's been reviewed, then Alterbulat overwrote it in November 2022‎ with no source provided. --Xunks (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Okay, I stand corrected. Maybe everything they uploaded has been deleted lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accountsEdit

Redarm (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Tuttybet (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , both with a history of mass copyvio uploads, re-uploading immediately after deletion: e.g., [6]. Xunks (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  • NB: Redarm is not active anymore. --Ruthven (msg) 13:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  Not done. Both accounts are inactive for 2 years. If they will continue copyviolation, then they can be blocked. Taivo (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Taivo, saying "Both accounts are inactive for 2 years", you have missed Special:Log/Tuttybet. --Xunks (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  Done. You are right. I do not know, how could I miss that. Now I warned Tuttybet – (s)he was not previously warned. Uploads of both users are mostly deleted. Taivo (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Trivialist and more undiscussed bulk emptying of categories (film locations)Edit

See Trivialist (talk · contribs), Category:Film locations of Without a Clue (1988), Category:Film locations of Harry Potter in Oxford, Category:Film locations of Witchfinder General (1968), et al.

Once again, Trivialist is engaging in bulk-clearing of categories that they personally disagree with. Once emptied, the categories may then be speedily deleted. There is no discussion evident around these categories, or on the broad overall concept of categorizing film locations.

Trivialist has always made it clear that they are a strong deletionist, oppose categorization, and are especially against what they consider "trivia" (anything they disagree with). They have previously justified such de-categorization on the basis of Wikipedia policies. But this is Commons, not Wikipedia, and our practices here are rightly different. They seem to either not appreciate, or not respect, this.

The same issue has come up in the past User talk:Trivialist#Uncategorization

This needs a mop-assisted bulk rollback, and either a damn good explanation, or a topic ban from doing it again. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not "oppose categorization." Per Commons:Categories:

The category structure is (ideally) a multi-hierarchy with a single root category, Category:CommonsRoot. All categories (except CommonsRoot) should be contained in at least one other category. There should be no cycles (i.e. a category should not contain itself, directly or indirectly).

Here is a current hierarchy: Category:Frank Welker → Category:Frank Welker characters‎ → Category:Scooby-Doo (character)‎ → Category:Scooby-Doo interpreters‎ → Category:Frank Welker → …
With regards to the film location edits, like removing Category:Buckingham Palace from the parent category Category:Film locations of Peter Rabbit (2018) in London), note wiat @Pi.1415926535: said on Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Film locations of Sonic the Hedgehog:
Closing as delete. Per discussion here, use as a film location is usually not a defining characteristic of a location. Categorization of filming locations under a media should be reserved for the few locations where substantial changes made for filming are visible (like Category:Onk Jmel), where the location is only notable for its filming use (like Category:"Home Alone" house), or where a defining feature of the location in the cultural consciousness is its use in certain media (like Category:Rocky Steps). Otherwise, locations should be listed on the article about the production and/or on Wikidata using P915, both of which allow for the needed citations.
And related to both of those, Category:Scooby-Doo! The Mystery Begins had these parent categories:
Category:Scooby-Doo! (2009 film series)
Category:2009 comedy films
Category:Warner Bros. animated films in the 2000s
Category:Warner Bros. animated films by title
Category:Animated films by title
Category:Warner Bros. films by title
Category:Warner Bros. direct-to-video films
Category:Hanna-Barbera films by title
Category:Films by title
Category:Films by Brian Levant
Category:Films featuring Scooby-Doo (character)
Category:Films featuring Shaggy Rogers
Category:Films featuring Fred Jones (Scooby-Doo)
Category:Films featuring Velma Dinkley
Category:Films featuring Daphne Blake
Category:Films starring Frank Welker
Category:Films starring Nick Palatas
Category:Films starring Robbie Amell
Category:Films starring Hayley Kiyoko
Category:Films starring Garry Chalk
Category:Films starring Kate Melton
Category:Adventure comedy films of the United States
Category:Mystery films of the United States
Category:Children's comedy films of the United States
Category:Children's animated mystery films of the United States
Category:Films scored by David Newman
The category only contains Category:Templeton Secondary School‎, a filming location, and nothing directly related to Scooby-Doo! The Mystery Begins, or any of the above parent categories.
Here's another example: Category:The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas, contains categories for that film's actors, but no files at all. These and similar categories appear to have been created just to create category hierarchies for their own sake, whether or not they're necessary or helpful in actually categorizing files. Trivialist (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
You might wanna look at the Scooby Doo-related categories just in general. Seems to be a common theme Trade (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I suspect that it's the same editors who have been creating Wikidata items for seemingly every element in the last Scooby-Doo and Space Jam movies. Trivialist (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
So what? If they are dumb and wrong, have a CSD and make your argument. Don't empty categories like Category:Film locations of Harry Potter in Oxford and then move to delete them as empty. C2 is for "obviously unusable" categories, not "categories that Trivialist doesn't like so he emptied them and wants you do to delete them for him." All you'll do is encourage the same users to recreate and try to repopulate the articles rather than have actually resolve this logjam. If not, accept that you lost an argument on the internet and move on with your life. I'm nominating that one for discussion. You can choose whether to explain your reasoning or just keep up the emptying and deleting game until you get blocked. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

NewsRoyalEdit

NewsRoyal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  multiple uploads of fake 'own works' after numerous warnings and a block. Xunks (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

When I say "own work", I mean the author's own work, which allowed me to add the images to the commons. NewsRoyal (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@NewsRoyal: Who are the real authors, exactly? How did you get permission from them?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G. My friend @GabrielDorneles the copyright holder of the works allowed me to put his works on commons. So he sent me the images, and I added them. Then he came adding them in higher quality. NewsRoyal (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@NewsRoyal: Which of your 94 surviving overwritten uploads is this about?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Of the ones I mention (by Gabriel Ronzani). NewsRoyal (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@NewsRoyal: Which ones are those, exactly? Why are they not categorized as such?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G. They are! at "Category:Portraits by Gabriel Ronzani":
@NewsRoyal and GabrielDorneles: The portraits in Category:Portraits by Gabriel Ronzani are of people who died long before you were born. How do you know what they looked like? We need sources per COM:EVID.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@NewsRoyal: Which existing images, exactly? What is their copyright status?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I am real author, i give him permission for post all my work! you cam see more works by me in my instagram GabrielRonzaniArts GabrielDorneles (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@GabrielDorneles: Please send permission via VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - Only for your information, this account's home wiki is the pt.WP where their behavior is extremely disruptive. They have a long list of blocks and also a long list of socks. They just return from a three-months block which was unanimously approved by that Wikipedia community. I would keep this account under close watch.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 22:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    • @Kacamata Remembering that this last block was for no reason at all. Just because they thought it better to block me for nothing. NewsRoyal (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
      • This is separate but I find a third admin blocking you "for no reason at all" unlikely. Thinking it was better for you to be blocked is probably a bad sign. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  Comment: Looks like AI art to me. Therefore it might be {{PD-algorithm}} or it might be an image-to-image translation, in which case the copyright situation is a little more complicated. Either way the phrase "scan of Oil Portrait" in the upload comments confuses me. Why would you need to be deceptive, when AI art isn't banned here? Maybe it's an attempt to circumvent a deletion for COM:OOS? TilmannR (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Added by the person claiming to be the creator. I have no opinion about what is actually going on here as this just seems like a COM:SPAM issue in the end to me. I don't think any of these are in use anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @TilmannR "oil on canvas" it was actually my mistake, the works are actually AI. I'll add the {{PD-algorithm}} in the files. NewsRoyal (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
    @NewsRoyal: If the images were made according to existing images as you mentioned above, then {{PD-algorithm}} is not the right license, as it implies that no copyrightable work was directly involved in the image's creation. TilmannR (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Please block them again for uploading yet another copyvio, File:Funeral of King Constantine II of Greece.png.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G., The image was added because several others like: File:Jade Picon Lollapalooza Brazil 2022 (06).jpg and File:Arthur Aguiar.png have the same form of licensing. NewsRoyal (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@NewsRoyal: Clearly, deleting Admin Túrelio saw that they did not have the same form of licensing. Those files have the "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" on YouTube; File:Funeral of King Constantine II of Greece.png did not (it only had the Standard YouTube License, which is incompatible with Commons). Pinging @Taivo as the final warning Admin and Yann as the first blocking Admin.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kacamata and @Jeff G., The above images were made by AI. For example, "Painting of D. Manuel II of Portugal" was requested. That's why I said it was from existing images, as a painting based on Manuel II was requested. NewsRoyal (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@NewsRoyal: Which images fed which AI, resulting in which dataset, queried with which query, exactly?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  Done. One month block (second block). Taivo (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thank you so much!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Roy17Edit

This user is seemingly trying to POINT to make a file move argument to achieve a consensus on Village_pump. And we should also solve the file move problem. Hehua (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hehua: POINT was annoying, but doesn't seem like a blockable offense unless it becomes habitual. The file naming issue needs a consensus; admins don't really play any role there other than determining when a consensus has been reached, and in my own opinion it hasn't been. Is there some specific admin action you are asking for? - Jmabel ! talk 03:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
No.Thank you for your reply. Hehua (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted filesEdit

User:Arshad00 has been uploading images first as "Own work", and now with no information. All contributions so far have been deleted or tagged for deletion. But the concern here is that the user continues to re-upload files that have been deleted, and is not responding on the talk page when asked.Jay (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

All files deleted. It's likely a problem of understanding copyright; therefore I haven't blocked him this time. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Fox4fan2Edit

Fox4fan2 (talk · contribs) I've already done a 1-month block here. User responded to a warning with obscene response & vandalism spree, so I blocked them. Since in some ways I'm an involved party, I would normally have come here and asked someone else to block, but I needed to stop the vandalism spree. If someone can come to an understanding with this person and wishes to unblock, no need to consult me, but their further behavior after that is on you, not me. Conversely, if anyone thinks this should be an indef block, go for it. As an involved party, I didn't consider it appropriate for me to go that far. - Jmabel ! talk 02:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me for interjecting; I'm just a little country editor, but do Commons admins regularly assume personal responsibility for editors' behavior? Elizium23 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Elizium23: well, Senator Ervin, when unblocking someone someone else blocked, yes, though of course not as much responsibility as for their own edits. The {{Unblock}} template warns administrators, "Do not unblock users without consulting with the administrator who placed the block, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases." Typically, at least in my experience, if you unblock someone whom someone else blocked, you take on a certain responsibility to keep an eye on their actions, at least in the near term. I was trying to save anyone who might do so the bother of consulting with me by saying here what I would say to them if they got hold of me. But it sounds like User:AntiCompositeNumber has made quite the opposite move, having apparently more context here than I did. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel Blocked indef as a sock of indef-blocked Fox4fan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , and revoked talk page access due to abuse after the block. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you for that research (which should inform others looking at usernames ending in "2") and block.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:DaDeadzombieEdit

All their contributions (except for the first two) were controversial overwrites. They received a {{Dont overwrite}} message from Adeletron 3030, but reverted Adeletron's reversions anyway. I'd like to assume good faith, but if they ignore their talk page, I don't know how to help them learn. TilmannR (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Slight correction: Apparently they had a few uploads that weren't overwrites, but those were deleted as copyvios, so I can't see them on the contributions page. TilmannR (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  Done: Blocked for 2 weeks for namespace "File" only. They had been warned before. --Achim55 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Giuseppe Frascaroli, master painter or sockmaster?Edit

These two users have similar time frames of account creation and similar editing patterns. See Frascaroli change an authorship claim on a photo uploaded by Wegeta. Wegeta's uploads are almost exclusively focused on the works of Giuseppe Frascaroli (the painter.)

Frascaroli was born in 1953 and still putatively alive, so it is not far-fetched that the editor by this name is the painter himself, but without documentary proof and COM:VRT license releases, we'll need to block these editors and delete their copyrighted works for lack of valid licensing. Elizium23 (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I've filed Commons:Deletion requests/Works by Giuseppe Frascaroli due to abovementioned licensing issues. Elizium23 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
As I noted at DR, these were already discussed in 2019 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wegeta. At the time there was (and remains no) pages in Italian but there is one in English. Clarification on permission would be helpful, the pictures seem fine, but the letters and awards aren't really that important. I don't think there is a need for a block at this point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The Italian man known as Frascaroli is a notable individual and the subject of actual Wikipedia BLP articles. COM:Username policy indicates that if this is Frascaroli, he needs to proceed with identity verification at COM:VRT or, if he is not Frascaroli, the so-named user must clearly disavow that identity at User:Giuseppe Frascaroli.
Furthermore, the user Wegeta is now claiming the same identity. If "Giuseppe Frascaroli" is an abandoned account, then there is no particular policy violation, because it is not a disruptive use of multiple accounts.
Until identities of any active accounts and uploaders have been settled, we won't know how to proceed regarding permissions for copyrighted works. Elizium23 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Copy right violation and Fake LicenseEdit

all these file are uploads under copy right violations and Commons licenses are fake / all taken from google image

[7]

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Done. I warned the user and mass deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

LTA, sock puppets and sleeper accounts uncovered from User:Zhomron and User:BedrockPersonEdit

Recent developments have uncovered links among the latter four accounts and CheckUser on enwiki revealed that they are all connected to Zhomron. In turn, Zhomron has been behaviourally linked, by several of us editors, to the long-term abuser, sockmaster account BedrockPerson.

BedrockPerson is already globally-locked at Meta. I humbly request that the Commons admins consider preventive blocks of all the rest, to prevent damage and disruption that would result from undetected, prolific LTA sockpuppets. Elizium23 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Done All blocked. Yann (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Yann, thank you kindly for the rapid response. It has been suggested to revdel the contributions (strike the username) of our Cyrillic-named friend, because of the putatively offensive nature of the transliteration from vulgar English. Elizium23 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Some more we've turned up:
Elizium23 (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  Done All blocked. Yann (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

IPv6 editor trying to delete "poor-quality" images that are widely in-useEdit

This user's contributions since November consist solely of 5 deletion requests. All five of these requests are contrary to COM:Redundant because, although they are truly low-quality, the images are in wide use and have no free alternative versions. They are not redundant and they do not lack educational value for the articles. I am not sure why this user is targeting a few files like this.

I would attempt to strike up a conversation with this user, but being IPv6, the Interface ID (second half of the address) changes every day. Any talk page postings will never reach them. Even if we could reach them, there would be no continuity or discoverability by others who wished to join the conversation later. Elizium23 (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked the IP range and closed one DR as kept. Taivo (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

user:VoidseekerNZEdit

VoidseekerNZ (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license on December 26, 2022, (log: [8]).
On January 19, 2023 he overwrote it with a completely different image, stating "taking back my copyright, only photos of Powelliphanta patrickensis belong to me". When I reverted to original version, he requested speedy deletion "because this is my photo and i own the copyright for it and i am informing you that i retract all creative commons attributions and assert full legal ownership over this photo. wikipedia is illegally hosting my IP right now as this photo is against my permission, hence why i requested deletion".[9].
I finally converted the speedy to regular DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg to allow for discussion. He then denied having uploaded the image under a CC-license by himself and claimed "anyone could have done that." ... "perhaps someone else with access to my network uploaded it".

If we take his latter claim seriously, we consequently have to block the user account as possibly comprimised. However, I would prefer another admin to look over the DR/close it. --Túrelio (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

hi there, apologies for any troubles or misplaced things, i don't know wikipedia that well. hello again Turelio.
this is pretty sudden, i dont use this website very often now i have had two people request a block against me. obviously i've trodden on some toes, and that wasn't my intention. but please try see it from my side, this photo (perhaps more? i dont even know how to check) are up here without my knowledge and are extremely sensitive key landmark parts of my portfolio that i put a lot of work into achieving. i dont know how they got here, but i do know that these are *my* work and i worked very very hard to get them, and it is extremely frustrating to find out that anyone could have been downloading it free of charge the whole time, and then when i try a simple thing like deleting a photo of my profile i am met with wall upon wall!
i apologise for not knowing the wikipedia etiquette but please, try remember photographer etiquette! for whatever reason, it does not even really matter materially, my commercially sensitive photos are on here and everyone is too busy focusing on how to get me banned than how to fix my problem. :( VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Someone under that account vandalized a popular page on enwiki -- twice -- and argued about how horrible Wikipedia is after having donated "hundreds of dollars over the years" to the WMF. And these defacements were more or less simultaneous with the upload (not the dispute) dispute of the photo in question. So I'm not sure this is being done in good faith. Elizium23 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
i only discovered said photos when logging into my account due to wanting to change from the skin finally. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
"Said photos"? How many photos are we talking about here? Elizium23 (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
like i said i dont know for all i know my whole gallery is up, i dont know how to use this website VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg is the only image uploaded from your user account Trade (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete all and indef block.
I don't have time for this. Yes, licences are irrevocable. We're within our rights as Commons to keep these. After all, photographer's wishes count for nothing with WMF (a bad decision, but that's how it went). But the value of these image(s) to the project is small, the hassle factor is excessive for them. So if this photographer wants them to go, I think we are most easily served by allowing that. Although the cost would then have to be that we do it to all their images (in case they do it again) and they're indef blocked to stop it happening again.
Commons also (still!) needs to improve its communication to photographers and new editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thank you. i humbly disagree that a block is warranted and it seems punitive rather than prohibitive to my eyes, and i pointed out multiple times to other users that this was a small issue that could be quickly solved with little hassle. my apologies, it's your prerogative to ban me if you choose, another good way to end a horrible day on wiki i guess. thanks for your help, seriously. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The same image is here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/71064879 although under a CC-nc licence
Over at en:WP [10] the uploader and licensor is now unsure of the species identification.
The veracity of the many claims being made here is unconvincing to say the least. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
If this is truly the same image then we should probably delete it just for the copyright violation regardless of any claims about compromised accounts Trade (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey, Andy, thanks for that external link and that's a good find. I wouldn't want to out anyone, especially someone with a putatively compromised account, but links can be followed on inaturalist.org that indicate an interesting profile, with a self-description of this person's occupation and qualifications, with "65 observations" and CC-BY-NC images attached to each one. Elizium23 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
i don't make a habit of publishing my life and qualifications online. Voidseeker is not a person, it is a brand. if you want to believe random inaturalist bios, that's your choice. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@VoidseekerNZ Not to sidetrack things, but an account name should represent a person, not a company or a brand. David10244 (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
more evidence of the commercial nature of this operaation regarding these photos that shouldn't be on wikipedia, i guess. my apologies, i didnt know that. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
" Voidseeker is not a person, it is a brand. "
Throughout this you've argued that "I didn't upload or license this" and also "My account is now secure, only I have access to it" (which we anyway can't trust, given the first). Now you're saying that your account is a "brand", presumably implying that multiple people could be using it (which might also explain how it came to be licensed by someone else).
Can we just get the inevitable indef block enacted here and move on, without wasting any further time. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
i am the only person who has my permission to be using this account. when i say brand i dont mean group. i just mean my name is not actually voidseeker, this is a fictional alias. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
i would appreciate saving any blocks until after the commencement of the deletion post, at which point i will happily concede. but in the meantime i wish to have the right to defend my copyright if that is agreeable. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
alternatively, i would appreciate no block at all, as this is a simple matter that can be resolved by a quick removal of the copyrighted content from the Commons host. in that scenario, a block would not be needed at all, as there would be no preventative need for it. i would happily depart the website of my own volition in that scenario. that would be the ideal outcome i think. but that's just my view, sorry for spamming a bit VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
‘Commons also (still!) needs to improve its communication to photographers and new editors.’ Clearly. That’s the key message from this discussion (and so many others). Brianjd (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
No, it’s not. If anything, Commons already carries photographers around like royalty: We need less of that, and this kind of diva behaviour must be nipped in the bud. (Also, it’s probably an insult to professional photographers, even acknowledging the clashes they often have with Commons, to take this user as a typical representative: Regardless of the great snail photography, this is someone who says «for all i know my whole gallery is up» — which is not at all how professionals work.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you two are working with different definitions of "photographer": Brianjd means "anyone who takes a photo", while Tuválkin means "someone who might show up at FPC". I have too much of a COI to comment on the latter, but I definitely agree with Brian that a new user trying to upload their own work has to jump through a lot of hoops to ensure it doesn't get deleted. (For example, there is an unwritten requirement that a photo can't be low-res without EXIF, except it isn't really a strict requirement, but a patroller might tag as "no permission" anyways and so it turns into an implicit requirement that they must check their account at least once a week to defend their uploads.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin and King of Hearts: Indeed, I am referring to ordinary photographers unfamiliar with Commons. The kind who upload what they probably think is a good photo, only to find it tagged as ‘no permission’ or ‘no FOP in <country>’ or even ‘OOS’ and have on idea what is going on.
(Note: Unfamiliar with Commons. Not unfamiliar with Wikimedia. I saw something like this happen to an admin on another project, and helped to save their upload by assuming good faith. The entire rationale for deletion was ‘Copyright infringement’.) Brianjd (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
no offence, but the capacity of my photography as either "professional" nor otherwise is not up for debate, nor do i really see the relevance. i am a commercial photographer who takes very serious measures to capture these rare, one of a kind photos. i have a broad portfolio with many unique, one of a kind works. perhaps Commons would have been best suited trying to work with me from an early stage and we could have found a compromise regarding low res files or crops or something. but that windows has long closed, and im afraid i have no wish for any of my unique and highly educational photos to be used after my treatment here - largely due to comments like that, Tuvalkin. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a block is in order, especially as I gather from User:VoidseekerNZ that they have no interest in uploading to Commons in the future. I'd even be inclined to make a courtesy deletion, because this seems to matter more to VoidseekerNZ than the image can possibly matter to us. However, I also want to say to VoidseekerNZ: if you do choose in the future to participate in Commons, understand that you are personally responsible for what happens on your account. I would not accept a similar explanation a second time. - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you for your kind, reasonable and considered response. i understand your concerns, and even the hesitations of other users, but i have genuinely taken steps to encrypt my harddrive and will no longer be leaving my computer operating and unattended. this has been a highly stressful ordeal much more for me than anyone else involved, i can promise you that, and i want to avoid this more than anyone. i would like to remind everyone i have requested multiple times for the thread to be closed and for a quick resolution to solve everyone further hassle. i am not trying to cause these problems, the problems are finding me. thank you again for your comment. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
hey Jmabel, i see you're an administrator if that's correct? i'm sorry to bother you and this might be a bit presumptuous of me and if so feel free to disregard. but i was wondering perhaps if you would like to do me a great service and consider locking the deletion thread early as a one off exception. i was told i need an admin who hasn't participated so far and i notice that you haven't commented in the thread. i feel like consensus is already being met due to the excessively high activity (admittedly largely my fault but i never meant malice) and i don't think leaving this up for another week would serve much purpose in approaching clarity of the situation. this has been a highly stressful ordeal for me and would resolve my issues instantaneously, and i hope would provide some other users relief knowing that i wont be haranguing them anymore, even if that wasn't my intent.
for what it's worth, if there are any concerns around my posting, i am happy to accept this under conditions where if there is any form of repeat of this sort of issue i am subject to immediate and unquestionable indefinite block. i am happy to enter into this agreement completely voluntarily, provided the CC license is no longer upheld.
i hope this compromise is agreeable. if you would like to make any modifications or suggestions, please feel free. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@VoidseekerNZ: Admins have special powers as trusted users, but they don’t have special authority; they are bound by community consensus like other users and remain accountable to the community when they do intervene. Admins often comment without otherwise intervening. Even so, I’ll ping Jmabel for a response. Brianjd (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

User:PerrengueGloboEdit

PerrengueGlobo (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is a troll account, indef. blocked in their homewiki. All their uploads here a mocks of actual logos/images and out of scope/copyvio images. This account is a en:WP:SPA. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 15:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=726624323"