Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 123

Sockpuppetry

• VasylSh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Nedya87 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This is most of the evidence, from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Nedya87 also requested that File:Історія магії.jpg be undeleted, a file uploaded by VasylSh. Jonteemil (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Old acct. blocked for 3 months, new account indeffed, files deleted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Tp767

• Tp767 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Keeps uploading unfree files. One prior block for the same reason. Jonteemil (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month. While their last two copyvios were this one in June and one in February, and then you have to go back as far as 2023 for the rest of their copyvios, this is also their second block for copyvios. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

UmirovaDilshoda

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

Keeps uploding unfree files after last warning, {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked her for a week and will delete speedily some copyvios. Squirrel already nominated a lot for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Tomdu45

Tomdu45 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user has been a cross-wiki self-promotion-only account, & although blocked on fr:wiki and warned here several times by messages or F10s, continues to upload out-of-scope files, still disrupting fr:wiki too (diff.). -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted his/her last upload and blocked him/her for 2 weeks. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

R995692

• R995692 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Was tagged with {{End of copyvios}} today 04:10 and has since uploaded 5 files, all of which seem to be blatant copyvios. Jonteemil (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by DMacks. Yann (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Altair Netraphim

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

• All uploads should be checked closely; (example File:Lorong Sanatorium Pakem.jpg, claimed as own work) fake EXIF ​​data has been addressed before, and User was blocked for a week. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 122#User:Altair Netraphim.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sir/Madam,

First of all, I apologize. In the past few weeks, we have only just begun rechecking the uploaded images, as there are quite a lot of them. Many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, and some were uploaded by other colleagues on various platforms, including Facebook and cultural service (Dinas Kebudayaan). We are making efforts to establish partnerships with cultural heritage communities, relevant institutions, and agencies responsible for cultural heritage. However, the old images they provided have unfortunately lost their metadata. This is why I have only recently started reviewing each of the images that have been flagged on my talk page, one by one. Altair Netraphim (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim: Kindly review faster than you upload, so as to catch up.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay sir, thank you. I have revised some of the licenses. I have also requested expedited deletion for some of the images. I am alone in running this review process among our team. Altair Netraphim (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim „ Many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, and some were uploaded by other colleagues on various platforms, including Facebook and cultural services (Dinas Kebudayaan).“ What exactly is this supposed to imply? All I can detect in this previous example is incorrect EXIF ​​data for an image that was already on Facebook in 2021, including a caption "ARTABABZ", which was cut out. COM:PCP? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 11:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention and response. Regarding the statement that many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, what I meant is that most of these files no longer retain complete EXIF information—either due to compression processes or because they were re-uploaded across various platforms, such as Facebook or websites managed by the Department of Culture. Some of these images were also not uploaded directly by me, but by fellow members of the cultural heritage community in Sleman as part of their collective documentation efforts.

As for the image with the caption "ARTABABZ" that was previously uploaded to Facebook in 2021, I understand that its EXIF data may be inaccurate or truncated. This aligns with my earlier explanation that many images no longer contain their original or complete metadata, likely because they have circulated across different platforms. Some of the images were provided to me by members of the cultural heritage community; we requested them legally and communicated directly with the contributors, who, to my knowledge, uploaded them themselves. If any of those images contain incorrect EXIF data, and this is considered problematic, please feel free to remove them. Altair Netraphim (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The image was heavily edited. An iPhone 11 Pro doesn't normally take images like this, nor do they produce pixelated ones like the two other images I discovered were copycat. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: There are further points to consider: COM:FR seems not to have been fully understood. You're specifically using it to renumber images. Why, for what reason? Renaming isn't intended for that purpose; it's not a Crit 2 error, an incorrect number is not meaningless if the rest of the filename is correct, nor is Crit 3, the number doesn't bother anyone, and especially Crit 4, is being misused. Remember: "Just because images share a category does not mean that they are part of a set." זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I understand that the iPhone 11 Pro generally produces high-quality images, and if there are photos that appear to have been heavily edited or show pixelation, it is most likely due to reprocessing, compression during upload, or format conversion by certain platforms. I also do not rule out the possibility that some circulating images originated from other sources or were edited by others before they reached me. If there are any images that are considered inappropriate or suspected to be copies, I am more than willing to review them and remove them if necessary.

Some of these images have already been submitted for removal and have been taken down, while for others, I am still in the process of tracing their sources—particularly from publicly accessible, copyright-free platforms managed by the Indonesian government. Kind regards. Altair Netraphim (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim, Your so-called copyright-free platforms. It's interesting how, when you visit these sites, you can always see copyright notices (example 1) (example 2). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:direktoribudaya.slemankab.go.id I have some issues with the claim that these are government sites, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand that copyright issues—particularly regarding sources from government websites—indeed require careful examination. When I referred to certain platforms as "copyright-free," what I meant was that some Indonesian government websites (such as the Dinas Kebudayaan Sleman), including those managed by local cultural agencies, often share materials intended for educational and public documentation purposes, even if they do not always explicitly state an open license on every page or file. I truly appreciate you pointing out relevant examples, including the deletion discussions on Wikimedia Commons. It was never my intention to mislead, and I am, of course, open to being corrected, including removing related content if it does not meet the appropriate requirements.

Regarding the "Perpustakaan Digital Budaya Indonesia" platform, to the best of my knowledge, it is managed by IACI (Indonesian Archipelago Cultural Initiatives), with support and funding from the Kementerian Kebudayaan dan Pendidikan Indonesia (Indonesian Ministry of Culture and Education). Contributors who wish to submit cultural materials to the platform must undergo editorial review, and submissions are not published automatically.

Again, it is not my intention to mislead, and I fully support the removal of any content that does not comply with the necessary guidelines. Kind regards. Altair Netraphim (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim: So you admit to sharing your login details to allow other people to upload here? How does that work, exactly?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Have the same question. Phương Linh (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Altair Netraphim, we would like to get a answer. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 13:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User is now @Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening: . Answer still missing. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone, my apologies for the delayed response. Our team has been in the process of finalizing documentation for this activity, preparing for the upcoming workshop, and drafting the report on Meta-Wiki over the past few weeks.

Thank you for the question. I have never shared my personal login credentials with anyone, either on the Sleman Department of Culture platform or the Indonesian Digital Library. Contributors on those platforms submit their materials independently. Meanwhile, our team ensures that all contributors have agreed to share their images freely and openly in accordance with Wikimedia Commons policies. Therefore, all uploads, file renaming, and removal of duplicate or low-quality documentation images in this activity were carried out based on mutual agreement and clear communication within the team.

Once again, I apologize for the delay, as we are currently in the middle of preparing the workshop and final report. If there are any further questions, I kindly ask for your patience in case my response takes a bit longer.

Thank you. Kind regards.

Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Bdblakley29

• Bdblakley29 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Was tagged with {{End of copyvios}} in August last year and has since amassed more than 30 copyvio notices. All non-pending taggings have ended with file files being deleted. I think the user's uploads must be thoroughly gone through. Jonteemil (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. for uploading more files. All files need review. Yann (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Kansas (1925–1927).svg

HoosierMan1816 and I are currently locked in an edit war over the above file. HoosierMan maintains that the sentence I added about the current flag of Kansas is "irrelevant", and he also objects to the inclusion of this source, which contains the bill defining the 1925 flag. I'd be grateful if a third party could intervene. Zacwill (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@HoosierMan1816: While I agree that your original source should be cited, I don't see any reason for the removals.

For the date, have you considered {{Date context}}? E.g. "valid from 1925 till 1927", possibly combined with "SVG created 2025"? - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not actually clear that the flag (which is technically a banner) became obsolete when the modern flag was adopted in 1927. The removed source, published in 1938, lists both, one being the "state flag" and the other being the "state banner". The filedesc reflected this before it was rewritten by HoosierMan. Zacwill (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The banner is very much obsolete. Only one copy of the banner is known to have been created, and the current flag was intentionally adopted to replace the banner. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This "Manual of Patriotic Instruction", published by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in 1944, also makes mention of the banner, with no implication that it was obsolete. Zacwill (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Zacwill, I did not fully understand your argument at first. I would like to list out both of our arguments as I have an idea on how to reasonably solve this debate.

‎

Correct me if I am wrong or missing something. You believe that the banner is still official for the following reasons:

- The Kansas government has not amended the law adopting the banner, nor have they explicitly said that the banner is no longer official.

- The banner is mentioned in a 1938 source and a 1944 source.

‎‎

I believe that the banner is no longer official for the following reasons:

- After being rejected for display in Washington, D.C., the Kansas government proceeded to create legislation to adopt the current state flag.

- Only one state banner was ever created.

- After adoption of the state flag, the banner has never been used since.

- According to the Kansas state law, the banner is "to be used on every and all occasions, when the state is officially and publicly represented". Despite this law, the banner is never used.

Both are reasonable arguments. I believe the best course of action is to contact the Kansas government to ask if the banner is still official or not. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not actually have an objection to the source. You used that source to justify the inclusion of information about the current flag which led me to remove the source out of spite. I am sorry. I have now brought back the source. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zacwill: Do you think the two of you may be able to move this forward from here on the file talk page, rather than further involving administrators? If so, I recommend copy-pasting the substantive materials above to that page and going from there. - Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, we can try. Zacwill (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Because the new file is substantially different to the originally uploaded, I've reverted to the previous version and urge uploader to upload it under a different name instead of replacing it. Bedivere (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere That was completely unnecessary. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Not a very helpful move, since we're now back to the original problem of the file name being inaccurate. Zacwill (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Then ask for it to be renamed. If you want to replace a file with a totally different design, you should always do it under another filename Bedivere (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Sangjinhwa

• User: Sangjinhwa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued oos uploading as highlighted in Special:Diff/1038429881/1048727630 after three blocks for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The linked files were uploaded in January 2024, before any of the three blocks happened. The user just came off a 6-month block that ended in May, only to mark themselves as retired. It doesn't look like any action is needed here, unless there are other now-deleted files in question that I'm not seeing? ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There are no deleted contributions following 2 Nov 24. GMG^talk 15:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Only one edit after last block. Taivo (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao

• User: Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning and block for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I don't understand why tou tagged this file, there is nothing which could have a copyright here. File:Marker to Old Blue Bird Seminary, Simpson College.jpg is also probably OK. Either old enough, or no copyright notice. Yann (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

For File:George Washington Carver marker, Simpson College (2).jpg and File:George Washington Carver marker, Simpson College (1).jpg, there should be a regular DR instead of a speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I've long had some problems with Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I've seen them sometimes celebrated for copying lots of images for Flickr, but it seems to me the user wants maximum possible credit for anything they do with zero possible responsibility. They've admitted they pay no attention to what they uploaded after its uploaded. I've often found myself cleaning up messes made by the user years later. Their actions that have affected me personally most significantly is their insistence on prioritizing their role in copying files from Flickr to Commons above the role of the photographer and Flickr uploader, which resulted in Tulane University taking down their archive of free licensed photos, the University considering Wikimedia a disreputable institution, and a Tulane historian and photographer I formerly enjoyed an occasional cordial professional relationship with ending it and chewing me out at length when she found out I was connected with Wikimedia (I was at first puzzled by this, then figured out she perhaps thought I might be Ser Amantio di Nicolao or at least condoned their actions). I really don't think it appropriate for a long-term regular to continue to refuse to take any responsibility and just assume that all problems they cause will be magically taken care of by the collective while they go do something else. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I fully agree. SAdN is one of the small number of users who creates a disproportionate amount of cleanup work for other editors by mass uploading from Flickr with no curation either before or after. Over 1,000 of the files he's uploaded in the past year have been deleted - almost entirely duplicates and copyvios from Flickr that would have been avoided with the least bit of care. Every single one of those took up admin time. Just in the last few days, I see mass uploads with broken licenses, dozens of duplicates, and improper categorization.

  Five years ago, I blocked SAdN from the File namespace for these reasons. He agreed to follow basic rules for mass uploading (listed here) as a condition of unblock. Clearly he has failed to do so. Unless there is a compelling case otherwise, I will reinstate the block (as a block from uploading rather than the namespace) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Pi.1415926535: What files, exactly, have I uploaded in the past year that have been deleted? Every deletion notice I've received in the past year - that I'm aware of - has been regarding an upload that was several years old, at best. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Correction, the 1,000+ figure was for the last 13 months; the count for the last 12 months is a bit below 1,000. The vast majority are like File:Contrails 3May 2025 (33) - 54563438664.jpg and were deleted (and mostly redirected) as duplicates. That's a perfect example of your refusal to do basic curation - you uploaded a set of 33 files, many of them near-identical, without useful categories, descriptions, or filenames. And you didn't even notice that you uploaded the whole set twice. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Their actions that have affected me personally most significantly is their insistence on prioritizing their role in copying files from Flickr to Commons above the role of the photographer and Flickr uploader, which resulted in Tulane University taking down their archive of free licensed photos, the University considering Wikimedia a disreputable institution, and a Tulane historian and photographer I formerly enjoyed an occasional cordial professional relationship with ending it and chewing me out at length when she found out I was connected with Wikimedia (I was at first puzzled by this, then figured out she perhaps thought I might be Ser Amantio di Nicolao or at least condoned their actions)." Could the rest of Commons get some context? None of this makes much sense otherwise @Infrogmation: --Trade (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Eg, bulk copying images from Tulane's Flickr and stamping each in the "source" field as "Uploaded by AlbertHerring" (User:AlbertHerring being a previous name of user now better known as User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao). Photographer was very upset - furious in fact - that it looked to her that "AlbertHerring" was being credited instead of her, when she photographed, selected, and uploaded her work to the internet under a license that was supposed to require attribution. She had a University online archive of more than 10 years of free licensed photos deleted from the internet soon thereafter. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• I can't believe 3 May 2025, 11:02:58 occurred prior to January 1, 1930. Everything i know about time is a lie--Trade (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Trade: Could we get some context from you about the above post?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Trade: What is the context for the dates you mention? Is this addressed to me? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  When you start your comment with "this user's copyvio is so bad my friends started to hate

  Seriously though shouldn't there be a filter for when PD-US is applied photos taken with a 2018 digital camera. Trade (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  • @Trade: No. I often photograph old photos and even content from books, magazines, etc. with my camera (which is not precisely from 2018, but the principle is the same). Whether an image is PD has little to do with the last technology in the chain by which it arrives in Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

    We have plenty of good .webp and PDF files but we still block them from new users anyways for obvious reasons Trade (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's just a comment on the license of Contrails 3May 2025 (33).jpg Trade (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Courtesy link: File:Contrails 3May 2025 (33).jpg. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Trade: Files on Flickr which the Flickr users tag as "Public domain", when copied to Commons with Upload Wizard default here as "{{PD-US}}". If you didn't know that's what was going on, you might have asked rather than making obscure statements about chronology. Many Wikimedians who regularly copy files from Flickr are aware of this and take care of that when uploading - of course not Ser Amantio di Nicolao, as they apparently don't take even minimal care about what they copy here (beyond making sure they have bragging rights to say they uploaded LOTS AND LOTS). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  I find it a bit silly for others to bring up a specific file and complain about it being "obscure" when others comment on it. Quite frankly the whole issue with Upload Wizard comes off as a ridiculous self-created issue so i do not fault him entirely Trade (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

With no objection in 48 hours, I have indefinitely blocked Ser Amantio di Nicolao from uploading files. Mass upload tools are very powerful, but misuse of them can be extremely disruptive. Failure to be responsible with such tools is a breach of community trust. Given the scale of the improperly curated uploads, and the broken promises after the previous unblock, I would expect Ser Amantio di Nicolao to do basic curation of a substantial fraction of his past uploads before an unblock. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Isn't there a way to block him from using mass upload tools only? That seems to be his primary issue Trade (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action @Pi.1415926535. Bedivere (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

+1   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Probably a technical block from mass uploads is not possible, however kind of a topic ban on uploads of not own work might well be imposed. This would be a better solution rather than ultimate upload block, as I don't see any point in preventing this guy from uploading his own photographs. --A.Savin 10:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Oganesson007

• User: Oganesson007 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Persistent personal attacks and uncivil behavior

Today, I saw a blatant personal attack by the user mentioned above ("a pathetic, unsuccessful attempt by a random user"). Although that comment is not about me, I feel extremely disappointed because this user has been also involved in ad hominem attacks against me (implying numerous times that I "censor" the content on Wikimedia Commons or claiming that I am something like a government agent, just because I nominated some of their uploads that had copyright problems), I had asked them to refrain from making such comments in the future in a friendly message. However, they continued to do so, explicitly labeling me as such. Now I regret not having reported those incidents, because that may have stopped this behavior. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't win a "citizen of the year" award, but I don't think it is a sufficient reason for a block.

By the way @HeminKurdistan, when you bring a complaint about someone on this page, you are required to notify them on their user talk page, and you do not seem to have done so. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Xxiissmm

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

Re-uploading copyrighted materials again after blocked for 1 week which has expired. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 16:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I suspect User:Liamniar, User:Loreroll and User:Thomsongazelle are all the same person. The first two have posted copyrighted photos of coyotes (one since deleted) and labeled them "African coyotes" (which don't exist). Thomsongazelle and Loreroll were both involved in the creation of a now deleted Indonesian wiki article on this invented species, and the timestamps of their edits on this page are very close together. Mariomassone (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Confirmed Blocked and tagged. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

user:Kentaro2022

Kentaro2022 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

personal attack and reject talk --eien20 (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether calling a bot an idiot is a personal attack. - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

JLStevenNgao

Personal attack on his talk page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JLStevenNgao). I had warned this user not to bother me but he didn't listen and now he resorts to attacks. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: seems to me like you absolutely unnecessarily poked a bear, and it used its claw. If you like, I can block both of you, but I am certainly not going to just block him. - Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I dunno what to do with him, I tried to deal with him. I really want him to stop messaging me because I was a really busy user as I edit and upload files.

For context: I told him that the Philippines are out but he still thinks that the Philippines are qualified FIFA Nations/Canada-Mexico-United States 2026? This suggest he refused to acknowledge that the Philippines are out of the qualification.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIFA_Nations/Canada-Mexico-United_States_2026&diff=prev&oldid=1048701952

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIFA_Nations/Canada-Mexico-United_States_2026&oldid=1019518146

Some of the countries he added are not qualified as shown in his previous edits to the gallery page. Is there is any really good advice on how to deal with this? I just don’t want to deal with this person or his edits anymore since he keeps adding Philippines to the qualified section despite telling him that the Philippines are out and cannot be qualified for the World Cup next year (yes, I did show a news article that the PH is eliminated). Apologize if I really provoke the user (even though I tried to remind the user about the boundaries and also remind that adding the Philippines to the qualification system is vandalism since that country is eliminated as documented by football sources), I had a really rough time as I am a busy person who makes and uploads files and it can be really stressful for me. Should I take a break or something like this?

SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

See also COM:ANB#FIFA Nations/Canada-Mexico-United States 2026.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Since the situation is more of a dispute between me and JL, please close this because we need to discuss the topic further in that one. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Sarim Wani

• User: Sarim Wani (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so and block.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Block was for intimidation/harassment. Final warning and one file deleted. Yann (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment

I am relatively new to copyright laws and was unaware of certain YouTube copyright rules, which led to the removal of two images due to the same error. I acknowledge the mistake and will ensure it does not happen again. Regarding the last image involving the J&K Bank logo, the situation remains somewhat unclear. Although many consider J&K Bank to fall under the RTI Act, it does not appear on the official online RTI portal. While it is a public government entity, as noted in J&K Bank Ltd. v. Central Information Commission, 2019, its applicability under RTI law is still debated. For peace of mind, I have filed an offline RTI request through a third-party service provider. Sarim Wani (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

RTI and copyright laws are different. I don't think that falling under the RTI Act automatically leads the content to be under GODL. Yann (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yann: You already final warned in this edit 17:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Are final warnings from late last year no longer relevant? Perhaps another Admin can take a more objective approach.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. I was waiting for another admin's opinion. Yann (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yann: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

self-reversions

I modified a script I'd written to update the descriptions of a bunch of files I uploaded recently, and accidentally used the prefix Category: rather than File:. I therefore need to do a shedload of self-reversions: everything I did today between 17:21 and 17:44.

Could someone with revert permissions revert these? Sorry, and thank you. Marnanel (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marnanel: I assume you mean rollback? How about I just give you 24 hours of rollback and you can make sure the particulars are cleaned up proper. This can be done decent easy by going to your contribs and opening the rollback action in new tabs. Then just close all the tabs.

Also anyone watching will see you self reverting and not some dude reverting you a hundred times. GMG^talk 19:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

GladysAlegre

GladysAlegre (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright files despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

User hasn't uploaded anything in more than a week. Final warning issued yesterday. GMG^talk 12:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Textstil

Textstil (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Immediate reuploading copyvio after deletion File:2.Babi 2019.jpg → File:Portrait Babi Badalov 2019 wiki.jpg. Romano1981 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 12:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

User:ILE7

• ILE7 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Problema (reason):Buenas ,ese usuario hizo reupload y removio el Template Copyvio de este logo (File:Grupo Indalo (logo).png) ,yo dije al usuario que no publique el logo y lee... (osea enseñé al usuario para que publicará el logo simple pero me ignoró y removió el Copyvio en este logo). Por favor bloquea por edit war y Copyvio.

AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: Hi, The file to which you added a tag is not a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done I tagged 2 other files which do not seem to have the proper permission. User warned. Nothing else to be done now. Yann (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

WikiAddict1996

WikiAddict1996 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User resists CSD nomination by re-uploading previous deletion on File:Ellie Carpenter 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup Portrait.jpg.

Please see this log for deletion history. Thank you! Sev6nWiki (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done will block for a week. If they do this again, a much longer block is in order. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Guardia circular

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

Has uploaded several copyvios since having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}} just more than a week ago. Jonteemil (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done will block for 2 weeks and leave a further message. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Aladdin Meier (Politic-Legal Secretary)

Aladdin Meier (Politic-Legal Secretary) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Spamming invalid DRs--Trade (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Looked at three of their DRs and all comments on those supported deletion, so @Trade if there is a problem here you are going to have to be a lot more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I closed one DR and nominated one more file for regular deletion. Currently block is not needed. Taivo (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

User:高崎岳野

• 高崎岳野 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Persistently uploading the same copyvio screenshot from Youtube while many speedy deletions and warning. See his log. Netora (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Final warning sent. Yann (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately our warnings were ignored. File:Que-14316926564.png Netora (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Now blocked for a week. Taivo (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Yoslo30

• Yoslo30 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploaded File:Logo Sabah FC (Azerbaïdjan).png after having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}} in October. Jonteemil (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Toxica1982

• Toxica1982 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Was tagged with {{Dont recreate}} in May yet has now done it again reuploading File:Nkzyqueen.jpg as File:Toxica.jpg. Jonteemil (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked her for a week. All contributions are already deleted (out of scope). Taivo (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Block evasion

• Kodamkasuari (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Kodam18kasuari (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Kodamkasuari uploaded File:Mayjen TNI Jimmy Ramoz Manalu foto terbaru.jpg which was deleted as copyvio but has now been reuploaded as File:Mayjen TNI Jimmy Ramoz Manalu ACC terbaru.jpg by sockpuppet Kodam18kasuari. Master has been indefed on idwiki whence the sock likely was created. Jonteemil (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Taivo. Yann (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary file renames, continuing

After User talk:AnRo0002#Renaming 3 (and several earlier discussions on their talk page) and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05#Unnecessary file renames, User:A.Savin blocked User:AnRo0002 for "after warnings: several file moves against COM:FNC despite requests not to do so". This was their second such block for the same cause.

The issue persists, for example recently in:

File renamed: File:Mountain Avens (Dryas octopetala) - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg → File:Dryas octopetala - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg

Please can we have the necessary action taken to stop this once and for all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think renaming images from geograph.org.uk does not affect users but if you prefer I don't rename files from this source agauin (@A.Savin, whats your opinion?) anro (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The source is immaterial. You also recently renamed:

• File renamed: File:20120901Filz-Klette Hockenheim2.jpg → File:20120901Arctium tomentosum2.jpg
• File renamed: File:Lamium album, Utterslev Mose, København, Denmark (26565586370).jpg → File:Lamium album (26565586370).jpg

Both of which discarded information; neither of which were from Geograph. There are ample other bad moves in your recent history. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20120901Arctium tomentosum2.jpg is a file created by anro. So I don't think that there is any kind of problem here. I am not entirely sure about File:Lamium album, Utterslev Mose, København, Denmark (26565586370).jpg, but is Søborg a part of København or is it not? So may be these are not the very best examples for excessive renaming. However, what is the reason for renaming File:Mountain Avens (Dryas octopetala) - geograph.org.uk - 831241.jpg, which is a perfectly valid name IMO? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said "There are ample other bad moves". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

May be, e.g. just recently File:Atlas roslin pl Bluszczyk kurdybanek 3621 7088.jpg -> File:Glechoma hederacea Atlas roslin pl Bluszczyk kurdybanek 3621 7088.jpg and a number of similar images. I don't speak Polish, but "Bluszczyk kurdybanek" is the Polish version of Glechoma hederacea, see pl:Bluszczyk kurdybanek. Commons:File renaming is an official guideline. It says that criterion 3 does not "cover moving a file from its common usage name to its scientific or technical name" and that "if possible, language and schema should be preserved". Therefore, I cannot see any valid reason for such a move that discards the common (Polish) name for the scientific name, even though anro's name might be understandable for a larger number of people than the Polish name. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, the Polish name is still there, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• I don't want to intervene 3rd time in this case, but I  Support further escalating block for AnRo0002, as the renames are definitely unnecessary and not covered by our policies. --A.Savin 15:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  There are also potential grounds for deadminship on misuse of advanced tools, and removal of filemover right.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

   Support both de-adminship and removal of filemover rights. Looking at their recent edits they rename a lot of files against policy on a daily basis (filtering by the "new redirect" tag, they have renamed files more than 500 times this month alone). This has likely been going on for a very long time. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't like piling on but this sort of thing is particularly out of line from an admin. It is very rare that a file that has a meaningful filename that is correctly spelled and not actively misleading should be renamed, especially for a file that has been around for a long time. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with Jmabel's comment. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Broadly agree with the above. I can see zero necessity for these renames, and there's no credible case being made for one. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

AnRo0002 deadmin discussion

AnRo0002 (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes)

Given that some above agree with me and no one does not, I think we should have this discussion.

•  Support as proposer.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think it's worthy of an administrator to ignore requests for highly controversial file renaming without comment and to ignore requests not to disrupt my file naming structure. On the contrary, the renaming continues unabated, and when I look at his discussion page, I'm not the only one with this experience. --Lukas Beck (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Support removal of both filemover and admin rights. Rules should apply equally to everyone, but admins are nonetheless held to a higher standard to match their role and the responsibility it entails. This would not be acceptable for anyone to do, much less an administrator. Continuing the same disruptive behaviour after two blocks shows a clear unwillingness or inability to exercise good judgment, which should be disqualifying for someone in an admin position. --ReneeWrites (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I will stop renaming files imediately except of agreements with authors anro (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Stehst du selber scheinbar nicht zu deiner Meinung und kannst deine eigenen Aktionen nicht angemessen erklären bzw. verteidigen, so bist du erst recht nicht als Admin in diesem Projekt geeignet. --A.Savin 22:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  mittlerweile erkläre ich jedwede verschiebung oder löschung, und ich lasse bis auf meine eigenen Bilder fast alles von verschiebungen unangetastet anro (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose I assume that anro actually stopped all attempts to impose a name scheme on plant images by renaming them disrespecting the guideline. As long as this remains so, I don't see any urgent reason to remove his admin and filemover rights. On the other hand, creation of lots of lengthy and extremely specific "by year" categories like Category:Plantaginaceae in the United States in July 2012 or Category:Digitalis in the Northern Hemisphere in July 2005 is detrimental to finding images in the category system. I know that this kind of categories has led to quite a number of complaints over the years. But this activity does not involve any misuse of advanced tools. I also do not know whether anro needs admin tools for his work, even though he is a very highly active user. Anyway, I appreciate his friendliness and his enthusiasm working on Commons and uploading huge amounts of photos. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  my by month by year categories are dissolving overpopulated categories like Veronica in the Northern Hemisphere in April (meanwhile less than 200 images) and, @Robert Flogaus-Faust see Apiales in Hesse in July 2015, to reduce the category Apiales in Hesse in July anro (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  That may be so and I suppose that we discussed this already. The worst case may be if a cluttered species category like Category:Veronica persica is split into small pieces like Category:Veronica persica in the Northern Hemisphere in April. This category did not contain many files, but you divided it even further into currently 16 by-year categories, nine of which contain just two files or less. I really wonder who would go to so much effort to look at all these categories. This just means hiding photos very well in a completely exaggerated and hardly usable category system that may have a single advantage, i.e. an improved ability for the photographer to easily find their images of a species taken on a specific date, neatly united in a category. Of course, this could also be done with personal (hidden) categories. I personally prefer an offline list of my uploaded photos sorted by date for this purpose. By the way, I use this kind of extremely complex categories if they exist and I might have created even a few if similar by-year categoriess existed before. However, I won't create any additional ones. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

   I handle that the same way Lukas Beck (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  @L. Beck: My uploaded files should all be in personal (hidden) Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G. and the cats below it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  I have already created such categories, but unfortunately I am not keeping up with them. But I like that idea. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Please see also this discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnRo0002#Category:Pinus_in_Germany_by_state --Lukas Beck (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  Even after being addressed on his discussion page, he continues to delete categories in an established category system without any discussions. And unfortunately, he approaches the issue with indifference. I can only repeat myself, but I expect a lot more from an administrator. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  Category:Pinus sylvestris in Germany by state exists and also Category:Faboideae in Germany by state. Obviously, placing photographs directly in these categories would not make any sense. May be it is just too late or too hot, but I don't understand the issue. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  I recreated and refilled the categories after anro emptied them without debate and deleted them using his administrator privileges. Regards Lukas Beck (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  This debate has had its uses. This category has since been created. The topic is closed for me. But I'll leave the comment here and show how the user anro works when he's not addressed intensively and repeatedly by other users. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by L. Beck (talk • contribs) 11:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Support --A.Savin 15:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

File moving by Criterion 1 allegedly against naming guideline

Hello,

Phyrexian undid a move in Special:Diff/1052481749 that IMHO saw for a violation of the file naming guideline. The current filename is File:Berlin - Museum für Naturkunde 6942.jpg, he undid the move to File:Berlin Museum für Naturkunde - Siamesische Hundeföten Alkoholpräparat 2025-05-07.jpg which is certainly more descriptive of the main subject. I asked him beforehand to better name his files. Is such a move an abuse of filemover rights? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

As I explained to Grand-Duc here, reaching him before he moved the file in the first instance, there is a practical reason I keep the file name of my uploads simple. The file has a totally legit name for Commons names guidelines and customs, and the fact he does not agree is not a reason to change it, and IMHO his arbitrary renaming could be an abuse of filemover rights given that I previously clearly stated I did not agree with it and what is written in COM:FR: «Uploaders often have schemas naming their files; moving files might break them. If possible, language and schema should be preserved, as well as the camera or catalogue number», and «Unless there is a compelling reason not to, uploader requests should be honored». Regards. --Phyrexian ɸ 17:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not good to have uploads with no details in the title or description. I would appreciate at the very least, if you added a description, if you insist on not having relevant details in the title. The description currently is "The Museum für Naturkunde - Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Germany." which is outright incorrect; it's not a picture of the museum, it is a picture of an item in the museum, which item should be named and described in the description.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree. The filename and description should detail what the file shows, not merely what museum it was in. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Phyrexian -- a file should not be renamed if the author does not wish it to be renamed -- except really meaningless names (e.g. DSC009823.JPG), obvious mistakes, typos, inappropriate/offensive names and the like. --A.Savin 19:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done While the original file name is not ideal, it is descriptive enough. The description however clearly should be improved. Grand-Duc, please use your capacitiy for tolerance and respect the wishes of uploaders. Phyrexian, please try to use slightly more descriptive names. They can still be simple, e.g. "Item in the collection of xyz museum". And please change the description to include as many details as possible. This is where you make your files useful, our as well as outside search machines can then identify the content. Thank you both! --Kritzolina (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Prosfilaes: It's not true the file has no details. The description is provided in 3 languages (4 if you add the one of the title) with specific links to Wikipedia pages, and I'm sorry I don't agree is incorrect. This, combined with the 5 categories of the file, 3 of which are object specific, give to any user quite a good idea of what the image depicts, and are for sure above the average standard of information provided by self produced pictures uploaded on Commons. That said, I agree with you that a more detailed description would be better, and I'll add it as soon as I end writing here, but I want to point out two things. First, this is a wiki: everybody is more than welcome to edit the description page of my files to improve the description, but Grand-Duc chosed to do not, and instead rename the file against the guidelines after I told him I did not agree. Second, I can write very specific description to every file I upload, but as a volunteer on this project I focus my work on what I can and what I want to do; this means that some times I prefer to spend time uploading more files because I think is more useful than instead upload just a few but with better description (see again: this is a wiki, everybody can edit my files, but just me can upload them), and sometimes I just do not have so much specific information to add, so I could not. --Phyrexian ɸ 05:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Arken-B

Arken-B (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Seems to be a single-purpose account to argue interminably (mainly on the help desk) that one of two people both apparently known as "Maloosak" should not be called "Maloosak" because of the potential for confusion. Having been told otherwise by every person who has engaged with them, they continue, including continuing a section on COM:Help desk after GreenMeansGo tried to close it, and then starting another section to argue the same issue again. (They also seem to have commented on the talk page of every single file page that mentions this person.) I'm slightly involved, so I should not be the one to block them. I don't see any sign that they will stop, and I don't see any sign that they are ever likely to contribute usefully to this project. - Jmabel ! talk 23:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked them and nuked their file talk page creations. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Seniorjackfr

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

Seems to have uploaded a bunch of copyvios since their first block a year ago. Jonteemil (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

nothing that I uploaded is copyrighted and I'm exclusively on arabic/french wikipedia ever since my arbitrary block on the english section of wikipedia. atleast provide sources and evidences before accusing me of something. Seniorjackfr (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

While reading your user talk page and especially User talk:Seniorjackfr#File:10th NARC meeting.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:D-clik Productions.jpg, my conclusion is that you are either lying or are confused. Jonteemil (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Your talk page has a large amount of copyright violations, . This should clear things up if you're confused. Sev6nWiki (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

If Seniorjackfr seriously believes that nothing they uploaded is copyrighted, then they certainly do not have sufficient understanding of copyright to upload third-party content to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel an indefinite block or >2 weeks is appropriate here considering the former block of 1 week (block log) and the large volume of copyright violations received afterwards. Sev6nWiki (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel You are an admin after all, you have the power to make a decision regarding the user. Jonteemil (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping for a little clearer consensus on the length of the block, but it seems no one else is commenting. I'll step in and make it 2 months; I don't do enough blocks on actions that aren't blatant vandalism or abuse to be sure what is usually meted out. - Jmabel ! talk 18:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 18:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Heroesdx9

• Heroesdx9 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Was given {{End of copyvios}} three days ago and has since continued to upload more than a dozen blatant copyvios. Almost all uploads should be nuked, only those simple enough to be below TOO may be kept. Jonteemil (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

DanyXMC

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

Was given {{End of copyvios}} in June last year and literally all of their uploads since has been deleted as copyvios. Now, less than a month ago, they uploaded File:Aurora Futbol Club.png which I tagged with {{Logo}} since it seems to be yet another blatant copyvio. Jonteemil (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Please tag the files which do not have proper license or permission. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Commons proposed policies and guidelines

Can someone revert this movement, please? Wieralee (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Done - Jmabel ! talk 16:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Karthikeyan Karvexia

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

Promo-only account. Already blocked on enwiki. Nuke uploads. Jonteemil (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks, all files deleted. Is this account a sock of Category:Sockpuppets of Shinoyvbvb? Different names but the guy looks similar. Yann (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, sorry. Jonteemil (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

JCI Cotonou soleil

JCI Cotonou soleil (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is new and uploaded a bunch of photos that seems to be related to an Association of the same name (https://jcicotonousoleil.com/), all on Novembre 2024 and nothing since. I do not know if they are relevant for Commons but the definition of each image is lacking in information. I already left a message but could an administrator check the admissibility of the uploads? If they are OK, could you find a category to link them?

Pierre cb (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Massive deletion requests by IP

• 176.1.22.76 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) requests tons of deletion of old(!) redirects, because they don't like the typos. I left a note on the disc. Maybe an admin can have a look? I assume correctly that we still keep old redirects? I don't see any bad intention, tho. Thx! ----Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I normally use Template:Bad name for those misspelled category redirects which says that misspelled categories should be deleted. That is also the reason C1 in the policy: COM:CSD#C1: Improperly named category:

• "Categories with incorrect names may be speedily deleted after their contents have been moved to a properly named category. If the old category name is also correct, a redirect should be left in place."

My speedy requests were for misspelled category redirects, not for file redirects and not for category redirects with correct names.

But I know that there exist admins which always move categories without redirects as standard also for categories without misspellings. And I know that there exist admins which also delete file redirects without misspellings as standard, not only for new files. I don’t understand these things and I think that those are bigger problems than deleting misspelled category redirects such as the policy says, they should be deleted.

If those misspelled category redirects would not be deleted anymore, just because they are one year old or older, then there would be thousands of misspelled category redirects after a while. I don’t think that this really is what most users want. —176.1.22.76 06:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I want to add: Up to now, these misspelled category redirects (after having moved the category on better names) have always been deleted. Therefore, I don’t understand, why this shall be a problem now. There have been deleted also other redirects without such misspellings, I have also created redirects out of a few of those category redirects without misspellings with a "bad name" tag sometimes, if there was a good target category for it. But I think that especially those misspelled ones really should be deleted. —176.1.22.76 07:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Rename a category #Deleting the old category:

• "If the old category is a simple typo or you are the only person who ever used the category and you are the one fixing it up, it can safely be deleted. Request speedy deletion by marking it thus: {{bad name|new name}}"

Those are the misspelled category redirects, they all have such typos. And there is no difference, if the category was long on the old misspelled name and has been moved in the last days or if there has been an old misspelled redirect, in both cases there exist misspelled category redirects on a name that existed for a longer time. But the policy says that misspelled redirects shall be deleted. It doesn’t say anything about the age of the misspelled redirect or the misspelled category before the move. Nothing at all. I think that this would have to be discussed on the policy talk page, but not here. —176.1.22.76 07:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Now the category redirects have all been deleted. I see a another problem with this. If other admins would have deleted those category redirects with the Template:Bad name on the page, it would normally look like this:

• X deleted page Category:Y ((incorrectly named) duplicate, content moved to [[:Category:NewCategoryName]])

In those normal cases, everyone can find the correct name of the category at once, so there is no problem with it.

But now again, User:Yann (who has a talk page which he has protected indefinite 2 years ago for every IP user) has deleted those redirects. Therefore I can’t talk to him about this directly. When he deletes those category redirects with bad name template, it always looks like this without any link to the new category name after the move:

• X deleted page Category:Y (per COM:SPEEDY)

In most cases, there also is the move log with the new name, then that is no problem. But it might be, that the category was never on the redirect’s name and hasn’t been moved. Then the correct name of the category only is on the deleted page, but not in the deletion or move log. Then the target category can’t be found anymore easily, and users will think that there doesn’t exist such a category anymore, and they can't see why. It would be better, if the new category’s name would always be placed into the deletion log, but I have never seen him doing that. I don’t know, what to do with that problem, because I can’t ask him directly. He is the only admin doing this who is that active with deletions of category redirects, and none of these got the correct category name in the deletion log.

I have also fixed broken redirects already. There have been thousands of those broken category redirects a few months ago after deletion of their target categories. If the deletion log said, Yann has deleted the category, and there was no move log, then it wasn't possible to see, if the deletion has been because the category had been just empty or if it had a better name somewhere else which not always can be found anymore. Then the broken redirect always had to be deleted, if no better target could be imagined.

And is it wanted, that a very active admin has a permanently protected talk page (since 2 years already) and IP users can’t ask him anything on that page about his admin actions anymore and have to address problems or questions directly on pages like this? —176.1.22.76 09:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my talk page is semi-protected as there have been too many vandalisms. There are very rarely questions by IPs which should not be on a common board, like this one. And yes, I delete empty categories when there are tagged as such. Yann (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with deleting empty categories with the reason "empty" or a link to the speedy reasons. In those cases, there isn’t an existing category to link to. But in these cases from above, they weren’t just empty categories, they were misspelled category redirects which I all tagged with Template:Bad name (for finding the new category names better), and surely, all these redirects also were empty. But the reason for deletion of those redirects wasn’t their emptiness, but the misspellings. And for all of them, there still exists a category which isn’t empty at all. And the redirects linked to them and the bad name tag also did. Therefore, I think that there should be those links to the correct spelled, non-empty categories also in the deletion log. Only then can users or other projects which may have the misspelled link on any page find the category again easily. If only a link to the policy page is in the log and maybe no move log for that category redirect, then they find it not anymore and think, the category itself would have been deleted and not only the redirect to it. Do you see, what I mean? Template:Bad name was created for those cases, so that it is easier to put the correct name directly onto the redirect and then into the deletion log. Could you please put the correct names there in the future? I would appreciate that very much and I think, other users also.

And after 2 years of protection, I think the talk page could be opened again and only be protected for shorter terms, if there will be vandalism again. Kind regards —176.1.22.76 13:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Please create an account. With the number of your edits, you would be autopatrolled by now. Yann (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I’ll think about that. But that doesn’t answer those deletions without links to the categories with the correct names. If you’ll change that, I really would be glad about that. I don’t put the bad name templates onto the misspelled category redirects only to see again and again that the names of the correct spellings are not in the deletion log nevertheless. I’m already trying to avoid your deletions because of this, but as you see here, I can't. —176.1.22.76 18:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Could you please list the deleted categories? Yann (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I can’t list all those category redirects, there were many. But I’ve also found some, where really no move log has been. If I find them again, I’ll post them here. There also were some on 5 July, as I saw. I might have some of the deleted categories in some tabs, let’s see. —176.1.16.133 07:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, here are three of those examples that I can find now:

• Category:Pavillion im Murmelbachtal (Wupper): This category had been moved twice and lies now at Category:Pavillon (Parkanlage Vorwerk). I put a bad name tag onto the misspelled redirect and you deleted it with the reason "per COM:SPEEDY". Now, in the log, there are only red links, and everyone has to link through the log to Category:Pavillion (Parkanlage Vorwerk) until they can find the correct category. If there would be a link to it directly in the deletion log, finding it would be much easier. The log looks now as if the redirect would have been deleted because of being broken, because the target category has been deleted, but it hasn't. It's still there, on another correct name. This is not very good.
• Category:Pavillion of Chehel Sotoun: I had tagged this category redirect also with a bad name tag. But in the log, noone can find the correct name of the category anymore. I would guess, it could be at Category:Pavilion of Chehel Sotoun, but it isn't. I don't know, where that category is now. Everyone has to guess, if the category has been just empty or if it is elsewhere, but can't be found anymore.
• Category:Unicredit Pavillion: One more case like that above. I also put a bad name tag onto it, it was on another name, I would guess, it could be at Category:Unicredit Pavilion now, but it isn't there, it must be somewhere else. I can't even find myself, where the last two are now, but I know that they are still existing, because I used the bad name template for them. These logs are very bad now.

These are some of last week that I can find now, where this deletion reason really causes problems. There were more of those cases also on 5 July, maybe I can find some more of them, but I won't find every such problematic log entry anymore after many weeks with those kind of deletions. Please change that and always put the correct names into the logs as other admins do, then there will not be such cases anymore. And broken redirects to such log entries can’t be fixed, if they would exist. And would you please put the correct names in those three logs above, because noone can find the correct category names with those kind of log entries anymore, not even myself for the last two cases. --176.1.16.133 09:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hossein simaei

• User: Hossein simaei (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning 10:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC), including File:برج سامان فراز.png and File:فوتبال ایران و قطر.png.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Uslmray

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

Reuploads File:Michael-Ray Pallares coaching Maxime Janvier at the US Open.jpg, previously deleted as copyvio, under a new filename, File:Pallares Janvier US OPEN.jpg, just an hour after given final warning {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit: It actually seems the user has reuploaded four files that all were deleted as copyvio, see below from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp	File	Uploader	Deleted file	Uploader
Jul 05 2025 03:18 PM	File:Pallares Janvier US OPEN.jpg	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits)	File:Michael-Ray Pallares coaching Maxime Janvier at the US Open.jpg (Und | Log)	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Jul 05 2025 03:11 PM	File:Michael-Ray Pallares González 2022 State Games of America Gold Medalist.jpg	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits)	File:2023 State Games of America Gold Medalist (Michael-Ray Pallares).jpg (Und | Log)	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Jul 05 2025 03:11 PM	File:Michael-Ray Pallares González 2022 State Games of America Gold Medalist.jpg	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits)	File:2022 State Games of America Gold Medalist.jpg (Und | Log)	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Jul 05 2025 03:01 PM	File:Harry Cicma 2.jpg	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 30 edits)	File:Harry Cicma.jpg (Und | Log)	Uslmray (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)

Jonteemil (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Veronicagazzara

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

Seems to have reuploaded all their files that were deleted the other day as copyvio. User was also warned two days ago with {{Dont recreate}} but apparently they haven't listened. Jonteemil (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

YugoPoloFan

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

User recreated one of the files deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by YugoPoloFan, still out of scope. -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done There was not a formal warning, but that's done. All files deleted again. Yann (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. User re-uploaded out-of-scope files. I blocked him/her and will delete the uploads. Taivo (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Rheabrux

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

I've already blocked this user for a week on a precautionary basis, but I believe the block should probably be longer, even indef. No one edit was particularly out of line, but cumulatively the pattern of their edits appears to be disruptive, and I now see that they have already been indef-blocked for that on en-wiki.

Since blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive, for the moment I left this as a relatively short block to allow discussion to take place without continued disruption. - Jmabel ! talk 14:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is not even one useful edit. Yann (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: so would you say "indef" or some particular duration? - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me from their global contributions that they continue to make useless (or worse) edits on other wikis to which they still have access. I personally lean toward indef: I don't see any likelihood of them becoming a productive user. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say one to three months. Yann (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Since no one else is speaking up, three months it is.

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 02:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

User:PrestigiousLynx4378

PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Recent copyvios after the last warning. Quick1984 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I admit that I did a lot of things wrong. Basically, I just uploaded materials from the very first half of the 20th century (when in Russia they entered the public domain 70 years after their creation/publication, before 1956), as well as photographs of people currently living (if they died, then yes, they could be published with a non-free license in the Russian Wikipedia). ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Quick1984 and admins & moderators of Wikimedia Commons, I think you can understand me. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course I could go myself to certain places where the person lives and photograph them. But the problem is this: I'm only 16 years old, and I don't have the money or resources for these tasks. Especially if we are talking about some currently living people who, for example, were born and live in Ukraine (for example, take the same Larysa Bryukhovetska), the Baltics, as well as in NATO and EU countries, then being a citizen of Russia it is impossible to do this, due to the well-known events after February 24, 2022 and the sanctions that followed. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

In the case of Anatoly Krasinsky, the author of his photograph is unknown. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Excellent. And this fact allowed you to conclude this photo can be uploaded under Creative Commons Attribution license? Quick1984 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I just thought that if a photograph is of a living person, and it is not taken from a work of art (like a movie or TV show) that is protected by copyright, then the photograph is not copyrighted. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

But thanks for your clarification. I will try to take these comments into account in the future by uploading either public domain material or your own photographs. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

If times of peace come. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, I am ceasing my activities in Commons Wikimedia, limiting myself to just one warning in 2025. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

And until this whole situation calms down. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is the latest (namely, about the situation in Ukraine, which has lasted since February 24, 2022, and the subsequent sanctions from other countries), it only aggravated the reason for my inability to perform such tasks. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

And also: maybe you can just drag and drop these files (such like a posters of films from 1920s and 1930s) into Russian Wikipedia. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

UPD: I saved some of the files mentioned, along with their links. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I saved the links of this files in txt format. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

These are blatant copyvios: File:Ольга Шервуд.jpg; File:Анатоль Віктаравіч Красінскі.jpg. You are uploading non-free photos under a false free license. Quick1984 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I have given above the reason why I cannot just go to one country or another to photograph them: I don’t have the resources or money for this. PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Already removed them from Wikidata. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

In the case of Olga Sherwood, I replaced it with a free photo from 2019 by Ivan Abaturov. ― PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Almost every photo of a living person is copyrighted. (There are a few exceptions, but most of them are for photos at least 50 years old in certain countries, or for photos taken by employees of a handful of governments that put all their work in the public domain.) It's a pretty good rule of thumb that unless you know exactly what you are doing, or have a specific free license to cite, nothing from the last 50 years and very little from the last 70 years lacks copyright; even some works that are 120+ years old still have copyright. For almost anything from recent decades, you need a specific free license.

The fact that you are not in a position to take a particular photo yourself does not give you a right to upload an unfree photo to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

ARABCREATOR7

ARABCREATOR7 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Uploading non-free works after previous blocks. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 23:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done 6 months for third block The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Rozemmer

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

Removing deletion templates from files with active deletion discussions (Special:Diff/1054619550, Special:Diff/1054761349, Special:Diff/1054761169); removing other users' comments from deletion discussions (Special:Diff/1054778544). Omphalographer (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Files deleted, user indeffed as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Kingfahad6110

• Kingfahad6110 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads deleted copyvio after given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for two weeks. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

SI.ZITU

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

Self-promo account. NOTHERE. Jonteemil (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indef. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Bukagaming official

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

Self-promo account. Already blocked on enwiki. All Wikidata entries deleted as promo. Jonteemil (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Indef blocked here and on Wikidata. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Category blanking again

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

user is again blanking all categories and making files uncategorised, and then nominating those categories for deletion, e.g.

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:SZ_Shenzhen_Futian_Ping%27An_IFC_mall_shop_July_2025_R12S_04.jpg&diff=1054645679&oldid=1054057286
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:SZ_Shenzhen_Futian_Ping%27An_IFC_mall_shop_July_2025_R12S_07.jpg&diff=1054645685&oldid=1054057309
3. Category:July 2025 in Futian District.

for this account alone, other users have told them not to do so at least twice:

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HingWahStreet&oldid=1011814552#About_removing_categories
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HingWahStreet&oldid=1011814552#Removing_categories

RoyZuo (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I get that this is done to fix overcategorization, but why not just recategorize the file then in the correct category? Sev6nWiki (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@HingWahStreet Didn’t you said in your statement after you were unblocked this April that you would stop categorising/editing files related to Anonymous HK Photographer 1, to prevent this exact situation? Tvpuppy (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sev6nWiki I tend to categorize it into Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 needing review, but I am not sure so I originally blanked it.

@Tvpuppy Yes, Now I have already stopped doing this, and I admit that mistake. I will release my full statement regarding the user in minutes, and will keep distance from this user forever. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 00:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@HingWahStreet: Good. I already asked you to stop beating a dead horse in Special:Diff/1054592949 11:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

My full statement. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 01:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

https://hktransportjournal.blogspot.com/2025/07/special-update-10-july-2025.html 〈興華街〉📅❓ 07:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Why should we trust that you now really mean what you promise after you broke the pledge in the past? GPSLeo (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Please block me indef. I have sent a global vanish request. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 09:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef., per user's request. Yann (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Alexsandroclaudino92

• Alexsandroclaudino92 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Alexsandroclaudino92 has recreated two deleted pages. I can't see if the files are the same as before but an admin may please check. Anyway, all the user's files have sources but I can't find any license on the pages, except on File:Catedral de huehuetenango.jpg whose source was Flickr and license there was All rights reserved. On the bottom of each webpage where the user has gotten their other files are copyright notices, none of which indicate that the files are free. Given the user's history, two blocks for copyvio, I think it's fair to say the user just uploads any photos he finds online without regarding copyright whatsoever and then just chooses a free license on Commons. The user has only four edits that weren't in the File namespace and two of them were posting undeletion requests, one of them was responding to a response to one of their deletion requests and one was a removal of a deletion notice on their user talk page. So it seems the user doesn't really communicate or explain, nor complain on their their blocks. I boldly suggest blocking the user a third time and nuking uploads as NETCOPYVIO. Jonteemil (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Has been blocked on ptwiki as well. Competence is required. Jonteemil (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Catedral Santa Maria Mãe de Deus.jpg was the same file as before, I've deleted it again. File:Cardeal Pizzaballa.jpg is unrelated to the previous file of the same name, except in terms of its subject. - Jmabel ! talk 03:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. One year block (third block). No good edits from that account. Taivo (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Adrianxcasas2011

• Adrianxcasas2011 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploads new copyvio. Has one prior block for it. Jonteemil (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Vyapar business Indian

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

Promo-only account. Already blocked on enwiki. Jonteemil (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Has been warned by Yann. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

KBD Talent Forge India Pvt Ltd

• KBD Talent Forge India Pvt Ltd (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Block/lock evasion Special:CentralAuth/Kbdtalentforge. Reported on Meta as well but might go faster here. Jonteemil (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked by Jianhui67. @Jonteemil: From next time, please post this kind of obvious sockpuppetry, spam, vandalism reports on COM:ANB. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Sameemakhtar93

• Sameemakhtar93 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues to upload out of scope content. Jonteemil (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Indef'ed. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Aazzx

• Aazzx (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• A1122ww (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• رضا قنبری مزرعه نو (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Seems to be a promo-only account / NOTHERE. Also possible sock or meat of A1122ww given that A1122ww uploaded File:Rezaghanbari.jpg was deleted and now reuploaded by Aazzx as File:Ghanbari.jpg. All of Aazzx seem to portray this same individual which also A1122ww's uploads seem to have portrayed before they were deleted. A1122ww is in turn likely a sock of رضا قنبری مزرعه نو according to Yann's block log edit summary. Jonteemil (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done All blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

PR20252025

• PR20252025 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads File:Ulica Zdzisława Beksińskiego w Warszawie.jpg which was deleted in lack of permission, instead of sending the proper permission to VRT and letting them undelete the file when permission has been accepted. Has been warned with {{End of copyvios}}. Also uploaded File:Małgorzata Bogdańska 13-07-2025 r.jpg today which has no EXIF and also seems lika a blatant copyvio. Jonteemil (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted or tagged for deletion. Yann (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Closure requested

There doesn't seem really to be any disagreement remaining at Commons:Deletion requests/File:GY B-limp.webm, but there was just enough disagreement along the way that I probably should not be closing it as an involved party. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Yann (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

WPBharat

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

Promo-only account. Jonteemil (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Warned by Yann, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Gag0409

• User: Gag0409 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Portrait of Cardinal Advincula (cropped).jpg after final warning and block for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Jeff, I think you're confused here. All of their recent uploads appear to be crops of files uploaded by others. Only two of their uploads from 2025 have been deleted, both because the uncropped version was deleted, not because Gag0409 did anything wrong. Gag0409 also has no block history. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Sorry about the block history. I thought we were responsible for all of our uploads, including verifying that the cropped files were correctly licensed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It's more nuanced than that. Yes, users are responsible for the copyright of their uploads, but that gets tricky when it comes to derivative works of files already on Commons. It's much easier for a user to verify that a file they are uploading from elsewhere is properly licensed than it is for them to determine that a file on Commons (that claims an acceptable license) is a copyvio. It's not reasonable to expect users to do a full copyright investigation of an existing file just to upload a cropped version.

In this case, Gag0409 has uploaded ~300 crops since the final warning you gave in August 2022. Only 7 of those have been deleted, of which only 1 was uploaded in the past 2 years. Several of the original images were not obvious copvios; one of them may not have been a copyvio at all. That record is not indicative of any serious issue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Пантелија

This Пантелија (talk · contribs) is re-uploading previously deleted personal photos. He is probably sockpuppet of Војвода Саша Милосављевић (talk · contribs). --Smooth O (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Info I've notified both accounts of this discussion per note #4 of COM:ANU, if that helps. Sev6nWiki (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked this account and deleted all files. Yann (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Eatcha

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

Hi, This user apparently uploaded several images which got QI or FP status, although they are not taken by the uploader, and location and information are all fake. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zaniskari Horse in Ladakh.jpg for details. Such massive deceit towards the community cannot stay unpunished. Yann (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

There's also the question about what to do with all those uploads. It's a lot of photos to go through. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

If we do not get a good explanation for this I would simply delete all uploads claimed as own works by Eatcha. GPSLeo (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

And it's not made any easier by the fact that they also imported a bunch of videos from YouTube, making it difficult to spot their image uploads. I've created a tracking page at User:Omphalographer/Eatcha uploads. Omphalographer (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer he has Category:Images by Eatcha (maybe incomplete). easy to filter using "hastemplate:own" search. RoyZuo (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I doubt this user has uploaded any useful, original, self-created work. Deleting all images uploaded by them would not be a bad solution, imo. And though they've not been active since 2021, some sort of block or ban also seems inevitable. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Also adding from the deletion request, on the level of harm they have caused: Eatcha added these images to wikipedia pages of the false subjects, from where they found their way into news websites, social media, yt videos etc.--basically everywhere on the internet--such that you have leading newspapers (like Indian Express), niche news publishers and tabloids (this, this, this, this and dozens more!), even Universities (University of Michigan, and Oklahoma State University which notes that "the breed is usually grey"--imagine an actual expert looking at the image and being deceived into questioning themselves) all using the image of an Icelandic horse while claiming it to be a Zaniskari. A liar's lie repeated by innocent re-users. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It is really bad to see all of this. And here I thought most of his bad work was made in programming the Bots that we use here. None of the Bots he created for COM:FMC are working any longer, I usually manage that page manually these days or nominators would not get their promotions. I also know that Aristeas have encountered a lot of shoddy coding that Eatcha did on FPC Bot during his time here. Aristeas is presently fixing those bugs and making the bot run smoothly again. It's alwayas such a mess when you trust people who are fraudulent in this bad way. --Cart (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I also want to thank you UnpetitproleX, for uncovering this and your work in digging up all these examples. That is really good work on your part! --Cart (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I created a mass deletion request with all uploads claimed as own works: Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:GPSLeo/temp. I also removed all user rights to limit the damage of possible revenge actions. I would give a week to response and then would also suggest to just block indefinitely. GPSLeo (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a really horrible case. I would suggest speedily deleting all their uploads. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah sure, hounding and slandering productive contributors is going much faster and better on Commons rather than fighting *real* vandals, who remain undiscovered for years -- if ever discovered. --A.Savin 12:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin: So go fight them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

🤡 --A.Savin 13:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Guys, please! This is not the time or place to re-kindle other quarrels, it doesn't help anyone. --Cart (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done All files have been deleted, and I blocked Eatcha indef. Yann (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Alejandro Zamora Shiv Shambhu

Alejandro Zamora Shiv Shambhu (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Recreates file after been warned {{Dont recreate}}. Jonteemil (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Spammer blocked, file deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Araz Yaquboglu

• User: Araz Yaquboglu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Ələmdar və Abbas 2025.06.21.jpg after final warning and 2 blocks for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I uploaded a photo I took myself. What's the problem here? Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I took the photo with my phone on June 21 and uploaded it to Commons on June 22. The photo also has metadata. On June 27, I sent the same work to one of the people in the photo. He shared the same file on his Instagram page. You cited the reason for that link and deleted it. Please restore the photo and close this discussion. This photo is my own work. Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Araz Yaquboglu: the photo is also at https://www.instagram.com/p/DLaooLwMADn/, differently attributed. Can you explain? - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: What do you mean by differently attributed? I don't see any attribution at all in the IG post. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Presumably an IG post is photographed by the holder of the account. When you post to IG you are granting Meta a license that you cannot readily grant for other people's work.

In any case, if we consider that unattributed, the issue is the same. If that is Araz Yaquboglu's own IG account, then the two accounts can be cross-linked. Otherwise, VRT is required. I'm not convinced yet that Araz Yaquboglu either is or isn't the photographer. Shouldn't have re-uploaded after deletion, but I'm much more interested in getting to the bottom of this than in taking major disciplinary action. Given prior history, this could be an indef-block, and I'd really rather see if this was just a process issue. - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

"Presumably an IG post is photographed by the holder of the account" - I think that is a poor assumption. In fact, because IG/FB do not ask the uploader to affirm that the photo is their own work (and we do), it is much less reliable than assuming that something uploaded to Commons as "own work" is, in fact, by the uploader. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Not a copyvio. I have restored File:Ələmdar və Abbas 2025.06.21.jpg as the EXIF and image quality are consistent with the user's other uploads like File:Sığırlı 2025.07.10.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Jmabel, the instagram photo literally includes Araz Yaguboglu himself in the photo (the 4th one). Toghrul R (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Toghrul R: So how is it his own work?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Jeff G., that is a completely different photo by another author. As can be seen, photo 1, 2 and others were taken with the same camera (phone camera), the quality shows it. And photo 3, 4, 5 and others were taken with a more professional camera, where Araz Yaquboglu is present. The reason for mentioning Araz Yaquboglu's photo was to prove that he was there in person. And his authorship on the file uploaded on Commons is not under question Toghrul R (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

DigitalpartnersDK

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

Promo-only account. Jonteemil (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Spammer blocked, files deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Indiscriminate imports from en-wiki

I blocked User:Huyền Trang 1997 on en-wiki yesterday because they mass-exported hundreds of images to Commons – sometimes several within one minute – many of which lack a source or proper licensing data. That behavior has now continued here via the import feature. See their contributions here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

And now this editor is mass-removing old Flickr reviews from images. See, e.g., Special:Diff/1058681166, Special:Diff/1058676565, and Special:Diff/1058676909. All of those edits have since been reverted. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I see that User:Ziv, who is an admin, warned them on that and said, " Further editing of this kind could lead to a block." For the record: I would have blocked then and there, but I'm not overruling another admin. If anything at all of this sort happens further, please feel more then free to ping me. - Jmabel ! talk 03:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts, i reverted them all. @Jmabel, feel free to if you want. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to block them for an particular act after they were warned for that same act. But User:Huyền Trang 1997, if you are reading this, know that you are on the brink of being blocked if you continue this way. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

user:Uncle EJ

User is uploading a lot of F10 photos. JayCubby (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby, the user stopped. I am rejecting this request now, but if they starts to upload images which are violates F10 policy, please feel free to ping me. Best. Kadı Message 12:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Football Fanatic.sr

• Football Fanatic.sr (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Removes deletion templates, see [1] here and also removes deletion notices from their user talk page. Clear vandalism. Jonteemil (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil,  Done Kadı Message 12:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Fry72

• User: Fry72 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Anatomie oka s glaukom, Slezská nemocnice Opava, Opava, okres Opava.jpg after final warning for doing so, and malforming DRs.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

That was in May 2025. Was there any copyright violation after that? Yann (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yann: In a word, yes. Looking at the four most recently mentioned filenames on the user's talk page: File:Informační panel, Cedynia, gmina Cedynia, okres Gryfino, Západopomořanské vojvodství.jpg, File:Žerotínové, Svět Komenského Fulnek, Fulnek, okres Nový Jičín.jpg, File:Večeře Páně, Svět Komenského Fulnek, Fulnek, okres Nový Jičín.jpg were uploaded without permission on 18 July 2025, File:Sbor Církve bratrské v Ostravě-Porubě, sledování předávání medailí MS v hokeji 2024, Ostrava-Poruba.jpg was uploaded without permission on 2 June 2024, and you deleted the last of those 17:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I checked and validated these files, as they are OK with {{FoP-Czech Republic}}. I don't see any other violation after May. Yann (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Adding personal documents

Toni910et (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Their contribution consists of course certificates, ID cards, visting cards, marksheets etc which should not be here. Kindly look into this and remove them all if they violate Commons policy. Thank you. Agent 007 (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done User warned, all files deleted. @Agent VII: This is the right board for next time. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Rendy.98

• Rendy.98 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Clear sock of Kodamkasuari. Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Jonteemil (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Minoo

• User: Minoo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after warning. Made a malformed deletion request: not including year, month, or day; not creating the subpage; and not transcluding. Considers warnings and notifications to be spam per Special:Diff/1057275899 and Special:Diff/1057283975.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it seems like they don't understand the situation and dismiss contact attempts as "spam" on their talk page. Would it be possible to have a German-speaking administrator explain the situation? Sev6nWiki (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC) Sev6nWiki (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Is anyone taking this on? - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Last deleted file was in April 2025. I won't block someone for a "malformed deletion request". Yann (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Well then let's just call it  Not done. - Jmabel ! talk 06:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Claro Chile IP user actively making cryptic DRs

There seems to be a Chilean IP user actively filing DRs, usually for implied copyvio or for some sort of incomprehensible reason. They also tend to accuse the admins of things like 'revenge edits towards IPs that disturb you' as seen at Special:Diff/1059152619. Sometimes they file DRs for incomprehensible reasons like 'Il Padrino?' or 'Category:People lighting a pipe? - when questioned they usually reply from a different IP and ignores the question, see Special:Diff/1053418267 and Special:Diff/1059152619.
They all come from different IP addresses that keep changing, but from a bit of WHOIS-ing I can see that they all seem to come from the ISP Claro Chile. applecuckoo (he/him) 03:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked 186.173.128.0/17 and 186.174.0.0/16 for a year; looks like they're been active in those ranges for a while. Let me know if the disruption continues from other IPs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 they've returned from 186.175.108.232, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yann Hervis devant son œuvre.jpg. Seems to be the same snarky behavior, so  It looks like a duck to me. applecuckoo (he/him) 22:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Applecuckoo: Blocked 186.175.0.0/16 and 186.172.0.0/16 for one year, and widened 186.173.0.0/16 to the /16 range. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Vardito

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

Reuploads File:Photo 5449484810910299037 y.jpg a second time as File:Nare Gevorgyan portrait 2024.jpg (the previous time it was as File:Նարե Գևորգյան.jpg) and was warned with {{Dont recreate}} after the first occation. Jonteemil (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Yann warned the user against re-upload of deleted files – (s)he had no such warning before. All uploads are now deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Milwoman1

• Milwoman1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads copyvio, has been tagged with {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Spectra321578

• Spectra321578 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Spectre321578 continues to upload files with questionable licensing and claims of "own work" despite the fact that many of their prior uploads have been deleted for such reasons. Moreover, their responses to their files being tagged or nominated for deletion seem to indicate a misunderstanding as to how Commons works, particularly important things like COM:Own work, COM:NETCOPYVIO, COM:PERSONAL and COM:L. While their intentions might be good, they might simply lack the competence to properly contribute to Commons, at least not without some sort of formal oversight. Comments like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this made over the past few months don't indicate any type of reflection on Spectra321578's part that they might be doing something wrong or might be learning from their previous mistakes; rather, they indicate a bit of hostility towards others and a tendency to blame others for their mistakes. On English Wikipedia, administrators have the ability to restrict an account's ability to upload files instead of simply blocking the account from all editing. I'm not sure if that's possible here on Commons, but it might be a reasonable alternative if it is. Perhaps there's a way to require Spectra321578 submit files for review by a license reviewer or an administrator before they can be uploaded. As it is, Spectra321578 seems to mistakenly think that being able to upload a file means it's automatically "approved" by Commons and doesn't seem to understand the COM:ONUS falls upon them to make sure whatever they want to upload is in accordance with Commons policies and guidelines. Making mistakes is understandable and mostly considered OK once or twice; making the same mistakes over and over again, however, isn't and instead is generally an indication that some kind of response from the Commons community is likely needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This user certainly deserves a block. I wonder if a short one is enough or not. Meanwhile I sent a strong warning, and tag some more files. Yann (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest a short block first to make an attempt at altering the users behavior, if that fails; escalation would be appropriate. Sev6nWiki (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I should sign a contract with you if you really want to block me, first you blocked me in ru Wiki and now here, that's enough already Spectra321578 (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Spectra321578: Why do you falsely claim "own work"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I just uploaded it and didn't think about it right away, please don't delete the work. Spectra321578 (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

If a file is in violation, we must delete it. Sev6nWiki (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, please leave at least some of them. Spectra321578 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Spectra321578 The time to think about whether a file is your own work or not, whether it would be licensed correctly, and whether it complies with our other policies and procedures, is before you upload it, not after. After would be too late, and could subject us to legal difficulties.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Spectra321578. Whatever happend on Russian Wikipedia is unrelated to what's being discussed above. Commons and Russian Wikipedia are separate projects with their own respecive policies and guidelines. If you were blocked on Russian Wikipedia for some reason, you will need to resolve that on Russian Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, you repeating behaviors that resulted in you getting blocked on Russian Wikipedia here on Commons, then that does become a Commons problem. As I pointed out above, the main issue with your uploads here on Commons has to do with COM:Own work, COM:NETCOPYVIO and COM:L. Have you read what's written on those pages because they've been pointed out to you before? If you sometimes have difficultly understanding English, those pages also have some non-English language versions. If you still don't understand what the issues are even after reading a non-English language version, you could always ask for help at COM:HD (you can even ask questions in languages other than English), or you can try seeking assistance from an administrator who speaks Russian or whichever language you understand best (see Commons:List of administrators by language). The mistakes you're making are fairly common. Making such mistakes once or maybe even twice is generally not a big deal; however, making the same mistakes over and over again, especially after be advised about them, isn't a good thing at all. Commons expects you to learn from your mistakes and understand why the community considers them to be mistakes, but you've shown no indication of being able to do this at all so far. This is why you've ended up being discussed here at AN/U, and this is the issue you need to address. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

With the block, this would appear to be  Done. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree that this probably can be closed, especially since the Spectra321578 has now been globally and indefinitely blocked for various reasons in addition to the uploading of files with questionable licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Sev6nWiki (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

APdodo

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

Reuploads File:Invitación al Conversatorio.png that was already deleted as copyvio after having gotten final warning by Yann. Jonteemil (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil, apreciate your note. APdodo (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@APdodo: please refrain from uploading any files other than your own photos (and not your photos of other people's artwork, either!) until you have a better understanding of copyright.

¿Eres hispanohablante? Unos lugares donde puedes empezar:

• Commons:Licencias
• es:Copyright
• (en inglés, falta traducción): COM:THIRD

Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: I'm inclined not to do anything further at this time, but feel free to keep an eye out and alert me if this doesn't stop now. - Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil thanks for your comments 2806:264:448A:287:C8AB:965B:8ACA:55D5 04:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel The file hasn't been deleted yet. Jonteemil (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Nor have you nominated it for deletion, but I'll go deal with it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

About User:O'micron

Hello,

I came to notice that the uploads from this user O'micron (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user had, in their vast majority (I estimate: more that 75% of them), licensing, sourcing and copyright issues (see their talk page). What is better now? Nuking them all per COM:PRP or parsing them one-by-one? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to clarify that while I have uploaded many files, only a small number of them have encountered licensing or sourcing issues—mainly due to my still-developing familiarity with some of the Wikimedia Commons tools and templates.

For example, my most recent upload is actually free of any copyright concerns, but I simply didn’t manage to add the proper source information at the time of uploading. I’m currently working to correct such omissions as I review my contributions.

A mass deletion of all my uploads would unfortunately affect many files that are correctly licensed and valuable. I believe it would be more appropriate to address any remaining issues on a file-by-file basis, and I’m fully open to cooperating on that.--Omicroñ'R^Talk 10:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

About: "For example, my most recent upload is actually free of any copyright concerns, but I simply didn’t manage to add the proper source information at the time of uploading."... Well, the deletion log of this "most recent upload" of yours, File:Caucasian leopard in Ararat region, Armenia.png tells: "Copyright violation: Copyright holder of the original camera trap photo is Foundation for the Preservation of Wildlife and Cultural Assets https://www.asbarez.com/armenias-caucasus-wildlife-refuge-camera-traps-capture-footage-of-new-leopard/". The actual question would be: does or does Armenia not grant copyrights for automated operating imagery apparatuses?

You have to make a difference between sources (important especially for collages) and licenses (important every time: COM:Licensing). You're not allowed to, simply because you're saying "image XY is coming from source A", upload this image XY here. The licensing, the observance of moral author rights, has to be done in the right way - and yes, this precludes the uploading of a LARGE amount of data.

Going on, ripping illustrations from a book like you did for File:Artavasdes I-coin.jpg is problematic: see COM:Currency, such a depiction of a coin may not be a 2D replication of a work in the public domain, but a genuine photo of a 3D object, with all the licensing requirements this entails.

In my opinion, you should go the long way and familiarize yourself with the copyright guidelines under COM:CSM and COM:CRT.

You apparently do not have sufficient oversight and command over copyright-related subjects to get your uploads trusted at the moment, I, at least, do not. There may be files which are fine among Special:ListFiles/O'micron, but most of them do have "remaining issues", hence my nuking proposal. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

does or does Armenia not grant copyrights for automated operating imagery apparatuses?

I presume you are talking about PD automated Trade (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's the background, but {{PD-automated}} is IMHO something that isn't easy to claim or use, depending on the country of origin (somewhat similar to {{PD-anon-70-EU}} where the prerequisite of "[making] sure the author never claimed authorship." is something realistically unfulfillable). It's at least unsensible to use by someone who doesn't apparently even understand the difference between sourcing and licensing. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The text of PD Automated seems to imply that its valid worldwide eregardless of location. There is no mention of any jurisdictions where it does not fully apply

If my observation is wrong then it needs to be clearly areflected in the text of the template Trade (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Ain't that already the case? See: "[...]it is common property and contains no original authorship under the laws of its country of origin. Most jurisdictions do not have clear legal precedent on the copyright status of such works, see Threshold of originality § Pre-positioned recording devices for more information." and Template:PD-automated/doc. These are clear references to the necessity of being aware and respectful of local laws. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

So in other words the local laws against PD Automated are entirely hypothical, speculative and might not even exist in the first place Trade (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Nope, it's the opposite, IMHO. Per COM:PRP, I'd say that only in the jurisdictions where the laws put a strong emphasis on human authorship and ideally have statutes regulating automated devices (or, by logical expansion, at least AI generation), you're able to use PD-automated. Otherwise, I would recommend to abstain from that claim. But this is now too much off-topic, isn't it? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

PD-automated to me seems like an Amerocentric template that assumes the rest of the world follows our understanding that a human author is necessary for copyright when there are countries in which this is not the case (UK, China). It should be answered if Armenia requires a human author for a copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The US is actually more permissive towards corporate authors than many countries. I don't know of any country that permits non-human authors; the question is about what constitutes authorship.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, many files are at least derivative works: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by O'micron. Yann (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Omicroñ'R: There is also policy COM:EVID, which you keep violating with most of your uploads. Research first, document in an offline text editor, THEN upload.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear all (@Trade, @Grand-Duc, @User:Jeff G., Thank you again for the feedback and concerns.

Thank you again for the feedback and concerns.

I would like to confirm that I have now reviewed and corrected nearly all files that were flagged. Below is a list of files that have been fully updated and now follow Commons licensing and sourcing requirements:

Corrected Files

• File:The murder of Mushegh Mamikonian during a feast by the order of King Varazdat.png

→ Replaced "own" with PD-Art | PD-old-auto-expired | deathyear=1890 | country=Italy. Cited original 19th-century artwork by Fusso.

• File:Mushegh-Mamikonian.png

→ Replaced "own" with PD-Art | PD-old-auto-expired | deathyear=1914 | country=United States. Cited Ohan Gaidzakian's 1898 book.

• File:Repair Artaxias and Satenik in Kur (color).jpg

→ Corrected license to PD-Art. Clarified as colorized derivative of Fusso's original work.

• File:Tigran-The-Great-background-removed.png

→ Changed "own" to PD-old. Cited postcard scan from Berc Fenerci's CD "From East to West".

• File:Coat of Arms of Gegharkunik.png

→ Replaced license with PD-AM-exempt | type=coats of arms and added PD-US-expired.

• File:Coat of arms, Sevan.png

→ Updated to PD-AM-exempt | type=coats of arms. Source corrected.

• File:German invasion of Denmark-collage.png

→ Added Derived from listing with all original filenames; applied PD-Germany-70, PD-Denmark-50, and PD-US-expired.

• File:Gyulagarak coat of arms.png

→ Replaced cc-zero with PD-AM-exempt | type=coats of arms. Clarified uploader is not the creator.

• File:Kotayk-Province-coat-of-arms.png

→ Replaced "own" with PD-AM-exempt | type=coats of arms and PD-US-expired. Cited original: File:Kotayk marz gerb.jpg.

Files not corrected, should be delated

I acknowledge I haven’t yet succed to properly update the following files:

• File:Mushegh-mamikonyan-j46y.jpg
• File:Mushegh-Mamikonyan.jpg
• File:Mushegh Mamikonyan.png

---

Original Work

• File:Davit Khazhakyan.png

→ This is my own original work. I created the portrait myself and I know the person personally. The image is not a derivative and is correctly marked as my own.

I have invested a lot of time and energy into updating and fixing these files according to Commons policy. I want to make sure this effort has not been in vain — and that the corrected files listed above will not be deleted after all the work that went into making them compliant.

Thank you again for your time and for giving contributors like me a chance to improve. I remain available to cooperate further if needed.--Omicroñ'R^Talk 22:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Where is the metadata if you took this yourself. Did you scrupped them off before uploading Trade (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Omicroñ'R, using PNG for photographic media is, especially when it's "own work", weird. Please provide a JPEG showing metadata of your camera as evidence towards this image being indeed your own work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Categories still a mess

@Omicroñ'R: the categories on these files are still a mess. Have you read COM:Categories? If not, please read it. If so, and if you do not understand what is wrong with what you've done in this respect, let me know and I will try to help you go in the right direction. - Jmabel ! talk 23:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

You cannot unilaterally remove DR template =

@Omicroñ'R: you cannot unilaterally remove the {{Delete}} template, as you did at File:Mushegh-Mamikonian.png. I've restored it there. If there are other file where you did this, please restore what you deleted on those files. - Jmabel ! talk 23:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Yuliadhi

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

Not urgent, but this account looks like a bad spambot or phishing account: it's randomly requesting users for their email with no context, including myself three times since December ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). I tried one time to give them the benefit of the doubt and asked for clarification, with no response ([8]). R Prazeres (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Looks like nothing but asking users for email addresses. I suggest blocking. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I reverted and blocked the user indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Gorupdebesanez

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

It seems this user is claiming to be Francesco Gorup de Besanez, the co-founder of an Italian photo agency created 31 years ago in 1994, with the former paparazzi Marcello Mencarini and called Rosebud. At least 2 of their uploads are copyright violations, so other uploads of personalities are also suspicious.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Claudia Cardinale 1984.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Laforêt2.jpg

Thanks to Tisourcier for uncovering this. Please see my talk page for more details (in French): [9]. Yann (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged

• Laurel Lodged (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Please block the user. This is not the first time he has insulted organizations of Russian Orthodoxy. [10] Official name: The Patriarchal Parishes in the USA, it was "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States", has become "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States". It's an insult! Ыфь77 (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Also, please cancel his edits regarding the organization "The Patriarchal Parishes in the USA". --Ыфь77 (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Reply As usual, the complainant's reversions of my edits consist of a single crypic wod - ERROR. No further rationale is offered by him. I have attempted to engage the complainant in a discussion - see here. As usual, he ignores logic and insists that my intent is to insult the ROC. This is not true and he has been asked on myltiple occasions to desist from such remarks. As I pointed out there, an official name, while useful, is not always to be slavishly followed in categorical space. Within the self-contained bubble of the ROC, the name makes sense; outside the ROC, it's impenetrable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Explanation, online translation: There is a registered religious organization in the USA, categories have been created for it. Laurel Lodged came in and renamed the categories as if this organization didn't exist. Denying the existence of anything is an insult. Ыфь77 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: To eliminate inaccuracies, it is necessary to supplement, not rename. Ыфь77 (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  You are making a nuisance of yourself both here and elsewhere. I feel that the previous block for such behaviour has taught you nothing. Another, longer, block may be necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: You need more time to realize that you cannot approach religious organizations thoughtlessly. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: The user knows the name "Patriarchal Parishes in the USA" and will search for it. But it was "canceled" by Laurel Lodged. Is the convenience of one person above the convenience of others? I can't translate the term "узнаваемость" correctly, but that's what Laurel Lodging removed, while insulting a religious organization by canceling its name. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  See Wiki article Russian Orthodox Patriarchal Parishes in the USA where it is written "The Russian Orthodox Church in the USA is the name of the group of parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in America that are under the canonical authority of the Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus'.". Nothing could be clearer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: You don't understand the organization of the Russian Orthodox Church, but you've taken it upon yourself to edit categories. These parishes are united into an organization "The Patriarchal Parishes in the USA" with the status of a separate deanery. And you canceled this organization! Ыфь77 (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  The Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch is officially called the "Rūm Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East". Is Wiki "cancelling" the church by shortening the name to just "Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch"? Navigational ease trumps Easter-egg puffery. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Your name "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" contains neither "Patriarchal" nor "Parishes". The comparison is inappropriate. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: For reference: "Patriarchal Parishes" is the standard name for an organization at the level of a separate deanery in the Russian Orthodox Church, see Category:Patriarchal Parishes of Russian Orthodox Church. Before the Laurel Lodged edits, there were 6 such categories. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment It feels weird to read that a name change from "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" to "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" is seen as insult (cf. wikt:insult). In no fashion can I see that as derogatory, both names are quite neutral, the latter even more descriptive for people not deeply involved in the subject. And even if somebody had the medical meaning of insult in mind, approx. causing harm to some body tissue, it could not be transposed to such a renaming action. It's way easier to see and understand Ыфь77's present report as unsettling or uncouth activism, especially with known precedents to his file. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: The first name corresponds to the name of a religious organization, while the second one does not. In other words, by using the second name, you deny that such an organization exists. It's like saying, "There is no such Church." Isn't that an insult? I'm sure Laurel Lodged didn't want to write this, but he did. Therefore, he is guilty of insulting. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Uh, "In other words, by using the second name, you deny that such an organization exists. It's like saying, "There is no such Church." Isn't that an insult?" - that fits exactly in what I meant with "unsettling or uncouth activism". Languages all across the world allow for synonyms, and nothing disappears just because some official name is not used. The war in Ukraine, for instance, doesn't not happen just because it gets called "special military operation" among some countries and political circles. And a church doesn't vanish from existence just because it gets described with words that differs a bit from what the church calls itself, but which are contextually fitting. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: You're wrong. It's one thing to name a religious organization by another name, it's another to name it as if the organization doesn't exist at all. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding the word "insult" keep in mind that they are using a machine translation tool. The incorrect or confusing word choice might be the result of machine translation. However, if the organization is called "The Patriarchal Parishecl in the United States" then it's rather odd to rename it into "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States". That's like renaming the category for "Google Inc." to "Information technology companies in the United States". It doesn't make sense to rename the category of a specific organization to something generic and non-telling like "buildings". The organization has a name, and if that name is "Google" then call the related category "Google" instead of "information technology companies of the United States". Nakonana (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment FYI, I denied speedy deletion of Category:Patriarchal Parishes in the United States. Yann (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Online translation: I needed it to save the edit history when renaming it back. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Do you agree to rename it back? Yann (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this a disciplinary forum, not a category renaming forum? If you want to restore the status quo ante bellum (i.e. Category:Patriarchal Parishes in the United States) pending a full name change discussion, sure, go ahead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on this category, which is what should have been done from the start. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment At en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute, the Committee voted that Laurel Lodged had "failure to observe consensus", bad "behaviour towards other editors", was "indefinitely banned", and was "indefinitely topic banned from maintaining categories." His behavior here is no different, so the punishment should be no different (except we just have indefinite blocks here rather than bans).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  In personal communication with Laurel Lodged, I became convinced that he has 2 opinions: his and the wrong one. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  I could have made the same observation about your own behaviour but I have tried to keep my comments to the facts, not personal abuse. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Sure. Just look at your message here from 11:52 (UTC). Ыфь77 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  You appear to have gone straight to outrage, actually. That doesn't reflect well on you at all. Why didn't you take this dispute through the regular process of categories for discussion? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Not a single dialogue with Laurel Lodged has ended in that place yet. Religious insults require a quick solution. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  So you think it's OK not to make the attempt? And you consider this to be a religious insult, when it is likely just a misunderstanding? Your outrage is not impressive. I personally side with you over this, incidentally, but they way you are going about this is not helpful. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Do you see how much space this theme takes up? How much time has been practically wasted? All this time I took away from the really necessary editing of Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. That's why I prefer to immediately attract the attention of third parties rather than explain something to Laurel Lodged on my own. Ыфь77 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  I watched that discussion, and it was against BrownHairedGirl. Everything should be seen in that light - one of the worst participants of Wikipedia has ever seen, and one who was indefinitely blocked. I don't think I'd give this dispute much weight on Commons. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Are these category names interchangeable? "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" as far as I can gather from this discussion, is the official name of a church (church as in organization, the "canonical division of the Russian Orthodox Church...in the United States of America and Mexico" per [11]). "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" reads as a subset, as it applies to just buildings. Is the dispute that it should be "Buildings of the Patriarchal Parishes in the United States"? CMD (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  My sense of the situation is that the category Category:Patriarchal Parishes in the United States refers to just buildings (i.e. consists of church buildings and monastery buildings). They are not "parishes" in the sense of a parish hall, a parish church, a parish school, a priest, Easter parades etc. They are just buildings. I also have the sense that it is not an autocephalic church (i.e. it takes it's instructions directly from the Patriarch of Moscow). The label "parishes" suggest a canonical structure (e.g. a parish / deanery / diocese / province). However, that is not what the category actually contains - only buildings. To anyone outside the bubble of the ROC, the results of clicking on the category would be quite surprising. And "patriarchal" is not really enlightening either: which one is in scope - Constantinople, Rome, Alexandria, Moscow? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Give examples of organizations of other Orthodox Churches with the name "Patriarchal Parishes". Ыфь77 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is a disciplinary forum, not a category renaming forum. Your comments are misplaced. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: My comments are appropriate here: if it hadn't been for your extremely erroneous renaming, this section would not have existed. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Laurel Lodged: in this case, it is relevant to discuss the substance of the matters at hand. If you were a little high-handed, but clearly correct, that is a less likely to result in a block than if you were both high-handed and wrong. And high-handed, wrong, and avoiding discussion is sort of a trifecta. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Hold on a moment... how is he being high handed? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • @Chris.sherlock2: Sorry, I'm not inclined to go back and research and produce diffs; you are free to take my word or not; if you seriously doubt that I am speaking honestly and, feel genuinely free to start an AN/U discussion about what you believe to be my possible bad faith. In that case, I will do the heavy legwork to back up what I'm saying, but I really have other things I'd rather be working on right now. I am not the one who brought the complaint here, I'm just commenting as an admin who has been engaged in this situation with these two for roughly a year.

  Laurel Lodged has repeatedly, unilaterally changed category names in terms of Eastern Orthodoxy in North America. Despite repeatedly having their changes be controversial, I don't recall them ever starting out by trying to build consensus rather than make unilateral moves. The particular case here isn't among the more egregious, but it's a pattern. Probably the most egregious, and certainly one where the the term "insulting" would reasonably apply, was to attach the parenthesized qualifier "Moscow Patriarchate" to categories about the Orthodox Church in America. The OCA was once under the Moscow Patriarchate, which let go of any authority over the OCA and considers it autocephalous. Some other national Orthodox churches do not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA. The analogy I'm about to make is imprecise, but this is contentious in the manner that it would be for someone to move Category:Ukraine to Category:Ukraine (Russian province) or to move Category:Gdańsk to Category:Danzig. There has been a pattern here, and that this case is but one example of that pattern.

  Laurel Lodged is reasonably knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy in North America, more knowledgeable in the area than I am, but their edits in this area have been repeatedly contentious, to say the least, and they are never proactive in seeking consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Whoa! I’m not accusing you of anything, nor would I ever impune your honesty. I’m not sure why you would think this of me… - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Really, I must object to the above comments of @Jmabel: . He knows better. He knows that I have been an active participant in the discussion Dioceses of the Orthodox Church in America since 23 April 2025. He knows that I have set out my case and sought to build a concensus. That that has not been possible is not my fault. The discussion would have benefitted from the input of other third parties. Regardless, it points to the fact that I have tried to engage with the complainant in a reasoned discussion. I think that Jmabel should withdraw the accusation of "I don't recall them ever starting out by trying to build consensus rather than make unilateral moves". By the way, you may refer to me in the third person as "he/him", not "they/them". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  • @Laurel Lodged: I had no idea of your gender until now. "Laurel" us usually a woman's name, but I figured it was best not to presume. I will refer to you by male pronouns from now on.
  • I did not say that you do not participate in efforts to reach consensus. I said that you consistently act without trying to build consensus first. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: As I wrote earlier, Laurel Lodged is poorly versed in Orthodoxy. The category refers to a religious organization, and the fact that there are no other photos in it besides buildings means that no one has photographed anything else or specified this category for personalities/rituals. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• There are a few issues on process here: Laurel Lodged renamed something (it looks likely incorrectly I'm afraid). However, I doubt they did this to insult anyone - going straight to outrage is hardly the way to handle this. Instead of discussing this in the appropriate area, which is a CFD, the opposing party has gone straight to Laurel's talk page. Now they have brought him to AN. I've now done what they should have done, which is to add it to categories for discussion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Both @Ыфь77 and @Laurel Lodged have been very recently blocked for these disputes. I think some more drastic measure needs to be taken now (I'm not doing it myself as I blocked them last time) issuing 1) interaction ban between Laurel and ...77. 2) topic ban on religion 3) block. Bedivere (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  А мне то за что? Я только отменяю то, что сделал Laurel Lodged! Ыфь77 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment There doesn't seem to be any discussion here. "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" is obviously not just buildings, but seems frustratingly terse and unclear. The website for the organization is at https://www.mospatusa.com , the header says "The Patriarchal Parishes in the United States (Moscow Patriarchate)" and the footer says

Any Republication for the Glory of God is Permitted with the Reference: "The Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA - www.mospatusa.com"

(do you think we could get a free license or is that "for the Glory of God" thing going to be a blocker?) which indicates that even they don't "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" is a sufficient descriptor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Moving a category from "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" to "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" is an insult? Seldom read such nonsense... --A.Savin 19:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the third time we've had this exact same discussion, featuring these exact same users, on admin noticeboard too. At this point, the recurring discussion itself is becoming disruptive. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

After reading Jmabel’s comment, perhaps we need to put a condition on LaurelLodged that he is not allowed to move any categories but must submit them to categories for discussion first? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I insist, they should all be blocked temporarily for disrupting the project, and have them both placed an interaction and topic ban. Bedivere (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Can I point out that it was not me who disrupted this forum? It was the nominator. Since I followed the process, why should I be the one who is punished? It is the nominator who, among other offences, has not followed process. For my part, I boldly moved, I opened a discussion; my next move would have been to bring the disputed move to CFD. For which of these things am I deserving of punishment? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems, though, that you make controversial moves. Perhaps it might be better if you stepped away from this area. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

That would be true if you buy into the conversation of the nominator. You see now why he comes to this forum - he gets to make incendiary accusations, instead of having to explain his rationale (other than ERROR) in the calmer waters of CFD. In this forum, he gets to set the narrative. That's hardly fair is it? The moves are only controversial if you buy into the nominator's mindset wherein he reguards himself as the champion of Orthodoxy and will do battle for all perceived assaults on it. As it happens, while not a member of the Orthodox communion, I have quite a strong attachment to it. That matters not a jot to the nominator, who perceives any and all changes as insults to Orthodoxy (and Russia?) and worthy of the most severe sanctions. I will now go to the CFD created above and will present in a cool way what ought to happen to the categories that are the subject of this complaint. In this way you will see that the moves are not controversial and are based on logic. This is what would have happened as the third step of the process had the nominator not pressed the nuclear button and come directly to this forum. As I wrote above, he is making a nuisance of himself both here and elsewhere; for that, I ought not to be punished. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Online translation: You are mindlessly renaming categories related to religion. In the Middle Ages, you would have been burned at the stake as a heretic long ago. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to see you punished, but I do think you should be made to discuss category changes in the future. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I protest: I'm just correcting an obvious mistake by Laurel Lodged. And here it is only because it has never been possible to reach an agreement with him in other places. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Что бы Вы сделали, если бы "Категория:A.Savin" переименовали в "Категория:Разумный, с русским родным языком"? Ыфь77 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Disregarding the category dispute, I've blocked Ыфь77 for 1 month for these "middle-aged" violent phantasies. --A.Savin 18:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Good move. Bedivere (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

So what is going to be the final action here? This does not end with this block Bedivere (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

So… we need to define what went wrong here. From what I can see, LL makes controversial category decisions without discussing sufficiently. I can’t see where he has been uncivil or made personal attacks. So perhaps admins should attack the problem which is that unilateral decisions on categories should be prevented and LL should be forced to discuss category changes. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

+1. It's not the first controversial move (even outside the topic of religion, and outside the interactions with Ыфь77 as this is not the only editor with whom LL had discussion about religion-related category moves as can be seen on LL's talk page in threads like "Stop you incorect in categories of religion in Ukraine!"). Generally speaking there's a lot of dissatisfaction on LL's talk page about categories.

Disclaimer: I was involved in a discussion of one of LL's controversial moves that were not related to religion, but to administrative divisions and incorrect moves due to not understanding how Slavic languages work. Nakonana (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note @Wieralee: has rendered most of the above moot as he has boldly moved the category. No doubt he was influenced by the healthy category discussion here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  Which should not have happened as there was an ongoing discussion and it should have been decided by a closing admin. So I have reverted this. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  • I've been too much of an involved party to be the closer but, yes, it would be good if some admin would go to the various discussions where LaurelLodged and Ыфь77 have been contending and resolve them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Again, will someone take this on? I am an involved party, so I am not an appropriate person to close the CfD's etc. in question. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don't really see a consensus at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/07/Category:Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States - I think we'd need more participation first. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 07:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

More participation would be fine, but the same two people hashing it out for years, both riding the edge of being blocked, is not. And it is not imaginable that those two will reach a consensus. At some point, someone needs to make a decision. - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm for the blocking of both users. I have performed another block in the past so I guess it wouldn't be a good fit for me to close this with such an outcome. Bedivere (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

M0200705

• M0200705 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Recreates File:Rajkanwar Singh Sandhu.jpg a second time despite having been warned with {{Dont recreate}} after the first recreation. Jonteemil (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This is not the same image. Yann (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Wokeblueplanet24

• Wokeblueplanet24 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads File:Ann Davison.jpg a third time after warnings. Jonteemil (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Deleted the file again.
• I suspect that this may not be someone so much obstinate as just not getting it. I will try one last time to explain to them, more clearly. If they do this again, a long block would then be in order. - Jmabel ! talk 07:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Jmabel explained the situation to the user. Taivo (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

And then they uploaded another image of Ann Davison with a dubious source, so I will indef-block. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Johnp32

User: Johnp32 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reason for reporting: Keeps uploading the same copyvio and removing the deletion templates (see deleted edits). XenonX3 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Deleted and blocked for 2 weeks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

SeattleWikiReader31

SeattleWikiReader31 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I see every reason to believe this is Wokeblueplanet24 evading their block. Only action was another upload of a (different) apparent copyvio image of Seattle politician Ann Davison hours after Wokeblueplanet24 was blocked for uploading such images and ignoring warnings. Can we go straight to an indef-block on a "duck" basis, or do we ask for a CU and let them run until the outcome of that unless they do something more egregious, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 03:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Enough of a duck for me to block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

ذيبان العراقبه

• ذيبان العراقبه (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• شلاش العمري (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• دامر العمري (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Seems to be a sock or meat of blocked accounts شلاش العمري and دامر العمري. See Abuse filter log and below from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Jonteemil (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. This was difficult decision, but I decided, that this is sockpuppetry. I blocked the unblocked accounts and tagged them. Taivo (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Kjw0106 and Alpsmango

• Kjw0106 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Alpsmango (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Seems to be a promo-only account. Already blocked on enwiki. Jonteemil (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Also Alpsmango which seems to be meat or sockmaster. Jonteemil (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done I hesitate to block. This is company textlogo, too simple for copyright, and uploaded twice with one year timespan. This can be coincidence. If one year has passed, then checkuser cannot help as well. No activity from alleged sockmaster account during a year. Let it be. Taivo (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

User stalking my uploads

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

A while ago, I nominated two of User:JayCubby's uploads as clear copyright deletions, and they were promptly deleted as such:

• File:AI-171 crash CCTV.webm
• File:Air India Flight 171 CCTV.webm

AFAICT, we had never previously interacted.

He responded immediately by nominating several of my images for deletion:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1043161366
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1043164010
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1043165963

He has now commenced doing so again. mostly on weak grounds where there is a de minims component.

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060841624
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060841771
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060842776
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060845802
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060846190
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060846827
• Adding: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060850248
• Adding: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060851135

I'm not averse to having my images reviewed, nor even deleted if I have erred (though I will be defending all but one of the current nominations), but I do not take kindly to retaliatory actions of this nature, and nor should the wider community tolerate them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

No ping or notification? JayCubby (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

So clearly you are trying to police every edit that Andy makes. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Notification was made immediately after posting here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Andy, there is a standard template for ANU notifications. It is clearly documented that is the bare minimum that is expected when notifying a user, but you chose not to use it. I think you are an experienced contributor who knows about this, I find it curious you decided not to follow the regular process. At a minimum, it seems inflammatory and designed to give a rise out of Jay, however this impression I’m willing to acknowledge as just that - an impression and not what you intended. But if that was my initial impression, then it would be understandable if Jay saw it that way. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Despite JayCubby's accusation, I did notify him of this discussion, as required; and I did so just one minute after posting here, and in my immediately next edit, as anyone can see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley, no. Per my watch list, he had responded to a DR earlier, but it's easier to check contributions than a bunch of watch list entries for a response. JayCubby (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• No

When in a hole, stop digging. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

What you linked is what I am referring to. Perhaps there exists a miscommunication?

I opened his contribs to see the 21:06, 23 July 2025 ANU filing on or towards the top. JayCubby (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

You might have missed it because Andy decided not to use the standard notification template on your talk page. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

JayCubby did not miss the notification due to me not use a particular, optional, template. They posted here one minute after my OP, at the same time as I was leaving a notification on their talk page, as the time stamps show. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Or so you say. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I found the topic by chance, and assumed there would be no further notification. JayCubby (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

"as the time stamps show" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: what Andy says is completely congruent with the timestamps. Plenty of notifications are made be means other than that particular template, and I see nothing wrong with that. Please don't imply someone is lying when there is little or no evidence that they are. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Andy just asked others to AGF. Whilst it might be he is right, it’s also still speculation and it is absolutely not assuming good faith to say so.

I also think you need to be very careful about accusing me of calling Andy a liar. I was not. I saw his argument, I acknowledge he believes what he says, I disagree and I find it less than plausible. I strongly advise you not to say I’ve called Andy a liar because I have not said that and it is very wrong of you to say otherwise. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"They posted here one minute after my OP, at the same time as I was leaving a notification on their talk page, as the time stamps show." is not a matter of speculation. It is a demonstrable and demonstrated truth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Andy, you seem to be rather caught up on the time stamps of the whole thing. Is there anything unanswered in this thread? If not, I'd rather it be closed, as it appears to be generating more heat than light. JayCubby (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

ideally, I would have filed a batch request. However, I'm on my phone, making anything but single file edits enormously difficult. For that, I apologize.

My general preference is to file a deletion request, because quite often a potentially non-DM winds up being free. If you prefer, I can withdraw the deletion requests and go ahead and blur infringing elements. It will be a bit sloppier than usual, on account of the mobile. You made no effort on my previous couple of deletion requests to blur infringing elements.

We have absolutely interacted before. For God's sake, I was helping you at the graphics lab!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop/Archive/Jun_2025#c-JayCubby-20250602213700-Pigsonthewing-20250602181600

I don't think going through a user's recent uploads - initially to see what the user uploaded - is stalking. If I hit the random file button and find a copyright violation, it's not unreasonable to think that the uploader's uploads of a similar time period could contain copyright violations. JayCubby (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not 'reasonable caution' in checking for copyvios. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I check large volumes of files by scrolling past them and stop when something that looks sign-like or is vividly colored catches my eye. JayCubby (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

He appears to be reviewing file uploads correctly. I can’t see any files Jay has submitted for review that have an invalid rationale, and Jay does indeed do a lot of file reviews. Andy, whilst I empathise with you being upset that some of your files are being submitted for review, this doesn’t look like stalking. You e also said you never interacted with Jay before, but you clearly have. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not ""upset that some of your files are being submitted for review". As I said In my OP "I'm not averse to having my images reviewed, nor even deleted if I have erred ... but I do not take kindly to retaliatory actions of this nature, and nor should the wider community tolerate them".

What I said was "AFAICT, we had never previously interacted." Other than one reply to my post on en:WP:LAB/PHOTO, to which I did not respond, where have I "clearly" done so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Most of the images submitted are valid submissions. You are assuming the worst, and I’m sorry you feel targeted, but that doesn’t seem to be the reality and I’m not the only one who thinks so.

i suggest that this whole discussion be closed, as I think it’s generated a lot of heat and I can’t see any admin action is needed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop stalking me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Never once before you filed this thread have you left a note on my talk page informing me you found my actions disruptive, or proposing an alternative.

See the first bullet in the instructions: "Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first." JayCubby (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby: If nothing else, when you are nominating an image for deletion where there is some incidental inclusion of copyrighted material that is at least close to de minimis, you could indicate how it might be remedied (blur, crop, whatever) instead of just leaping to deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel, good to know. I will add that to my recent DRs this afternoon. JayCubby (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

JayCubby is being disingenuous. He knows full well that I objected to his retaliatory behaviour in the first of the above listed deletion discussions; which we know he saw because he replied with an equally disingenuous denial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley, no need for such a word salad. See, I can do it in fewer words:

JayCubby disregarding ostended objections defines a dastardly deed, confirming hom to be doubly disingenuous! JayCubby (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

For someone who's appointed themselves as the WikiPolice, you need to work on your accuracy and targeting. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The personally appointed Police promises to 'mprove his purportedly poor precision, sure. JayCubby (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby: unless you are actively trying to get blocked, knock it off. Deliberately antagonizing another user is sufficient grounds for a block. I doubt you were actually stalking him in the first place, but your conduct right here is sufficient for a block. This is the only warning I will give. - Jmabel ! talk 22:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

His first deletion nomination of one of my images came less than half an hour after I nominated two of his copyvios for deletion:

1. First video nominated at 15:58, 12 June 2025: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JayCubby&diff=prev&oldid=1043154981
2. Second video nominated at 16:01, 12 June 2025: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JayCubby&diff=prev&oldid=1043156662
3. His first retaliatory nomination at 16:21, 12 June 2025 (see first diff, above)

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Andy, none of the images/videos nominated are invalid nominations. As per Jmabel, it doesn’t look like stalking though JayCubby does appear to have reacted badly on this thread which is ill advised but, to my mind, somewhat more understandable (but not acceptable). You have done a lot of uploads, so it does make sense that a number of your uploads might get reviewed for deletion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the only person to have experienced retaliatory deletion nominations immediately after doing something that JayCubby took objection to, as User:AntiCompositeNumber has evidenced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

If is your assertion they are retaliatory, but from what I can see this doesn’t look to be the case. None of the deletion nominations you have highlighted have inappropriate justifications.

if you want to use this reasoning, can I clarify that you will no longer submit any of Jay’s files for deletion in future? I mean, you wouldn’t want to be accused on retaliation. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Multiple nominations of my files less than 30 minutes after I nominated his? If you believe that was a coincidence, especially in the light of evidence of similar behaviour provided by User:AntiCompositeNumber, I have a bridge to sell you... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I do believe that. Mock me all you want, it doesn’t affect me in any way. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I will say, it seems that it was incredibly antagonistic to accuse someone of “appointing themselves as the WikiPolice”. Perhaps, in fairness, you could ask Andy to knock it off also? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

On 19 July 2025 at 21:05, I gave JayCubby a final warning on the Wikimedia Community Discord server. They acknowledged the warning at 21:10. At 21:25, Commons:Deletion requests/File:UML 2019-09 Weed 3.JPG was opened, for a file that is not in use and is unrelated to any area that JayCubby actively edits in. JayCubby made no other edits to Commons that day. JayCubby was subsequently banned from the Wikimedia Community Discord server. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That’s not convincing. When reviewing uncategorised images, or indeed patrolling any number of images, anyone might encounter images that they need to submit for deletion that are “unrelated to any area they edit in”. Furthermore, your mention of “area they edit in” seems to be about external projects to Commons, is this correct?

The images Jay has submitted for review al seem to have valid rationales. I’m not sure how relevant a ban on a discord server (!!!) affects the allegations made of their deletion requests! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Question This thread could be closed; unless any administrator plans to take action? This discussion is going back-and-forth. Sev6nWiki (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The harassment is continuing; this was posted just now:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1061327272

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, I made it very clear the way by which I found the file. There will be more DRs of files by that photographer once I get back to a proper computer. A bunch of his pictures are well out of scope. JayCubby (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Andy, this appears to be a fairly low quality and uncategorised image of some food… it seems reasonable to submit it for deletion. It was uploaded by you, sure but it doesn’t have a detailed description, it’s not used anywhere and it doesn’t seem to have any educational use.

It seems very reasonable that it has been submitted for a deletion discussion. Perhaps it should be discussed on its merits? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It needs to be discussed here in the context of the retaliatiory and harassing behaviour evidenced here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

That has yet to be proven. It doesn’t look like stalking, and you have said some quite inflammatory things on this thread - things I’m sure you are well aware are unacceptable. Perhaps we need to look at your own behaviour? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Fine, if it needs to be discussed here, I will repeat what I said on the DR: "lack of categorization and the really bad description and file name" aren't sufficient reasons for deletion, but they certainly aren't merits. Why is an experienced user uploading a low-quality photo with a near-meaningless filename, no useful description, and no categories? And (the rest of this is outside what you said on the DR) why would you think someone who routinely looks at files without categories would have to be "stalking" you to run across it? And, even if they were stalking you (which I doubt), why the attachment to keeping such a low-quality file? (And if you really think it's worth keeping, wh more than half a year after you uploaded it does it still have a meaningless name and description, and no categories?) - Jmabel ! talk 07:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

On top of this, could Andy please explain why he said he had never had any interactions Jay when it seems pretty clear he has? And can Andy please explain why it is acceptable to use inflammatory language like calling him a “WikiCop”? That seems to verge on harassment. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I did not say "it needs to be discussed here", I said "It needs to be discussed here in the context of the retaliatory and harassing behaviour evidenced here". I also said in my OP "I'm not averse to having my images reviewed, nor even deleted if I have erred ... but I do not take kindly to retaliatory actions of this nature, and nor should the wider community tolerate them"

What I said was "AFAICT, we had never previously interacted." Other than one reply to my post on en:WP:LAB/PHOTO, to which I did not respond, what other interactions are "pretty clear"?

I have never used "inflammatory language like calling him a 'WikiCop'?", and I invite a retraction of that false allegation.

Perhaps you have missed that I have provided evidence of JayCubby nominating my files for deletion less than half an hour after I nominated two of his copyvios; and that User:AntiCompositeNumber has provided evidence of a similar retaliatory nomination? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

“For someone who's appointed themselves as the WikiPolice, you need to work on your accuracy and targeting.” Are you forgetting what you wrote, Andy? You also called him disingenuous. None of that is likely to invite rational and calm discussion.

I think you need to take a step back and calm down a little. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I am not forgetting what I wrote.

I am perfectly calm.

I look forward to your apology and retraction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologise for. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of me doing so, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It appears I was mistaken. I fully retract what I've said and I apologise to you. I was looking at the other Andy. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Chris may have been talking about the other Andy JayCubby (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• "That seems to verge on harassment" Indeed. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you, too, have missed that I have provided evidence of JayCubby nominating my files for deletion less than half an hour after I nominated two of his copyvios; and that User:AntiCompositeNumber has provided evidence of a similar retaliatory nomination?

Which "inflammatory things" do you accuse me of? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

You called him disingenuous, and you called him part of the WikiPolice. You don’t even seem to be aware of the inflammatory language you use, Andy. Please stop. - 14:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC) Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I again: I did not.

I look forward to your apology and retraction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

You wrote "JayCubby is being disingenuous" and you also wrote "For someone who's appointed themselves as the WikiPolice, you need to work on your accuracy and targeting."

I have nothing to apologise for and there is nothing to retract. You certainly don't seem calm as you are clearly upset that you believe you are being stalked. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

There are two Andy's in this discussion. I have just realised my mistake. In that case, I fully apologise for my comments and fully retract my statements. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Before (5312382842).jpg Jaybubby says "I don't want to come across as harassing you, as I am not." On the same page, they indicate an intention to continue nominating images I have uploaded for deletion. I view their behaviour as harassing.

In the light of the problematic behaviour that both I and User:AntiCompositeNumber have evidenced, I would like some form of restriction (voluntary or imposed) on JayCubby from interacting with me and in particular from nominating my uploads for deletion.

As I said in my original post here, "I'm not averse to having my images reviewed, nor even deleted if I have erred ... but I do not take kindly to retaliatory actions of this nature, and nor should the wider community tolerate them."

There are literally thousands of other Commons volunteers who are able and welcome to review my uploads. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that they have not necessarily nominated most of your uploads incorrectly, I don't see why they should be restricted. There aren't thousands of Commons volunteers, it's significantly less and not all contributors are going to want to review images. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked JayCubby for 3 days. Because stalking users is really shit (I myself am being stalked by 1989 and Christian Ferrer, so I know very well what it is about). Additionally, some of the nominated uploads are quite obviously de minimis and should not have been nominated. Some uploads, however, are really low quality, uploading which is rather a disappointing behaviour for a presumably skilled user like Andy Mabbett. --A.Savin 17:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I protest this block! This is completely unacceptable - it has not in any way been determined that Jay was stalking anyone, and this is a terrible judgement given several of us disagreed with the assertions being made. - I would appreciate another admin reviewing this decision.

With all due respect to A.Savin, but I am beginning to see why folks think the admin bit is not for him. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Merging accounts

Hello. I just discovered that I accidentally have two accounts on Commons because my original account was renamed to Sandik~commonswiki. Is there any way to merge them? Thanks in advance! Sandik (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware, but you can redirect the old user page and user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Or I guess in this case, move the old user page and leave a redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 21:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the advice, done! I've archived the old User talk on the new User talk page. Sandik (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Two sections unprocessed

#ذيبان العراقبه and #Kjw0106 and Alpsmango have not been processed Jonteemil (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I processed them. They were difficult requests, at first I waited for somebody else to react and then forgot. Taivo (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Repeated reverts of DR closure despite it being an admin action

I'm requesting input regarding repeated reverts of an administrative closure I made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:This Is Fine (meme).png. The DR was open for over three months without resolution and had received extensive participation from multiple users.

I closed it as keep, citing consensus and legal rationale based on points raised by Carl Lindberg, Qzekrom, JayCubby, Nosferattus and others. I also added a disclosure in the rationale noting that I had previously commented about copyright law on a noticeboard months earlier, and stated clearly that I would have no issue if another admin wanted to reopen the discussion.

Despite this, Adamant1 has repeatedly reverted the closure with the justification that I am "involved", citing prior disagreements over the topic of AI-generated images and suggesting that I have a bias. While I appreciate the concerns, this is an admin action on a stale DR, with transparent rationale and a clear invitation for other admins to re-open if they feel the closure was inappropriate.

I believe this persistent reverting of a formal closure (without re-nominating the file, or bringing the issue here to AN) is disruptive. I’ve asked the user to stop and suggested that they bring it here if they object, but they continue to revert the closure directly.

I’d welcome input from other admins on (1) whether the closure was out of bounds given the circumstances and (2) whether it is acceptable for a user to repeatedly revert an admin closure they disagree with rather than escalate it appropriately. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, you are involved and your closure completely ignore many considered comments that explained this was a derivative work. Your judgement here is compromised and you should not have been the closing admin. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

For the record, this was the comment I made on VP/C, which is basically the same I made in my closing rationale. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

A couple of things from my end.

1. I reverted Josve05a and left a message on his talk page. He just reverted me without discuss it. So I reverted him again until he responded to the message. As far as I know, that's not edit waring and it's part of the normal "revert, discuss" cycle.

2. I personally feel like Josve05a is to involved in it since he got in an a couple of arguments with me over that file, the uploader, AI generated images in general, and advocated me for being indefed over the whole thing. Although I'm sympathetic to his thing about how long the DR has been open, I asked him to post a message on the admin board asking someone else to close it. I don't see why he can't do that or how me making the request warrants him reporting me to ANU. Really, this whole thing just comes off like a bad faithed way to continue the original disagreement and bully me over it. Regardless, I encourage people to read the messages I left on his talk page. I was more then reasonable about it. There's absolutely no reason he needed to close the DR or couldn't have at least discussed it with me before restoring his original edit. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Adamant, if Josve05a was 'too involved' here, what on earth does that make you, who originally opened it? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I wasn't involved at the time when I opened the DR. Although I'd agree I probably am a little to involved at this point but that's also why I've mostly stayed away from the topic since then. So what's your point? I tend to stay away from things I'm to involved in. Everyone should. Including admins. Got me. Neither one of us should have anything to do with the deletion request. That's why I asked him to post a close request on the admin board. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't care about the involved bit, but if this is resolved to reinstate the closure, consider this a closure review for what looks like a quite destructive AI precedent. Keeping an explicit effort to recreate a 2D copyrighted work in 3D (or some other transformation) using AI on the basis that it "only copies the ideas" legitimizes every "dear chatgpt, create a cool new version of [copyrighted work] that 'isn't copyrighted' because it 'only copies the ideas' but which is so obviously a copy of the copyrighted work that we can use it to represent the copyrighted work on Wikipedia". — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean yeah, that's how fan art works? You can't copyright the mere idea of a dog with a hat sitting on chair near a table while surrounded by fire. Trade (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

+1. I don't see how this could be a derivative work. It is not a cartoon style drawing, and all ideas behind this image are way older than AI. I am not sure if it is appropriate to use AI to reproduce this meme, but as it is there is no copyright issue.

About Adamant1 edit-warring, why I am not surprised? Yann (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but this image is literally a derivative image created by AI, and almost exactly the same. That makes it a derivative work. An uninvolved admin should have made the closing decision. They should certainly not have put conditions that only another admin could reopen the DR. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I just commented on that deletion request - noting I don't like it, but it doesn't look to me like a copyright violation. If there were a suggest Commons policy to prohibit using AI to produce new versions of memes the original of which is under copyright, I'd vote in favor of such policy. But as the issue seems to be current copyright law, the image looks to me to skirt it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  +1 - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Welp, yet another instance where an administrator gets a free pass on involved editing (and falsely reporting a user as part of it). Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Adam, calm down. Even at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Denmark you were being overly combatative. And that was about something only vaguely related to the talk page discussion Trade (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: My names not Adam and I never said it was. It's a little funny your (apparently not since it's not my name anyway) doxing me in the same message your going off about my behavior though. More to the topic, I think it's involved editing, which I have a problem with because it just leads to needless drama like this. That's my prerogative. It doesn't look like this is going anywhere anyway. Why not drop it instead of continuing to stir the pot by fake doxing people or commenting when it had already died off? I was perfectly happy to leave it there myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I want to be clear that I'm not happy to simply "leave this" unresolved. This isn't just about whether the specific closure was correct or not, it's about the principle of respecting administrative actions.

Adamant1 repeatedly reverted a DR closure as if it were an ordinary content edit. That is not how Wikimedia projects handle admin actions. Just as non-admins are not permitted to undelete files (and must go to COM:UNDEL), or unblock users (and must appeal via talk page or COM:AN), the same applies to closing deletion discussions: if you disagree with an admin close, the correct venue is to request review, not to unilaterally revert (regardless if you raise it on the admin's talk page).

I disclosed my prior comment on the matter, invited re-review by other admins, and even pointed Adamant1 to this board, yet they continued to revert the closure. That is disruptive and sets a poor precedent for how DRs and admin tools are respected on Commons.

Regardless of how one feels about AI-generated images or this specific file, I would like to see a clear statement from other admins, and the community at large, about whether this behavior, reverting admin closures without re-nominating or escalating through proper venues is acceptable. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: if you disagree with an admin close, the correct venue is to request review, not to unilaterally revert A few things that I think are important. I told you I'm topic banned from ANU. So me messaging you on your talk page about it was the me dealing through the proper venue as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise you'd acting like the only way I can resolve a personal issue with an admin is to violate the topic ban, which you'd have to agree is totally ridiculous. All you had to do was reply to the messages instead of immediately report me and that probably would have been the end of it. The idea that ANU was the answer after one revert or that admins being reverted in general is laughable. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It was three reverts if I counted correctly. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: I reverted a couple of bits minor edit in order to revert the close. It was two reverts to the actual close though. As a general practice I don't revert the same edit three times because that's where it gets into edit waring IMO (I think that's what the guideline says to). But your first revert comment was that I should take it to ANU. You'd have to agree going off about reporting people to ANU (or doing it) after one revert isn't the most good faithed way to deal with a dispute. Especially since again, you could have just replied to me on your talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: This was an admin action, not a regular content edit. You don't get to revert admin closures just because you disagree. That’s not how it works — same as with unblocks or undeletions, where review must go through proper venues like AN or UNDEL.

You reverted the closure three times (1, 2, 3), despite being told to take it to AN if you objected. Revert–discuss cycles apply to content, not to administrative actions. Whether or not you’re topic banned from AN/U is irrelevant, you could have asked another admin to review the closure instead of edit-warring against it (also, I pointed to AN, not AN/U). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you are topic banned from this board, then by the same logic you may also be broadly construed as topic banned from requesting reviews of admin actions (which needs to be done here). That said, the topic ban notice you refer to does include an exception: "when your participation is solicited by another user in good standing". Since you were directed here by me, that exception could broadly interpreted to apply, but it further undermines your claim that you were somehow unable to follow proper process. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Hmmm, my bad. I must have missed the revert when I was looking through the edit history. I was told by an admin awhile back that the exact number reverts isn't what determines if it's edit waring though. So...More to the point, I agree that users shouldn't generally revert "admin actions" (however you want to define that) but regular users can and often do close DRs as keep. So it's not a particularly administrative thing to do IMO. Otherwise you guys would essentially be above reproach for even minor edits. '

With the topic ban specifically, I asked King of Hearts for clarification about it and he told me I'm just topic banned from admin boards under the Village Pump. Not discussing administrator actions more general. For instance I can still vote on admins. So I assume reverting one and/or messaging them on their talk page would be a non-issue. Of course all of these things have random lines and exceptions to them. But you should know the general rule is to discuss things with the person on their talk page before taking it to an admin or ANU. Your not above that just because your an administrator or due to me being topic banned from administrative boards. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: A DR closure by an administrator is a clear admin action, particularly when it resolves a long-standing, heavily discussed deletion request. You’re correct that non-admins can perform certain uncontroversial non-admin closes (see en:WP:NAC for the concept), but that does not apply here. This was not a NAC; it was a formal admin close with tools and rationale.

So by your own admission, and based on the guidance you say you received, your topic ban from admin noticeboards would not apply to passive participation like !voting. But you went further; you reverted an administrative action after being told, on both the edit summary ("the closure is an admin action"), your talk page, and mine, that this was an admin close. You continued reverting after that, which is exactly the kind of behavior topic bans are meant to prevent.

If you had posted on my talk page and left it there, that would have been one thing. But instead, you took action against an admin close; that crosses a line, and you were explicitly told it was not permitted. You chose to ignore that and proceeded to revert again anyway. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. It's not like I have any way to know when you use administrator tools to do normal edits. For all I knew you just closed it as a normal user who was sick of seeing it open since you were involved discussion around it. Your the one who said you closed it because of how it had been open and from what I can tell you don't generally close DRs as an admin. It's hard to buy that you made the edit as normal admin actions when it's not even an area your normally active in. I've at least gotten two things out of this though 1. You clearly don't care about involved editing 2. Your under the impression that everything you do, even random edits in areas you don't normally participate in and/or that normal users can make, is an "admin action" and therefore can't be questioned or reverted. I'll certainly keep those things in mind next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Closing DRs is basically all admin actions I do. Regardless of intention it was wrong and you did not disengage when confronted. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I could say the same about you closing the DR to begin with and you reporting me to ANU over a non-issue. As well as you continuing this discussion when it clearly isn't going anywhere. This wouldn't a thing right now if you had of left the close up to another administrator and not needlessly escalated it when there was no reason to. Be my guest and disengage though. I'd love to move on from this. Your the one continuing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I won’t drop this. I’d like to see you actually sanctioned for your actions and disregard of proper process for once. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's to be expected. I'm always the one who should disengage while it's perfectly fine if the people saying so continue to beat the horse into the ground like the whole U4C case. For my part, I fully support you being sanctioned for involved editing and using ANU to bully users you get in minor disagreements with. I'm not holding my breath though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you really are the victim of your own actions—how surprising (sarcasm intended). You were explicitly told to disengage reverting admin actions, not to stop discussing them. But by continuing to revert, you not only undid admin decisions, you also risked violating your own topic ban. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not topic banned from things generally involving administrators, I'm banned from participating in admin sub boards of the Village Pump. At least that's what I was told. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

??? I called you Adam because it's half your username Trade (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: My user name is adamant because I'm particularly prone to refusing to be persuaded or to change my mind about things. Not because my first name is Adam. I could see why you'd make the mistake though. I probably should have thought about that when I created the account lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Autocorrect exists and would easily lead to such a mistake. You probably really don't need to read too much into it. Nakonana (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure. It's happened before. I mostly think it's funny. Trade's fine though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

OMG, I just realised that is how to say your name. I’ve literally thought you were Adam Ant this entire time… - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked Adamant1 for 2 weeks due to editwarring against this RfD's closure. --A.Savin 08:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

To also write is here: Yes, that the block was performed by A.Savin was not good in this situation. But the block is definitely justified because of the edit war with an admin about the closure of a deletion request. I support the block and we therefore have a 4-eye principle for this block. GPSLeo (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I think 2 weeks seems excessive. Surely we can reduce it to one week? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

You know what? I'm not that concerned whether the block was an appropriate length or not (two weeks is not a big deal, and I mean that sufficiently that if someone wants to block me for two weeks for saying that, I'll accept it quietly, as long as they link this remark as the reason for blocking me). But I'm getting really tired of admins using blocks in situations in which they are involved (and if there is any doubt, in this case I mean A.Savin). An admin is just as capable as any other user of raising an issue here and having someone else make the block, if appropriate. You simply should not be involved in a situation both as plaintiff and judge.

Yes, there are edge cases where someone might be tangentially involved, but this wasn't one of them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

How am I plaintiff on here? --A.Savin 18:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Are you stating that your block at 08:46, 27 July 2025 had absolutely nothing to do with Adamant1's comments roughly 90 minutes earlier at Commons:Deletion requests/User:A.Savin? - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

That's merely your speculation. I already stated that I don't care that much about my userpage. By the way, I've deleted it myserlf. (Much more important for me is, to contribute content without being stalked, harassed, libeled and defamed; but that's an other construction site) --A.Savin 19:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

You know that the perception of impartiality is really important, right? You shouldn’t be involving yourself in actions where you might be seen to be involved. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that we only have maybe ten admins actively blocking users after reports on this board. That no somehow involved admin took action here was the reason why this was open for nearly a hole week despite being a very clear case. GPSLeo (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)