Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 105

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

Numberblocksbandretrofan488

Repeated violation of COM:OVERWRITE and a threat of violence at File:Alveolo-palatal ejective fricative.ogg#filehistory. Nardog (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog, indefinitely blocked. Kadı Message 16:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Kadı: They're back...
Nardog (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Blocked. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

user:Davelondonxxx

Exhibitionism account, clearly not here to contribute constructively Dronebogus (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Request sock block for Henrk08

New user Henrk08 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has picked up where fellow Fenrk sock Liswinkpm left off, uploading images related to a minor Indian Christian body and an elephant ceremony. While I just reopened the EnWikipedia SPI, I'm confident enough that this is a duck per the evidence there and on the Commons. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Socks of user:0148sivajegan

The 0148sivajegan (talk · contribs) has more ID respectivly 0148sivajegan Youtuber (talk · contribs), 0148sivajegan tamil (talk · contribs) and 0148sivajegan tamizhan (talk · contribs) and her upload (personal and non Commons:Scope images) were deleted and still user upload from various IDs. AntanO 06:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done All blocked. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Kbsdg

See: Special:Contributions/Kbsdg, sockpuppet nominating random items with no rationale for deletion. --RAN (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Now blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 14:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Please block Kbsdg

They're opening a lot of frivolous DRs: Kbsdg (talk · contribs). Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually same as the thread above. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Was coming to ask about the same user. And they seem to be uploading mostly copyvios as well. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Might be worth revisiting Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Close deletion requests. Do we really want to keep all these garbage DRs around? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done No need to open another thread. All edits being reverted / DRs closed. Yann (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User Owcerlay

Owcerlay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a vandalism only account. The user is already blocked indefinitely on some wikimedia projects. Makes useless renaming requests, removes valid categories and replaces them by redlinked categories with nonsense names. - Andreas Stiasny (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I've reverted most of his contributions as they were disruptive and pure nonsense. @AStiasny: please notify users next time as it's instructed above; this time I've done it for you. A09 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Owcerlay has been blocked globally by AmandaNP on April 22nd. - Andreas Stiasny (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@AStiasny: That was a global lock. "Global locks should not be confused with Global blocks and Global bans" per m:Global locks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks, I was not aware of that. I understand that one is for user names and the other for IP addresses. Unfortunately the german translations for global locks and global blocks used on Meta are identical. - Andreas Stiasny (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@AStiasny: You're welcome. I hope that the German speakers contributing to Meta can disambiguate.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

User David Stulgys

David Stulgys (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has been warned not to upload websites images, most of them copyrighted, and claim them has his won. Should be blocked indefinitely as He has done it again. Pierre cb (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Tm edit-warring categories

User:Tm continues: [1], [2] to add back the category XM16E1 rifle to File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg, despite failing to justify on the Talk Page: File talk:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg. There is nothing visible in the picture that confirms those are XM16E1s rather than M16A1s, but Tm refuses to accept this or engage in discussion of what the photo shows. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This is probably going to be a controversial take, but this just looks super nitpicky and like a none issue. Just put the images in a category and be done with it. Who cares what category the images are in? The guns look a lot like XM16E1. To the point that probably only gun specialists with specific training will know if they aren't, and they aren't the target audience anyway. At least not exclusively. Will a random user looking for images of XM16E1 know or care though? Probably not, and that's assuming they aren't XM16E1s. Which I don't think you've proved. Although I'll grant that Tm hasn't proved they are, but it should be on the person disputing the edit to give a valid reason why beyond just playing devils advocate, which seems to be all your doing. Otherwise, a good portion of edits on here could be reverted. At the end of the day the specific categories images like these go in isn't super important though since again realistically no one is going to be tell the difference. Assuming there even is one and the guns aren't XM16E1s. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I can see no way why these should be under XM16E1. They might be, they might not, but unless we know this (either visibly or by some provenance) then we shouldn't make an additional and specific claim like this. Not only would we be at risk of making an error, but we wouldn't be adding value ("photo of rare thing") if it's just an indistinguishable blob. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
It sounds like from the discussions that Tm has some knowledge about the gun models at question. Whereas, there's nothing in the discussions from what I can tell to indicate why Mztourist thinks the guns aren't XM16E1s. Except for playing devils advocate. So I think it's fine to defer to Tm's opinion about how the images should be categorized. That's how it's done in literally every other situation. Otherwise I'd agree that the images shouldn't be under XM16E1, but it would be ridiculous not to have them in that category just because someone is claiming without evidence that they aren't XM16E1s. Hell, Mztourist isn't even saying they aren't XM16E1s. Just that Tm should have to prove they are, which IMO isn't a good reason to remove images from a category. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • That's not how the burden of proof works. Everyone is agreed that these are some form of M16. But to go beyond that, to claim that they're the much rarer early XM16E1 variant, that needs to demonstrate that it is (and not to prove that it isn't – no-one is claiming that they're definitely M16A1 or some other more-specific sub-type). Which isn't happening here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
burden of proof has to do with users proving works that they upload aren't copyrighted, not what category someone puts an image in. Outside of that, Commons:Categories says a user should consider what the file shows when categorizing it, which Tm clearly did. They think the image shows an XM16E1 and there's zero evidence that they are wrong. Otherwise be my guest and provide some. Until then there's zero reason not to give Tm the benefit of the doubt that it's the model of gun they say it is. Either way, the presumption of what the correct category for an image to go is should always lie with the person doing the categorizing. At least in absence of any serious evidence to the contrary, and there isn't evidence it's not a XM16E1. Otherwise, it's just bad faithed. Or conversely we can arbitrarily question decisions people make for no other reason then that we can. I'm sure you'd agree that wouldn't be a functional way to do things though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Adamant1 you credit Tm with knowledge on this issue. As Tm has noted, there are 3 features that distinguish an XM16E1 from an M16A1. None of those features are discernible in this image. Despite my repeated requests to Tm on the Talk page, they have failed to justify, using those features, why they continue to edit-war the category. So no, we should not "give Tm the benefit of the doubt that it's the model of gun they say it is." Tm should justify the category based on what is visible in the image or stop edit-warring it. Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mztourist: I don't necessarily disagree with you in general, but the problem is that the whole thing is a catch-22 where your asking Tm for proof that the gun is an XM16E1 at the same time your saying nothing is discernible enough in the image for whatever proof he provides to be valid. So what do you expect? It's totally ridiculous to ask someone to provide evidence of what type of gun it is if you've already decided ahead of time that the gun isn't clear enough in the image for whatever evidence the person gives to be perceptible. You should have just said the features aren't discernible from the get go. Otherwise, it just seems like your back peddling or moving the bar after the fact to justify your edit waring. Regardless, Tm provided proof and it seems plausible to me. If you think the gun isn't perceptible to tell if it's a XM16E1, cool, but you should have just said so from the start instead of asking for proof that's it an XM16E1. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I disagree with all your assertions that this is "catch-22", that I "should have just said the features aren't discernible from the get go" and that I am "back peddling or moving the bar after the fact to justify your edit waring". If someone adds a category based on minor distinguishing features and they are questioned on it then they need to justify the category. You say "Tm provided proof and it seems plausible to me" well then where are those distinguishing features visible in this image? You can't see them and that is why Tm has avoided discussing this image. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Where are those distinguishing features visible in this image? Guns aren't my area of expertise and this ANU complaint isn't about me either. Your the one who asked for proof originally. Again, if there were no distinguishing features in the image you should have just said so from the beginning instead of acting like they were and then getting in a edit over it once Tm provided the proof you asked them for. It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware of what the general concept of proof is, obviously. This is an ANU complaint though. The last time I checked in order for someone to be sanctioned for their actions, which I assume is the point in this, there has to be a little more behind it then a super pedantic disagreement about if someone has to provide evidence before putting an image in a category or not. In the meantime your the one acting like either the person does or they should be sectioned. All I'm saying is that it's not requirement. Is it to provide evidence that something is being categorized properly if their asked for it? Sure, but the last time I checked it's not a sanctionable offense if they don't. Nor does it justify Mztourist dealing with Tm not providing the evidence by edit waring them. Either Tm not providing proof the gun is an XM16E1 is worth them being edit wared and sanctioned over, or it isn't. Period. I'm not here to wax poetic about the definition of the word "proof." So maybe save the off topic meta discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Adamant1 I came here because I have attempted to engage in discussion with TM on the image Talk page but they have failed to justify their categorisation there, but when I delete the category several days after my Talk page messages Tm just reinstated it without any explanation of why it should be categorised XM16E1, when there is nothing visible in the image that confirms that category is correct. So you tell me, what is the correct process and who isn't following it here? Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
See my last comment. If nothing is visible in the image cool, but you should have just said from the get-go instead of framing the discussion like Tm could provide evidence that it's a XM16E1. You can't just act like nothing is discernible in the image after asking for evidence multiple times and Tm providing it though. Otherwise your just moving the bar to support your side of the disagreement. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Adamant1 I'm tiring of your assumption of bad faith by me. Did you even read the Talk Page discussion? On 6 March I asked Tm to prove those were XM16E1s, because obviously I didn't think you could tell that from the image. Tm failed to do so. On 3 April Tm said to me "Where do you see the birdcage flash hider or the fenced magazine release" to which I replied on 4 April "Where in this photo do you clearly see that the rifles do not have birdcage flash hiders or the fenced magazine releases? Tm has still failed to answer that question and you seem to want to ignore that saying "Tm provided proof and it seems plausible to me". So please you look at the image and tell us if those are XM16E1s, M16A1s or you can't tell? Mztourist (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mztourist and Tm: Whatever is the final decision, you BOTH should stop edit-warring. Yann (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Yann Tm has failed to justify the category on the image Talk Page, but when I delete the XM16E1 category they reinstate it, that is the edit-warring. Why is Tm failing to follow the proper procedure? Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
You claim, in the talkpage of File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg that i "can't tell by looking at this picture whether they are XM16E1s or M16A1s, the same as in the other photos where I have raised this issue." Really?????
1 - You are talking of the 5 771 × 8 577 pixels image where only you do not see the clearly visible teardrop forward assist, xm16e1 boss, uncaged magazine release, three prong flash hider? But of course it is not an xm16e1.
2 - Or are you talking of the the image where only you cannot see the clearly visible teardrop forward assist and uncaged magazine release with the xm16e1 boss. Or are talking of the visible three prong flash hiders visible under the transparent condoms? except for you.
3 - Or are you talking of the Image labelled by the US Federal Government as an M16A1 and so demanded to know "explain why you (me) have categorised it as an XM16E1 rifle" and when i explained you admited that was in fact an XM16E1 (and implicitly showing that you do not know what is are the differences between an XM16E1 or an M16A1"..
4 - Or are you talking of one image of australian soldiers taken in January 2 1967 or another photo of australian soldiers taken in March 18 1966 were you demanded to know why to know why are those rifles XM16A1 when you can clearly see, in those two images, the teardrop forward assist and\or xm16e1 boss and\or uncaged magazine release and\or the three prong flash hider. This two cases are even worst as i asked you if knew when was the M16A1 standardized, was in M16A1 was only standardized in February 23 1967.
Well this clearly shows that you cannot distinguish between an XM16E1 and a M16A1 but remove Category:XM16E1 rifle and when reverted always demand to know why for no good reason. Tm (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Tm's justification seems perfectly reasonable to me. Otherwise I'd be interested to know what exact points they made that either of you disagree with outside of the completely vacuous claim that they are blathering. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Adamant1 where are those distinguishing features in File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg? You can't see them, which is why User:Tm is avoiding discussing the image. You or Tm please answer that central question. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I asked you the question and I'm not the one who got in an edit war over this. You are. So Why not answer the question instead of deflecting or trying to make this about me? Again, what points that Tm made do you disagree with? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
As I have just said above, on the image Discussion page on 6 March I asked Tm to prove those were XM16E1s, because obviously I didn't think you could tell that from the image. Tm failed to do so. On 3 April Tm said to me "Where do you see the birdcage flash hider or the fenced magazine release" to which I replied on 4 April "Where in this photo do you clearly see that the rifles do not have birdcage flash hiders or the fenced magazine releases? Tm has still failed to answer that question. Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not talking about comments from 4 days ago that weren't made in the ANU complaint. Just quoting something you asked them in another discussion doesn't answer my question. This isn't that difficult. What do you disagree with about the points they made in their last message? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Those comments are completely irrelevant to this complaint. It is notable that you and Tm are both trying to obfuscate away from the matter at hand here. Please look at the image and comment on it specifically to address the complaint. Mztourist (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I have a good reason for asking. It has nothing to do with obfuscating and it's totally relevant to the conversation. Unfortunately that reason is negated by your unwillingness to answer a simple question about what exactly you think Tm is wrong about. So I'm not going to waste my time explaining what the point in the question was. You'd probably have some nonsense excuse for why it's not valid anyway. Although I will say it's a little rich that your accusing me of obfuscating when your the one who asked someone for evidence of something. Then when they provided it you couldn't even answer a simple question about it or say a single thing you disagreed with Tm on without talking in circles. BTW, the point I was going to make after you answered the question would have probably been in your favor. So your lose for not just indulging me. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Adamant1 look at your initial comments (e.g. "Who cares what category the images are in?"), you have been obfuscating this discussion right from the beginning. I have not bothered responding to TM's comments on 5 other images, because they are whataboutisms that will simply detract from the subject of this complaint. I am tired of your lack of assumption of good faith and veiled and not so veiled insults. If you are not willing to address the complaint then you should leave this discussion. Mztourist (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Tm said you can't distinguish between an XM16E1 and a M16A1. I assume you agree with that since your claiming there's no way to tell the gun in the image is a XM16E1. So in no way is question of why it matters what category the image goes in obfuscating. It's perfectly reasonable to what difference it makes what category the image goes in if there's zero way to tell if it's a XM16E1 or M16A1. For all you know whatever the answer ended up being could have led to the image being put in the M16A1, which is the outcome you want. Your to busy acting paranoid and defensive about it to realize that the purpose of the question was to hint at and ascertain that there was probably no specific reason the image needed to be in the category for xm16e1s. All you had to do was agree that it probably didn't matter and I was planning on reverting Tm's edit and doing a CfD for the XM16E1 category to see if there is even a point in having it in the first place. Screw it now though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
So I take that lengthy insult-laden explanation to be your withdrawal from this discussion, good. Mztourist (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not the one writing insult-laden comments. But OK. Sheesh, talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, right: "Your to busy acting paranoid and defensive about it" Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
You clearly wanted this to go a certain way and it didn't go that way. So your being defensive about the extremely minor amount of feedback you recived about how you handled it in the meantime. That's fine. It's just how these things go sometimes. No insult though. It's just how your acting. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you dropped the stick and found someone else to grind an axe with because this clearly isn't going anywhere. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
No-one asked you to join this discussion, but you decided to anyway with your "controversial take". You have proven nothing, ignored the issue and insulted me repeatedly. It seems like you just came looking for a fight. On the image discussion page you have said "there is no clear way to tell the difference between an XM16E1 and an M16A1" and "that for all intents and purposes the XM16E1 and M16A1 aren't distinguishable." Both completely incorrect and which show that you have never understood the issue or my complaint. Time for you to Homer Simpson into the hedge. Mztourist (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
What exactly would be looking for fight a over? This isn't my issue and I have nothing to do with topic outside of the ANU complaint. I've also said since the beginning that it doesn't really matter what category the image goes in, which means it could just as easily go in another category besides the one for XM16E1 rifles. I could really care less. Honestly, the only reason I'm participating in the discussion at this point is because of the way your acting about it. I can guarantee you I would have been on to other things a longtime ago if you repeatedly taken digs at me and made the discussion about my opinions. I'm sorry I committed the grievous sin of writing a comment in a public discussion through lol. Like I said, this clearly isn't going anywhere. So why not drop the stick and find someone else to grind an axe at? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Your past history here at AN suggests otherwise. You have shown that you have no understanding of the differences between an XM16E1 and an M16A1 and don't believe that correct categories are important. So its hilarious that you claim that "the only reason I'm participating in the discussion at this point is because of the way your acting about it. I can guarantee you I would have been on to other things a longtime ago if you repeatedly taken digs at me and made the discussion about my opinions." Mztourist (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yet you can't even seem to tell me what those differences are or how you can tell if an image is of an XM16E1 or not lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Tm has explained the differences between an XM16E1 and an M16A1 previously. My whole complaint is that on the image in question you can't discern those differences and so in your words "how you can tell if an image is of an XM16E1 or not ". Thanks for finally agreeing with my point. Mztourist (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I've disagreed with the point that you can't tell the differences. That's why I said in the first message I wrote that only gun specialists can probably tell if the guns in the images are XM16E1s or not. Whatever you say though. It seems like your more concerned with getting the rhetorical win or whatever then you are reading what other people write. I've said several times now that it's hard or impossible to tell the differences between the models from the images. I just don't think singling out a specific user or one edit is the way to deal with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Read my complaint again, its very straightforward behavioural issue, nothing rhetorical about it. As you have acknowledged that the type of gun is not discernible in the image, then Tm's actions in editwarring the XM16E1 category while failing to justify that category on the Discussion page is not acceptable behaviour. Mztourist (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: after I opened this complaint on 7 April, another User removed the XM16E1 category on 9 April: [3] and then on 10 April User:Tm restored the category: [4], ignoring this discussion, consensus and your 8 April warning to both Tm and me against edit-warring. Tm's behaviour is unacceptable. Mztourist (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to excuse Tm's edit, but there wasn't a consensus to remove the category at that point and Andy Dingley removed it knowning there wasn't one and while there the discussion was still ongoing. So while Tm shouldn't have added the category back, Andy Dingley shouldn't have removed it without there being a consensus to either. It's not like he couldn't have waited the 12 hours or how ever long it took for Dvaderv2 to respond before making the edit. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Tm was subject to an edit-warring warning whereas User:Andy Dingley was not and Andy Dingley was perfectly entitled to take his own view on the category even while this discussion was ongoing. Mztourist (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Andy Dingley was perfectly entitled to take his own view on the category Not really since there wasn't a consensus to remove the category. Anymore then it would have been perfectly fine for me to revert his edit if Tm hadn't of because it was my view that the category should have stayed. Since it would have just been a continuation of the prior edit war. I can guarantee you and Andy Dingley would have made a stink out of it I had of done that to. So I don't really see what the difference is. Regardless, someone can't just continue an edit war on another person's behalf when there's no consensus make the edit. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
And...That's why I said the categories need discussing. Instead of it just turning into an argument or edit war every time someone puts an image into one of them. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
(sarcasm) It must be an M16A1 that somehow appears in this photo. Yes, it has to be an M16A1 as this was taken almost a year before the M16A1 was even standardized much less adopted and distributed in large numbers. Tm (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Going by the evidence visible in this photo, it could be a Johnny Seven.
It's reasonable to claim it's an M16 (in the broad sense). But anything more than that, either XM16E1 or M16A1, is just guessing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Andy Dingley is absolutely right. Unless you can clearly see that its an XM16E1 or M16A1, you don't add the category. It serves no useful purpose if the gun isn't clearly visible and it just creates debate as has happened here. User:Dvaderv2 you originally added the XM16E1 category to the subject photo here: [5] and then just a few days ago you added XM16E1 to another photo: [6], you can't tell thats an XM16E1 or that that's an M1911 pistol, so stop adding categories unless the weapon type is clearly discernible in the picture. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dvaderv2: (see comment above this one) --Adamant1 (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1, @Mztourist I'm sorry, what? If a specific date is given for a photograph, and I know that weapon A was in service at that time but weapon B wasn't (trials etc. excepted), then the only reasonable scenario in which weapon B could be depicted is if we were somehow living in a reality where time travel exists and is being used to do funny things. In image 1 I ultimately conceded that the rifle could only be identified as belonging to the A1 line in general and in any case the date given is permissive of either variant being available. In image 2 however, the date given (8 April 1966) effectively precludes the rifle being a literal A1. And since an Army operation is depicted and since the outline of a forward assist is visible we can rule out the rifle being a Model 604 (not that such a category exists to begin with), and the weapon is too long to be anything belonging to the Colt Commando/CAR-15 line, so only one realistic conclusion is left.
Context also matters - r.e. your comment about M1911s, the individual we see in the photograph is an ordinary "grunt" rather than someone belonging to the Green Berets, SOG, long-range patrols etc. who would have a much wider choice of sidearms, so while the holster unfortunately does cover up much of the pistol and what's left isn't terribly distinct, to identify it as an M1911 despite these difficulties is a fairly reasonable assumption to make.
I know that firearms are not particularly identifiable at the best of times even in today's age of advanced digital photography, let alone the film photography we're dealing with here, and I bear that understanding in mind when editing. If an L85/L86 image was taken between 2002 and 2006, and if the cocking handle isn't especially visible, then that weapon is identified as an L85/L86 in general rather than as specifically belonging to either the A1 family or A2 family. Likewise I only identify 7.62x39mm AKs as being AKMs if there is a clear view of the lower receiver (and thus of the AKM's much shorter and smaller depression above the magazine - see here), or as being Type 56s if I can see that a fully hooded front sight is mounted and/or that a folding bayonet is used. Anything else goes straight into the AK-47 category. And I tend to avoid making claims as to specific M16 variants when editing US Navy images since those M16A3s look an awful lot like M16A2s (fixed "carry handle" sights) or M16A4s (rail-mounted sights). Consequently, things like dates, contextual evidence etc. are to be welcomed.
I'm not sure why you've been so hung up over how any given A1-line M16 is identified by myself or others recently. I do have my suspicions based on past interactions, but good faith prevents me from stating them explicitly or otherwise. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Dvaderv2 you say yourself that you are making assumptions in adding categories which is a completely flawed approach. It is not in any way useful to add a category based solely on assumptions around metadata (which is sometimes wrong), when a weapon first entered service (when other versions remained in use) and/or what you claim to know about the soldier, rather than what is clearly visible in the photo. If you can't tell from looking at the photo that the gun is an XM16E1 or an M16A1, then don't add either category. A category is supposed to be added to describe something actually depicted in a photo, if you can't tell that the M16 type rifle is an XM16E1 or an M16A1 or that a pistol in a holster is an M1911 then its not useful and informative to add the category. On the File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg photo, you can't tell if those are XM16E1s or M161A1s, but you replaced the category XM16E1 with M16A1, which is still incorrect, I and two other Users have told you: [7] that the M16A1 category is not appropriate, but you still haven't deleted it. On the File:NARA photo 111-CCV-609-CC34255.jpg the rifle is not clearly visible, but you are making assumptions based on metadata which is not useful. Even assuming you are correct, is that photo a good quality depiction of an XM16E1 or an M1911? Of course its not, so why are you adding the categories? It is disappointing that despite this discussion you seem to be doubling down on your dubious categorisations, here: File:Cedar 1.jpg adding the XM16E1 category with the comment "January 1967 photo, leftmost soldier's flash hider isn't entirely clear but appears to conform to the silhouette of the XM16E1 pattern", I don't agree that the flash suppressor is visible, nor that any of the other distinguishing features of an XM16E1 are visible anywhere in this photo. While you have added the XM16E1 category to a number of photos, very few of those photos are definitively XM16E1s and we actually have few clear images of XM16E1s that show its distinguishing features. You say "I'm not sure why you've been so hung up over how any given A1-line M16 is identified by myself or others recently" to which I respond I'm not sure why you've been so hung up on categorising barely visible weapons for years now. Mztourist (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
1. You are the only one making any reference to metadata. I referred purely to context, which in this case is "ordinary Army 'grunt' doing ordinary Army 'grunt' things with nothing to signify that he belongs to the sort of specialist outfit that enjoyed a wider selection of pistols". You speak yourself of things that are "clearly visible in the photo", so what is clearly visible in this photograph? An ordinary Army "grunt" who would be unlikely to have a pistol in the first place, and yet he clearly has one; since he does have a pistol, the chances of that pistol being a non-1911 type are equally slim. The holster does get in the way of a definite identification, but saying that it is a M1911 is a reasonable assumption to make in light of the context.
2. I didn't merely say "I made an assumption"; I said "I made a reasonable assumption based on context" (see 1.). I added Category:M1911 pistol, not Category:Webley revolvers or Category:Glock 17.
3. You undermine yourself by saying "when a weapon first entered service (when other versions remained in use)". And in any event that only works if other versions of a weapon are available to begin with - if the photograph is from before February 1967, that sort of dating only permits the XM16E1 and not the M16A1. Photographs after February 1967 allow for ambiguity, but not photographs before February 1967.
4. You are being inconsistent - you speak of that which is "clearly visible in the photo" and yet you say the things about File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg (a photograph where the rifles have the silhouette etc. of A1-line rifles) that you have said. "Better" yet, it is a September 1967 photograph, i.e. a timeframe where one might start to more legitimately doubt that XM16E1s were still in circulation in significant numbers, and yet you have said what you said.
I have also recently learned that some later XM16E1s may have been fitted with the birdcage flash-hider of the eventual M16A1 rather than the more typical pronged flash-hider, in which case trying to make a firm identification becomes a nonsense. Likewise, photographs such as File:"Doe" Morris moves through heavy grass in a deserted rice paddy while on patrol during operation Kentucky V with A... - NARA - 532455.tif and File:AK-47 and M16 DM-SN-82-07699.JPEG exist where the flash-hider is that of the XM16E1 but the lower receiver's magazine release fencing is more akin to that of the M16A1. Perhaps we should get rid of the XM16E1 category and have the M16A1 category cover both rifles? It would certainly be a surefire way of ensuring either of us have any peace about this matter in future, and there's also the historical fact 1) of the XM16E1 leading to the M16A1 and 2) of Colt assigning the same model number to both weapons (Colt Model 603). I might not be able to "tell from looking at the photo that the gun is an XM16E1 or an M16A1", but I can certainly tell that it is from the M16A1 line in general.
5. Try reading my previous comment again, but this time without a mindset of "I am automatically right, and even if I am not somehow automatically right the other guy is automatically wrong". I have said what I have said about the ambiguity of firearms identification and how this may or may not be resolved by knowledge of the wider context. The one thing I forgot to add first time round was that I try to add annotations where I believe that what is readily apparent to me might not be so to others. I am not entirely consistent about doing so (both in general terms and in terms of my subjective judgement about whether something would be readily apparent to other users), and Wikimedia seems to only allow annotations to be added if the image meets a minimum resolution, but the effort is being made.
- Dvaderv2 (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I know that weapon A was in service at that time but weapon B wasn't But we don't know this, except maybe for the M16 alone, right at the start. The M16 didn't disappear from service when the XM16E1 appeared, nor did either of them when the M16A1 appeared. We might know the first date at which a weapon could be seen, but not the last. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Dvaderv2 responding using your numbering:
1. By metadata I obviously mean the source date, details and caption that came with the image. In relation to the File:NARA photo 111-CCV-609-CC34255.jpg. I agree that "ordinary grunt"s didn't usually carry pistols so given that, why would you still assume that it is the ordinary service pistol, i.e. the M1911? It could just as easily be some other pistol he acquired, we just don't know, so don't add the category.
2. I would hope that your assumptions are reasonable, but the whole point here is that if you have to make assumptions to determine a category then the categorisation is of no use and shouldn't be added.
3. Not undermining myself at all, rather you are taking my words out of context as I clearly said "It is not in any way useful to add a category based solely on assumptions around metadata (which is sometimes wrong), when a weapon first entered service (when other versions remained in use) and/or what you claim to know about the soldier, rather than what is clearly visible in the photo." As Andy Dingley correctly notes: "The M16 didn't disappear from service when the XM16E1 appeared, nor did either of them when the M16A1 appeared."
4. No inconsistency at all. You claim that in File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg the rifles "have the silhouette etc. of A1-line rifles" all early M16 type rifles have roughly the same silhouette, but you need a clear view of the flash hider and lower receiver to tell an XM16E1 from an M16A1 and I, Andy Dingley and another User don't believe you can see that clearly enough to make that determination. You then fall back on a timing assumption that: ""Better" yet, it is a September 1967 photograph, i.e. a timeframe where one might start to more legitimately doubt that XM16E1s were still in circulation in significant numbers." Andy's comment applies again and you added [8] the XM16E1 category to this 1970 photo: File:Son Tay raiders picture.jpg on 19 March. I agree that the category there is correct, but it completely undermines your timing argument and shows your inconsistency. Your comment that "I might not be able to "tell from looking at the photo that the gun is an XM16E1 or an M16A1", but I can certainly tell that it is from the M16A1 line in general." is factually incorrect and frankly undermines all of your arguments, they are from the early M16 line in general, not the M16A1 line!
5. I have shown your inconsistencies above and other Users agree with me that if you can't clearly see that its an XM16E1 or M16A1, then you shouldn't add either category based on assumptions, because it simply is not useful. Tag obvious XM16E1, M16A1s, M1911s etc. to your heart's content, but unless the weapon model is obvious in the image, don't categorise it because you're not helping anyone. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
That's... an unusual definition of metadata, which most other people view as referring to information that has been embedded within a digital file rather than external information. If you are referring to dates/descriptions/similar, then say you are referring to dates/descriptions/similar.
In any case, much like the addition/removal of Category:Males with M16 rifle before it, you are only really taking issue with categories that have been added to files uploaded by yourself, thus it can be argued that there is a responsibility on your part to make sure that any information accompanying those files at the time of upload is correct. If, after such examination, you believe that the information is correct or has been made to be correct, why challenge anyone who looks at that information and makes such conclusions as can be reasonably supported?
And of course, if something is "clearly visible", then any accompanying information can only confirm that. If the accompanying information says something that is in obvious contradiction with what is "clearly visible", one must go with what is "clearly visible".
As for everything else, you do not appear to be saying anything that is substantially new, and so I can offer nothing in response that is substantially new either. I think it will be best if we agree to disagree on our approaches to file categorisation regardless of whatever misgivings we might have about them. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dvaderv2: Metadata for an image is any data about the image. Obviously, within the file itself the only metadata is EXIF and the like (and colloquially on Commons, we often use the term in that narrow sense), but for the file in an archive (e.g. a GLAM database, Commons itself) all accompanying information is metadata. Metadata can even include links to other images. Have a look at en:Metadata. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Dvaderv2 I take issue with categories on files I uploaded because those show up on my watchlist. The metadata (thanks @Jmabel: !) on Vietnam War images seldom specifies the type of rifle in the image. I have proven you wrong on all your 5 points above. We cannnot just "agree to disagree", you need to stop adding categories based on assumptions, rather than what is clearly visible in the image. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Trying to get to something some admin can deal with

This has really gotten voluminous. Could I ask Mztourist, Tm, and perhaps others if they really feel a need to weigh in to each summarize their points, once, in 150 words or less, with no more than another 50 words to say what action (if any) they are asking for? And please don't argue back and forth in this section. I'm asking each of you for a summary, not a continuation of the argument, which can proceed in the section above if you really need to. - Jmabel ! talk 06:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, both Tm and Dvaderv2 to be directed to stop making assumptions in adding categories and only categorize based on what is actually visible in the image. Mztourist (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Both Tm and Dvaderv2 (and anyone really, this would apply to everyone) to not add very specific and narrow categories, implying very specific meanings to content, unless there is some plausible reason to do so and to believe that the cat is appropriate.
Admin action to enforce, if needed, but really a good editor should hardly need the stick end of the mop. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Livioandronico2013 - sleeper sock

Regarding Livioandronico2013 (talk · contribs), a sleeper has emerged: Idontfindaoriginalname (talk · contribs); please block as LTA. Elizium23 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Also the action of Graywastakensoimusingthisinstead (talk · contribs) may bear scrutiny as related. Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Polarlys may have some insight after the upload/deletion in this regard. Elizium23 (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I have been registered long before Livioandronico2013 --Idontfindaoriginalname (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

User Meteorologai

Meteorologai (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads from copyrighted images from websites that are themselves either copyrighted or uploads copyrighted material without permissions. For example, surface weather maps from UK Met Office and DWD are copyrighted well indicated on https://www1.wetter3.de/archiv_ukmet_dt.html and https://www1.wetter3.de/archiv_dwd_dt.html but the users has cut the Copyright information. This is very similar to User:David Stulgys blocked previously. I warned him and nominated most of the uploads for deletion but he should be followed by an administrator. Pierre cb (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Obvious sock, blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

User:ShilaAmzah

ShilaAmzah (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is uploading a bunch of random files with incorrect licenses and gibberish descriptions, and inserting similarly nonsensical content into gallery pages. Omphalographer (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done by Achim55. Yann (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyrighted images uploaded by User:Sturm

In 2018 there was a this deletion request for a bunch of images of toys, which of course resulted in them being deleted since they clearly failed COM:TOYS. It appears that User:Sturm decided to re-upload the images a few weeks ago even though again, they are clearly copyrighted. They have also done same thing for images of posters that were deleted as copyrighted violations in 2021, where they just waited a year and then re-uploaded the images as can be seen by the DR I linked to I find it hard to believe that either instance were honest mistakes or anything other then an intentional disregard for policy. Regardless, I'm wondering if an administrator can re-delete the images since there's zero ambiguity about their copyright status. I also think Sturm should receive a warning not to upload copyrighted images on top of it, but I'll leave that up to an administrator to decide. But going by their talk page it does seem to be a chronic, multi-year issue that they haven't done anything to remedy. Adamant1 (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I was uploading a batch of missing images from a Brazilian photographer and indeed these photos ended up being reuploaded, as tools like Flick2Commons are unable to handle large volumes of data well. My mistake. But honestly, I don't understand the need for drama, they are a clear case of speedy delete and that's how these cases should be handled. Sincerely, Sturm (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
It's still on you to make sure you aren't uploading clearly copyrighted images regardless. It's not the job of administrators to clean up your mistakes just because you don't feel like doing the minimum of due diligence required to make sure your not uploading things you shouldn't be. It also shouldn't take an ANI report for the images to be deleted either. As a side to that, I'd be interested to know why you decided to upload images of Cloud Gate with unclear file names and no descriptions or default categories. Doing so seriously comes off like you were intentionally trying to upload the files under the radar. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
These are images uploaded with the same names as those found on Flickr. It is unreasonable to assume that people have prior knowledge of each country's or state's restrictions on freedom of panorama. For these cases, again, there is speedy delete. Also, stop spreading distrust. Regards, Sturm (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
At least with this image when I downloaded it from Flickr the file name was "9989712503_2e106dbb96_o", not "-i---i- (9989576695)." So I'm not sure what your talking about. Regardless though, that's just one multiple issues that lead me to believe you intentionally uploaded the images in a way that made them harder to be found or nominated for deletion. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt though, you clearly aren't doing any kind of review of what your uploading. Either before or after you upload the images, and you should be. You can't just handwave years worth images you've uploaded repeatedly being deleted in mass as copyrighted violations by saying it's not your job to know what the freedom of panorama laws and policies around copyright are. Especially when your re-uploading images that have already been deleted before. Honestly, if your that unwilling to learn the rules or follow them then you should just be blocked. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
As Adamant1 states, this user seems to have a habit of uploading lots of Flickr photos without any regard for their copyright status. An example is this one (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sturm/2022#Images_transferred_to_Category:Denmark) from December. Users are allowed to make errors, but when they do not want to change their behaviour and want to shift the burden of copyright control to others, we as a community should be allowed to restrict their access. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I have deleted the re uploaded files. I think a final warning to be more careful with mass imports would be sufficient. GPSLeo (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

RootOfAllLight

Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#RootOfAllLight: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

User: RootOfAllLight (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Reason for reporting: This user reuploaded twice file restricted by copyright, which was once deleted (File:Toporzeł.svg). Today he also removed from this file template with a link to the discussion about deletion, falsely claiming that it's closed (the only one user who respond was himself). He did this same with another file, falsely claimed by him as "Topokrzyż". As I see in his dicussion, he multiple times violated copyright in multiple times (User talk:RootOfAllLight/Archive 4) and even was accused of uploading "fake files" (User talk:RootOfAllLight/Archive 2#fake files), which clearly correspond with his present activity. He is a notorious hoaxer and copyright violater. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So, was I supposed to give copyright to the original maker of the symbol, Stanisław Szukalski? RootOfAllLight (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you there? RootOfAllLight (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Notifications of move: RootOfAllLight Wojsław Brożyna. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you should have not stated that it was your own work when it was not. Between your misunderstanding of copyright, your reuploading a deleted file, and your removing of deletion templates, I'm inclined to remove your autopatrolled status (not as a punishment, but because your edits need patrolling). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
What's autopatrolling? RootOfAllLight (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
So, I should have given the credit to Stanisław Szukalski, the guy who originally made the symbol back in 1935. Preferably with a source. RootOfAllLight (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@RootOfAllLight: It's easier to explain "autopatrol" in the negative than in the positive. Normally, any file that has been edited by a relatively new user goes in a queue to be "patrolled" by experienced users. The file is marked until someone marks it as "patrolled". "Autopatrol" means your edits are immediately presumed to be "patrolled" without anyone looking at them, on the assumption that you have good enough behavior and a good enough idea what you are doing that an edit by you can be presumed to have had the equialent of patrol by the very fact that you are the person who made it. - Jmabel ! talk 08:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Files deleted. I removed RootOfAllLight's autopatroller right. Yann (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Upload of copyvio pictures from Rommel Ainslie

Hello All, I was going through pictures to sort them out and I found the uploads from Rommel Ainslie. From what I see, he attributes himself different pseudonymes like Mr. Beast[9], El Alex[10], Desconocido [11]. He also upload work from other persons, where there is no mention of Creative Commons [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Furthermore, some picture, by there resolution, seem to come from the internet [17], [18]. I contacted the user on his Talk page prior, but got no answer [19]. Would it be possible to delete all her or his picture without flagging them for deletion one by one? Thank you in advance for your answer. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rommel Ainslie‎. Yann (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

User:VietDzu

VietDzu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has been uploading a bunch of rant-y PDFs in reaction to a ban on enwiki. Block and mass delete? Omphalographer (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done VOA, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Is User:Marck Giannini a sockpuppet of the blocked User:Giorgio Pallavicini?

User User:Marck Giannini was registered and active two days after User:Giorgio Pallavicini was banned for a year, same focus, similar problems (copyright infringements, bad provenance). --Polarlys (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

New contributor Moonfvblofg2678 has made dozens of nominations for deletion with the same gibberish justification

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moonfvblofg2678 Geo Swan (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello -- I edited two files in the last half hour, to remove watermarks, and both were almost immediately marked for deletion by Moonfvblofg2678 R8cocin8 (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
User:Moonfvblofg2678 now blocked by User:Infrogmation. We've had a few like this lately, someone may want to look into it & see if they are all from the same IP range. - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I see the following users doing the same thing:
And the following IPs: 89.40.24.1 (talk · contribs), 94.245.128.80 (talk · contribs), 46.48.226.197 (talk · contribs). Cryptic-waveform (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

User Imamul Ifaz

Imamul Ifaz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Return of blocked user who uploads new copyvio. Pierre cb (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef. 4th block. File deleted. Yann (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

User Hirakel

Hirakel (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Return of a user after a 3 months block and he uploads again copyvio material. To be blocked permanently and all hi uploads deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef. 3rd block. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

User Abdulazeez Taufeeq

Abdulazeez Taufeeq (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This user uploads photos claiming as his own but the watermark on some of the series Dodo of wawa (as File:The_Dodo_of_wawa_02.jpg) shows a different source. Could an Administrator check the copyright validity of this series of uploads. Pierre cb (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Obvious copyvios deleted, user warned, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Abdulazeez Taufeeq‎. Yann (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The watermark refers to the phone that was used to take the photos (w:Tecno Camon 17), not a source for the image. Some Chinese smartphones do this by default; it's incredibly annoying and should be disabled or cropped out where possible, but it isn't an indicator of copyright issues. Omphalographer (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Repeated hounding and unwanted contact by User:Geo Swan

A few weeks ago I started this DR where Geo Swan made multiple rather lecturing and disingenuous comments in. Even after I asked them multiple times to drop the stick. They then went on to continue the behavior in two discussions on my talk page, where I made it clear that I had no urge to discuss things with them further. Which they ignored. Now Geo Swan seems to be going around commenting in other DRs in mass over a period of a couple of hours and making clearly needless, vacuous points in the process. Including here, here, here, here, and two comments here. Those aren't the only DRs they have commented on either.

Looking at their contribution history for the last couple of days it appears that they are only or mainly commenting on deletion requests that I have opened. So they are clearly intentionally targeting me and my edits. Even if they weren't the case though I have made it more then clear that I don't want to deal with them anymore. So there's zero legitimate reason for them to leave message in 7 deletion requests that I've opened since yesterday. They are clearly incapable of leaving me alone like I've asked them to though. So either an administer warn them to stop with the repeated unwanted contact or they should be blocked for hounding and other clearly harassing behavior. Adamant1 (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I don't disagree that it's normally OK for someone to comment on deletion requests if they think they are invalid or incomplete. If you look through the DRs its clear that's not what's happening here though. Even if it was, I've said I asked Geo Swan multiple times not to contact me anymore. At a basic level people should be left alone if they request someone not contact them anymore. It's obvious from DRs like this one though that Geo Swan wasn't just commenting on DRs they thought were incomplete. At least not in that one. The same goes for two or three other DRs that I've linked to to where Geo Swan said I should have asked the uploaders on their talk pages to confirm their authorization through VRT before nominating the images for deletion. I'm under no obligation to that and their comments about it ad absolutely nothing to the discussions. Except for needlessly calling me and my deletion requests out. I don't need to be repeatedly lectured about how to do things. One weak case isn't a valid excuse to repeatedly lecture someone about how to do things or hound them in 7 other DRs by making vacuous complaints about non-issues in all of them either. Especially since, again, I asked Geo Swan to leave me alone multiple times. Be my guest and tell me how exactly this this DR where Geo Swan said the artist died in 1993 is invalid though. Otherwise he should receive a warning for hounding me. Really he should receive one anyway since that's clearly what he's doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: At Commons:Deletion requests/File:2015-Soulce-Fenetre.jpg, he provided info that will be useful to the closing admin. You didn't explain the rationale for your date. Unless there is an interaction ban (which I can't really see happening here), you really can't tell someone to stop making generally constructive comments on your DRs. These are nothing like personal attacks, nor hounding. - Jmabel ! talk 15:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I said the image is copyrighted until at least 2,063. So I'm not really sure how you can claim I didn't explain the rational. It's literally that the image is copyrighted. No one writes a 15 line essay about the details of why something is a copyright violation. I assume the closing admin would know how to subtract 70 from 2,063 if they want to figure out when the person died and not under obligation to write a mini-biography about the artist in the meantime either. So Geo Swan's comment added absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. Not that I would normally care if people write random facts in deletion requests that I've opened, but I asked him to stop messaging me and he should have respected the request.
As to the rest of what you said, I don't remember saying anywhere in this complaint that Geo Swan was or is personally attacking me. Be my guest and point out where I did though. In the meantime, someone can can make otherwise benign comments and it still be an issue if the person who they are making the comments towards has made it clear they don't want to interact with the person. It doesn't make the behavior any less abusive behavior or not hounding just because Geo Swan didn't make a derogatory comment about my race or whatever. That's not how hounding or harassment works. Maybe you can argue the hounding/harassment isn't an issue if you want to, but it's totally ridiculous to act like that's not what he was doing just because he didn't call me a racial slur or make some other derogatory comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: you stated the effect, but not the rationale.
Again, and for the last time: I see nothing here that calls for an administrative sanction. Perhaps you will still feel like you need to get in the last word, but unless some other admin disagrees with me, I'm done here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Here is a paradox. @Adamant1: has a very aggressive style, as illustrated in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs from David Adamec. Adamant1 very aggressively implied both Ascepias and I were calling him a liar.

    In this comment Adamant1 calls me "dishonest and bossy".

    The paradox? How can someone be so extremely sensitive that they see personal attacks when people merely disagree with them, and yet routinely lapse from civility themselves?

  • Yesterday I responded in seven DRs Adamant1 opened. In several of those I merely added more information, and I can't imagine how Adamant1 could see that as harassment.
  • In two of those seven DRs, in my opinion, Adamant1 took an overly aggressive attitude.
In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Claudévard, sérigraphie, Sans titre, 1986.jpg the uploader seems to be saying they are a curator, or reasonable equivalent, at the institution that owns the painting. If that is correct there would be officials at that institution who would be authorized to upload images here. It is definitely in our interests to have institutions that own artwork authorize the uploading of images of that artwork under free licenses.
Those individuals are only human. If we are overly aggressive with them, treat them as tricksters, we discourage them from cooperating with us. If, on the other hand, we approach them in a non-aggressive manner, explain the process through which we authenticate their authorization, treat them with respect, we encourage them to continue to cooperate with us.
The similar DR that triggered my concern was Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Werner_Otto_Leuenberger. I stand by my comments there. It is in the project's interests if individuals who inherited the intellectual property rights to artwork, that is in scope, upload images under free licenses. I think we should be encouraging those heirs, not alienating them by aggressively treating them as tricksters. Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I fully agree with Geo Swan. Yann (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
In this comment Adamant1 calls me "dishonest and bossy". There's ample evidence out there of you doing both, including in this discussion, and I only called you out for it after you repeatedly lectured me and questioned my ability to do DRs properly. Otherwise I wouldn't have made the comments, but I'm not going to repeatedly be called out and lectured by someone who's doing it in a clearly disingenuous way without pointing out that their being dishonest. Maybe moderate your tone next time instead of coming right out of the gate by acting like the other person is incompetent and needs to be talked down to. You keep going off about how other people are human and deserve respect, when I'm not even being disrespectable. What about me though? I'm human and deserve respect. Yet you seem completely incapable of showing me any. You can't even write a single message that doesn't completely miss-construe things for your own benefit. Like your saying I'm acting like people disagreeing with me are making personal attacks when I never said anywhere in this discussion that you were personally attacking me. Nowhere have I said anyone who disagreed with me about anything was personally attacking me either.
It seems like your just projecting. Like with this DR where you clearly made up that I was somehow rude or unhelpful to the uploader when I never even talked to the person and your the one making unhelpful, rude comments everywhere. If your going to accuse me of being rude, unhelpful, or say I'm claiming people who are just disagreeing with me are making personal attacks then I'd like to see some diffs though. Same goes for Yann. Otherwise your comments are clearly spurious. Again, I'm more then willing to provide diffs to substantiate the things I've said about Geo Swans behavior. They clearly can't do the same for the accusations they are making towards me though. Otherwise be my guest and provide some diffs to back up what your saying. Or for that matter even links to places in any discussions where I did anything your claiming. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I would not miss Adamant if they were no longer part of the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. Especially considering that I don't think we even disagree on that much. That said, no one is forcing you to interact with me. So if you don't like how I do things, cool. Just don't interact with me. I'm totally fine with that. Trust me, it's not like I've ever found interacting with you to be super productive anyway. So no big lose if we don't interact anymore. Really. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring category deletion Category:GCR Class 11F / LNER Class D11

89.240.14.140 (talk · contribs) and Category:GCR Class 11F / LNER Class D11

These historical class name cats are a long-established solution to the class names changing when the railway company changed and renamed them. It's a bit messy, but it works. See Category:London and North Eastern Railway steam locomotives for plenty more.

This IP editor (who is well-known here, although doesn't log in) is pushing this through repeated speedies and moves to rename it to purely Category:GCR Class 11F. That's inconsistent with the rest of how we've done these, changes a long-term stable situation, and it alo makes it impractical to list them under the LNER group.

I don't have time to deal with this today, but someone needs to have another word. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Now breaking stuff over at Category:GER Class L77 / LNER Class N7 too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Krok6kola edit-warring

See history of Category:Images from the National Archives and Records Administration and User talk:Krok6kola#Please stop adding overcat. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:50, Why don't you unhide the category?

@Cryptic-waveform: Why don't you remove Hidden category? You can't expect users to avoid OVERCAR otherwise. Editors won't know about the category if they can't see it.
Further, removing the Hidden category removes those images from the "uncategoryized". I know from experience. The same problem occurred with NARA images until that cat stopped being Hidden. Ask Steinsplitter and Pi.1415926535. Krok6kola (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss the HIDDENCAT change. I've recommended that you start a CfD if you want to do this, and instead you decide to start edit-warring. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Also @Steinsplitter and Pi.1415926535: since you mention them in this conversation. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Images are effectively uncategorised if they are only in such a category. Categories like this do not provide useful discovery for images, and serve a more technical function akin to say PD US Government. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Copy right violation and fake license

User:معین ۱۲۳ all uploads are under fake license and non of them are uploader works or under active commons license holder websites. please delete all. thanks. [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences The one I checked is from [20], which is properly attributed and should licensed as {{Attribution}} (although not CC)... Actually looks like that was a fluke, looking in to this more. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, I've gone through their uploads and deleted, nominated for speedy deletion, nominated for DR, tagged as NPD, or fixed as appropriate. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked this user for a week, deleted most files, and tagged the rest. Yann (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Drachentöter78

Special:Diff/755983927 this a violation to w:Wikipedia:Etiquette that the user did to me. Another violation of the rules done by this user --Ezarateesteban 12:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment That text was not against you or anyone in particular, as can be perceived by having made use of the impersonal plural. You have written me kindly and I have answered you in the same tone. I do not understand why —because we have never interacted here or in Wikipedia—, but I answered you. Maybe it was an excuse to denounce me, which I have been trying to prove, and you have come to prove me right? Kind regards. — Drachentöter78 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ezarate: Doesn't look problematic to me. If you want an interaction ban, we could do that, but it would be in both directions (keeping away from areas where the other has been working), and it would have to be a bit loose in areas where both of you have historically worked. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
If you don't see a problematic there may you have reason, I don't want a interation ban with nobody, thanks! --Ezarateesteban 16:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why you write me, Ezarate, if we have never talked here, and then you denounce me (obviously lying — sing./plural). Could you explain that? — Drachentöter78 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Cri cri cri, no response, obviously. — Drachentöter78 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Please, for me this thread is closed, I don't go to miss more time on this scope Ezarateesteban 21:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel I don’t know if Commons, unlike most sister projects I know, allows for this kind of behavior due to the scope of the project, but in my opinion, this user is problematic, he can’t let go this issue and is using the project to express his grudge against Spanish Wikipedia and its users. @Ezarate Maybe it’s time to take this to Meta, there’s enough evidence here, on eswiki, enwiki and possibly others to request a global ban, he doesn’t seem to have any intention of leaving the issues of eswiki behind and is taking advantage of the apparent approval here to keep this “passive aggressive” behavior against users.[21], [22] MexTDT (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I guessed as much. Here is the third stranger in discord. Who are you? What do you want? Why do you come to stir up the discussion, once it has calmed down? Am I the troublesome one, or rather you and your friends, I suppose, who come to harass me? — Drachentöter78 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Besides, you are consciously lying. What problem has there been on enwiki? On eswiki only with people like you, who understand bullying as normal behavior. — Drachentöter78 (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The important point is here that we at Commons do like conflicts at other projects (like es:wp) to be imported to Commons. While I agree with Jmabel that the provided diff does not raise to a blockable offence, we should be clear that Commons is not the place to express grievances about other projects. If this needs to be done seriously outside of the project in question, Meta is the place to go, not Commons. Next, claims like “bullying” or ”consciously lying” are not acceptable at this board without diffs which back this up. While I do not see yet the need for an interaction ban, I think it is best if you could try to avoid each other. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Agreed, AFBorchert, danke, but I have not interacted with these people, I just have defended myself. I said «harassment» because it is the third person who in a few days writes to me and denounces me —may it be much coincidence—, and I said he is lying because in en:wiki I have hardly published, nor have I ever had any problem, and the one who said that I should be banned globally has stated precisely that («evidence here, on eswiki, enwiki and possibly others to request a global ban»). Best regards. — Drachentöter78 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ezarate My sincere apologies, this has been taxing for most parties involved. I think this is a matter better left behind, it seems he won or something, IDK, things seem to be very different here than other sister projects. I'm not even gonna look to any of the replies from our "friend"; I think he denounced me. I won't object the decision of the admins here nor will try to defend me. Closed for me as well. MexTDT (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
«Defend» you? From who, or from what? I have not denounced you here or anywhere else, «friend». What you should explain is why you are getting involved in this report — and now you are victimizing yourself. — Drachentöter78 (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I leave this diffs for the record that the user now rebukes MexTDT for denouncing him (the las report was iniated by MexTDT not by me), the accused user points out all the Spanish users as "friends" when the etiquette problem here in Commons has persisted despite the fact that Jmabel demanded that the accused user not continue doing it to anyone in particular. We are talking about events that are happening here and I feel that despite taking dissuasive measures, the user is simply accusing everyone (taking advantage of the fact that he does it in Spanish) of belittling, blurting out terms that conflict with etiquette, among other faults. Taichi (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Mira, no veo nada nefasto en el uso del español por parte de Drachentöter78 en sus comunicaciones con otros hispanohablantes (nativos o no). No es como si el español fuera un código secreto. Por lo que puedo ver, a habido una cantidad aproximadamente igual de abuso en ambas direcciones. No estoy defendiendo exactamente a Drachentöter78, pero no me parace que el resto de ustedes se está portando mucho mejor, y desearía que todos ustedes dejaran de importar lo que parece ser un es-wiki-drama a Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • (approximately:) Look, I see nothing nefarious in Drachentöter78's use of Spanish in his communication with other Spanish-speakers (native or otherwise). It's not as if Spanish were a secret code. From what I can see, there's been a roughly equal amount of abuse in both directions. I'm not exactly defending Drachentöter78, but it doesn't look to me like the rest of you are behaving much better, and I'd appreciate it if you all stop importing what appears to be es-wiki-drama into Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: No se preocupe, más temible que un acosador es que haya alguien que lo defienda y más en el aparato administrativo. Me retiro de este proyecto por no tomar medidas cabales contra el acoso a usuarios. Taichi (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Comment ¿Disculpa? Te recuerdo que eres tú el que ha venido a mi página de discusión a revertirme y después a denunciarme, insistiendo dos o tres veces tras las primeras negativas. Quizá haya que reconsiderar la palabra «acoso» en tu caso. Adiós, hasta nunca. — Drachentöter78 (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

user:Raochinna

Globally blocked user Balakumar Rao chinna (talk · contribs) come as Raochinna (talk · contribs) and upload files which are out of scope. ~AntanO4task (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@~AntanO4task, I deleted the file speedily instead of waiting regular deletion process. Also, I blocked the user. It's ✓ Done. Kadı Message 11:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible impersonation of Claire Simeone

Hello All, I marked the picture File:Claire Simeone.jpg uploaded by Claire simeone, and the user Claire A Simeone wrote on the Deletion Request that she did not upload it herself: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Claire Simeone.jpg. I think we might have a case of impersonation. I am not sure on how to handle this case. Could you please help me? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This could be a selfie, so I don't see the issue. Yann (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
It still seems to me that if Claire simeone and Claire A Simeone are both claiming to be the same person, and disagreeing on something, the actual Claire Simeone should use COM:VRT to demonstrate her identity, claim the relevant account as hers, and the other account should be shut as an impersonator. - Jmabel ! talk 23:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Russian Onest

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

This user uploaded a lot of fake flags, but I don't know which are really genuine. Reported here. Help is needed. Yann (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

All flags created for Algeria provinces are fake (la liste ici). Algeria provinces don't have any flags. Those flags are copies of states or provinces flags or something else.
Many of these files have been previoulsy deleted [23]. Could an admin delete them in a single procedure? Thanks. --Poudou99 (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
User Russian Onest (talk · contribs) has just re-uploaded the flag File:Flag of Adrar Province.svg which had been deleted yesterday by @Yann (and last year : [24], [25])
This user continues the absurd task of creating fictitious flags and wrongly associate them with Algeria provinces or China subivisions ([26]). --Poudou99 (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks, for a start. @Poudou99: Could you please create a DR with the fake flags? Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Yann: DR created [27]. --Poudou99 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Yann. --Poudou99 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

User:StMartinsEvangelical

This user’s sole purpose on Commons is adding or editing in prurient file captions to explicit images and lobbying for dubiously educational porn images (with similarly vulgar titles and descriptions) to stay on Commons. They were warned but responded flippantly and continued their antics without improvement. Dronebogus (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of Dronebogus' assertion, this account is also possibly a Commons:Username policy violation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Could even be attempted defamation by making it appear the clergy at St. Martin’s Evangelical are ravenous horndogs Dronebogus (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Dronebogus, you are required to notify the user in question. I have done so for you this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This is probably Special:CentralAuth/Architect 134. M.O. is to engage is trollish porn disruption, like Special:Diff/593324944. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Karjatu

Karjatu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - uploading a variety of self-authored documents wildly inappropriate for the site, including some calling for violence against religious opponents or directing hate towards LGBT groups. Omphalographer (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I've blocked the account -- this is pretty blatant -- but I don't have time to follow through right now, appointment in 3 minutes, someone else needs to attend to cleanup and (if it's needed) any message to the account-holder. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done all deleted and notified user. GPSLeo (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

User ThecentreCZ

See the discussion at User_talk:Vacant0#Nominations, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Political_parties#Denmark and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Political_parties#Netherlands.

This is a somewhat cross-wiki dispute, though the reason why I'm filing this here because of the bad faith attitude and harassment by ThecentreCZ as shown on my talk page in the Nominations discussion which I've linked. Namely, ThecentreCZ has tried to portray me as not a "normal user" and as a "toxic autist Serb", as shown in their latest comment, has refused to provide sources for their uploads that I've tagged with the {{subst:nsd}} template, and has accused me of "obviously targeting" their uploads. I've also started a discussion about their recent contributions on the English Wikipedia earlier this day though they have not replied there yet. Vacant0 (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That is true, it was kind of overstatement and I am sorry that I called this user toxic, but this user is not able to accept in any of the long messages I've sent, that sourced files are not something to be sourced and can be tagged for deletion in any case. I've sent him also text to solve it on English Wikipedia which he did, but he didn't removed Commons tags how it was said to him. ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
When I've said that I'll start a discussion you've said "Thats not what I asked you for". What's this now? Vacant0 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Thats a reaction to arrogant answer "I won't be removing anything", as I asked you to remove unsourced request tags on Commons from sourced files. This tag is not used for this as I am telling you, you probably are not familiar with this yet when you are only 3 years on Wikipedia Commons. When someone states that he won't be anymore discussing the issue they are debating and stop communicate, understand me that it is a little reason for someone to get annoyed a bit. I think that Wikimedia discussion is a place to resolve issues, not to state that someone is exiting a discussion about issues he created. Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
(Note: this discussion was brought to my attention by a neutrally worded post on Discord by Vacant0).
@Vacant0: You're correct that there should be a source that these flags were actually used by the political party, but use of "no source" tags are not for this, but rather for things where there is no source as to the origin of the file (e.g. who made the file/where the file came from). If they haven't been removed already, please remove the {{No source since}} or similar tags.
@ThecentreCZ: I am glad to hear that you are sorry for calling Vacant0 "toxic", but the full thing you called them was a "toxic autist serb", and the other two things should be apologized for too (I assume you used "serb" as an insult). There really should be a source that the flags were actually used by each political party, and are not just one person's imagination of what a flag for the political party could look like. To be entirely clear: were these flags actually used as flags in the real world by their respective parties? Or were they created as a fictional/hypothetical flag?
I await each of your responses. Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay I got that. The {{No source since}} templates were removed yesterday by ThecentreCZ, though the sources that they've inserted yesterday do not actually confirm the existence of the flags.
@Mdaniels5757: Yes you are right, sorry for serb. These flags are actually used by respective parties. This person doesn't understand that vector files are created by users, in this case sourced from the logos. If you have any questions about one specific file, you are free to ask and discuss it. Best regards --ThecentreCZ (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Just my opinion, but certainly they are logos. Calling them "flags" though just because you put the logos inside of colored squares is rather miss-leading though. The word "flag" has a specific meaning that usually doesn't include photoshopping a square background onto a random logo. Especially if there's zero evidence it's been created in the form of an actual flag before. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
That would be true if they actually wouldn't be used by the parties. You are right that they are factically licensed as logos, in practice used as the same equal symbol in uncountable number of cases in the world. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
That would be true if they actually wouldn't be used by the parties. Where are the "flags" being used by the parties then? If you don't have any examples then I'll have to say your just being dishonest. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
They are used for example by the leadership of the party or rallies by the party, et cetera. No examples here as not been individually requested. Not being called dishonest here, thats also quite impolite, but anyhow. If you want one of the examples, its for example located at discussion page on WikiProject Politics/Political parties at English Wikipedia for DPP. Best regards ThecentreCZ (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware that polticial parties in general sometimes use their logos on flags. I asked you specific examples were these "flags" have been used by political parties though since your the one claiming they are flags. I'm sure you get the difference. If your going to claim the images are of "flags" there should be evidence of said flags out there. Or again I'm going to say your just being dishonest. Call them logos inside squares though. I could really care less, but you can't say something is a flag if it isn't a flag. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
If I would be dishonest, that would mean that I on my own don't know of such usage as a flag. I am not aware of any specific asking about the one example, although you have one in my previous reply to your clause. In this case I just disagree with you on that part that it "should be there", although in expansion it is more or less there even now, as the sites of the original sources in the distant link lineage are conjuncted to it, as it is in usual way of sourcing of primary logo images in Wikimedia, which mostly are not direct. Thank you ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The "example" wasn't of the parties using your images as flags, which is what I asked for. Not a link to random Wikipedia page that where someone posted a link to one of the images. Both me and Vacant0 have asked you for evidence that the flags exist. So did Mdaniels5757. I've asked you multiple times now myself. You ignored Mdaniels5757's question. Then you gave Vacant0 a bunch of dead links and requested that I look at a Wikipedia page that has a link to one of your images, not a flag. So the only thing I can conclude is that your intentionally being obfuscating because you know the "flags" don't exist anywhere outside of the images you uploaded. Given that, I'm forced to recommend an administrator delete your "flags" as clear fakes and either give you a warning not to do it again or block you for dishonesty and spreading miss-information. It's the administrators' call, but some kind of action clearly needs to be taken here. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Requested that I look at a Wikipedia page that has a link to one of your images, not a flag – No, the page has a link to flags used by the Danish People's Party, posted by a discuteer there. Thats what you getting as you didn't asked for specific instance. Can you explain me, how that could be a "clear fake"? Are you suggesting that I went to the party congress of the Danish People's Party where I inserted my flag, which I printed, like Lucius Malfoy, who putted Diary of Tom Riddle to the cauldron of Ginny Weasley in the Diagon Alley and then I hacked eshop of the party? ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Be my guest and provide the link to the flags then. I can't have an opinion on something you haven't provided a link to though. Although my guess is that whatever you link to will be different from the images you uploaded, if not just another dead link. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
No, I won't provide you a link to flags. Files are sourced with links. I've said that specifically one can be provided if questioned, plenty of ocassions in multiple discussions now. You probably can't understand that or something. I've said to you that one example if you want is now in scatter, and that it is located at WikiProject Politics/Political parties. Have you even red it? But anyway, I can give you a link to that page, if you probably don't know how to get there. Its here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties, where the user named Braganza presented one of the examples. Thank you ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
As you say yourself image that Braganza linked to is of one of the "flags." Whereas there are six files that I'm asking you about. I'm sure you'd agree that just because one of the images has been used as a flag before that doesn't mean the others have. It's all well and good that the other images are "sourced" with links in the meantime, but the "sources" don't actually show what your claiming they do. Otherwise I can guarantee this conversation wouldn't be going on right now. I have to think they aren't sourced to images of the "flags" is because there are none. Otherwise, just provide links to them and there wouldn't be an issue. Look, this is pretty simple. Either there's sources for the "flags" being used in the real world or there aren't. If your unwilling to provide any then the only thing I can conclude is that they don't exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
As I see we are discussing 4 examples. As you've mentioned, you've seen 1 linked file example there by Braganza. How then there are "none" of the examples?. As I am counting there is 1 you have seen, not none. Or? You probably don't get the principal message or you didn't red the original discussion at User talk:Vacant0. My point is not that I can't provide some additional examples for these exact flags, if individually solved. I could have done that, if I would have assurance that there would be no other crazy users which will tag lists of files, with in my view non-edequate tags, as I am convinced that only questioned single cases can be marked and discussed. This discussion here is for 1000+ flags and thousands more uploaded files on Commons, which are sourced in certain sufficient way. Because I am member of Wikimedia Commons for some years, I know what kinds of users could reach out to here and with this I am not resolving these few of my files, but the thousands of ones of the other uploaders. Thank you ThecentreCZ (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@ThecentreCZ: For every "flag of X" you have uploaded, we need evidence that X has used that flag in the real world. Otherwise, they are hoaxes.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
i only digged for the flag, cause i remembered this one but for example the CSU flag i have never seen before or anything like that as a german person myself Braganza (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@ThecentreCZ: on at least one point here, I think you misunderstand. If users have reasonable questions about stated facts, you are expected to be able to back up you assertions with sources. The claim that these are flags of the entities you assert them to be is clearly being reasonably called into question here. You need to produce some evidence, or there is no particular reason anyone should accept your claim. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That is to some extent true. As I already mentioned, that if individually solved cases, doubts have full right to be presented. But I question it in the cases of mass nominations with even wrong tags, and none effort whatsoever. Braganza presented here a good example, in which with just a little effort great Commons user HapHaxion expanded the sourcing materials for CSU flag if needed and it is viewed as perfectly fine. When putted the name into thing called Google, he got what he wanted and even improved state of Commons content. Problem I am pointing to is that when user Vacant0 massively nominated the files for deletion with a factical statement or assumption that these flags don't exist, he proceeded without any knowledge or effort for search of origins of the sources. Under such precedent which we are solving, user Vacant0 could have legitimately nominate for example list of 300 flag files existing here with sufficent primary source type with a 7 day deletion tag and be totally okay with it. I've already stood against this in the past. If you would assure me that such thing can't happen in the future and such steps would not have any justification in precedents and conventions, I would present you the usage examples if individually solved right away. ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
ThecentreCZ, I did not massively nominate your files for deletion. I actually did not even nominate your files for deletion. The {{No source since}} template was only added because I did not find sources that would confirm the existence of the flags. As you're the uploader, aren't you supposed to know the actual source of the flag? How would you know the shape and look of the flags that you've uploaded without having some source(s) that would confirm the shape and look of the flags? Even if there was not an online source, but only an offline one, you could always post the details about the flags here. You've refused to answer to my question, therefore I would then of course doubt if the flags even actually exist. As I've told you already, the discussion would have already ended on 1/2 May if you've simply provided the sources. Vacant0 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I nominated at least a few of ThecentreCZ's "flags" for deletion here since they refuse to provide sources for the images and the consensus at least in this conversation seems to lead toward not allowing the images to hosted on Commons if there's no evidence of the "flags" being used in real life. I guess we see how the DR turns out and go from there. It looks like ThecentreCZ has added a lot of the images to Wikipedia articles in the meantime. So at least my opinion it's pretty clear they are trying to use Commons as a personal file host to spread hoax images. Which I think should justify the images being deleted regardless of if they are in use on other projects or not BTW. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    Nice try, you nominated sourced files for deletion as a revenge, because you was not able to argue my points properly. This is exactly what I've been talking about in my posts. If someone want to ask for even more proper sourcing of 4 files and that is Danish People's Party, Alternative, Conservative People's Party, Venstre, I am as I already mentioned ready to provide it if asked. Adamant1 you now remove your nominations, or I will report you for proper abuse furthermore. ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    @ThecentreCZ OK, here are some flags for which I request a source that the flags are actually used, as flags, in the real world:
    —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    Mdaniels5757, this list is not of Danish political parties. Have you red our full thread or just some parts? Why you want sourcing of the Danish People's Party, you haven't saw sourcing for example for it yet in WikiProject? If you have questions say one of these files you've listed. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    @ThecentreCZ I have read the full threads, including at the English Wikipedia WikiProject. I did not see any sourcing provided by you that the flags were actually used in real life as a flag. (the one source was provided by someone else) I selected these semi-randomly from the deletion request, taking care to include 2 for which you said you are "ready to provide it if asked", and two for which you did not.
    If you want these flags to be kept, please provide, for each of the 3 unsourced flags I listed above, one source that that the flag was actually used in real life as a flag. I'm not asking for much, and I (and probably the closer for the deletion request) will assume if you do not answer the question, that there is no source. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    I said to you to pick one of these to properly go forward. Once more please, why do you exactly want the example of the flag of the Danish People's Party out of these? Have been there and got the sourcing for it there or not: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties. If you weren't I can cite you here the post by Braganza which I mention here: "apparently DF used to have this flag in their shop, the link is dead though [29] here its seen Braganza (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)" Do you understand it or what exactly is your request? Thank you for explaining. ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    @ThecentreCZ Thank you. I withdrew my request as to File:Flag of the Danish People's Party.svg. Per your request, I'll go one at a time: please provide a source that File:Flag of the Brno University of Technology.svg has actually been used in real life as a flag. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    Very well, thats kind of a mischief, it is designated as own work sourced from a logo itself, the example for it was obtained offline, which is often normal case for the files located at Commons, and the secondary source for it is no longer online. Thats why it is logically not listed there. Although you can see the usage of it for example here on the official event of the organization and there are also some secondary ones in here, seen also here in the news video. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Just my opinion, but I don't really care if there's instances of people using the flags at rallies in real life because that doesn't make them "official" flags of the political parties as you've repeatedly claimed. For all we know the person printed the image from Commons. Like with File:Flag of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc.svg, you claimed in the edit comment when you added it to Wikipedia that it's the "official flag" of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc. So at least in that case there should 100% be evidence of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc using the flag. I could really care less if some random person not associated with the Roman Catholic church printed it up, taped it to a popsicle stick, and decided to wave it around somewhere in public. Not that you've even provided any evidence of that occurring, but even if you had, its still a hoax because it's not an "official flag" of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc. Same goes for the "flags" of political parties that you've repeatedly claimed are official without evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I don't think we have any rule that flags like this have to have a formal, official status, just that they are used in the real world. For example, for the various LGBT flags, there wouldn't be any entity to make them "official", but several are certainly really used. There's a legitimate issue here, but there's no point in setting an inappropriately high bar. - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but at least the way I understand it the reason things like the LGBTQ flag don't have to be official is because there is no official, governing body for LGBTQ people or groups. That's not the case for an organization like the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc. In the case of an actual, existing organization there should at least be some standard that the image represents said organization. You can't just upload anything and call it a flag either. Like someone can't just upload anything that contains a logo of a company on it and call it an "official flag" just because there's no rule that flags like this have to have a formal, official status.
Honestly, I'd probably be fine with someone uploading images of these "flags" being used in the real world. Especially if the uploader wasn't trying to falsely present them as "official." I don't think images like these should be allowed though and that seems to be the consensus. At least from what I've seen. Someone can't upload an image of a shirt with bigfoot on it and claim it's an actual bigfoot. Or to provide a more relevant example people can't just upload a logo they designed themselves and say it's the "official logo" of some company. I don't really see what the difference is between those examples and these "flags." If ThecentreCZ wants to walk back their statements that the images are of "official" flags and put the images in a category for fictional flags though, fine. I'm more then willing to retract the deletion request. Otherwise, I stick to the belief that the images should be deleted at least on NOTHOST grounds, if not for other reasons. BTW, at least with the the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olomouc, they are located in the Czech Republic where flags and coats of arms are highly regulated and have to be officially authorized. A random person can't just crop the coat of arms of an organization located there and call it a "flag." Regardless of what the technicalities with Commons' guidelines are. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

César Augusto Ramos

Uploading copyright violations after previous block. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 month. Files deleted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Uwe Kleins

User has repeatedly uploaded COM:PORN despite countless prior deletions. I think a block for “failing to read the room” (or just not caring) is in order Dronebogus (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed, files deleted, and one file name salted. They've been at this for three years. I would be amenable to shortening the block if they requested, but since they've never responded to warnings or deletion discussions, that seems unlikely to happen. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Hatab Khurasani uploading copyvio Islamic State propaganda

Hatab Khurasani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) does nothing but upload content taken directly from Islamic State propaganda outlets under a false claim of own work and CC-BY 4.0. See Category:Islamic State in Khorasan Province, which they have created and almost entirely filled with their own uploads. Their username also appears to be a reference to the name of the Islamic State affiliate in Afghanistan, Khorasan Province. They have had our copyright rules explained on their talk page but insist the Islamic State content can stay because the Islamic State believes copyright is a Western concept. I think we should have a discussion about whether this is someone who can contribute productively to this site. Came here from this deletion discussion. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  • As I understand it, all of Commons must follow U.S. copyright law (besides any other that may be relevant) and we require overt licenses/releases, not an "I don't care about copyright". So it would seem that (happily in this case) we should not be hosting these images. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • + claim to be the author is obviously false, and license is meaningless if not issued by copyright-holder. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I also agree "We do not care about this" is not a sufficient and acceptable license or public domain dedication. If they would have formulated "Our member do not claim any copyright on their works" this would be a sufficient declaration but "do not care" is definitely not. GPSLeo (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • It's also worth mentioning that if IS rejects copyright but does not state that their content is released under a free license, the actual photographers of their propaganda would still hold the copyright, no? Thus, we would need the permission by the individual IS members for the uploads. Applodion (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

User finds lots of “porn”, uncategorizes

User Prototyperspective (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has been busy with massive uncategorization of images in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology), adding lengthy edit summaries chidding Commons for «polluting categories with porn». E.g., in a photo showing, say, two CJK characters painted on the background wall behind a naked lady, this user will simply remove 

[[Category:Chinese calligraphy]]
[[Category:Two Han character combinations]]
[[Category:Red letters]]

without replacing these cats with any suitable subcats — such as , f.i., Category:Red letters on photos showing subjects that upset me. I did notice some of these edits and reverted them as obvious unwarranted uncategorization, but that might be just the tip of the iceberg. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

If the subcats don't yet exist it's not required to add them, they would be redcategories and you or any other editor could simply create that category if you think it's useful.
Lengthy edit summaries are good if they provide the rationale, explaining the edit.
---
Just because somewhere in the pornographic picture there is a bottle in the background does not mean it needs to be categorized with a cat of that drink. Just because there is the name of a children's game written on the body of naked woman showing her asshole, does not mean it needs to be categorized into that children's game. Just because there's two CJK characters painted somewhere on a wall in the background of a porn video or photo does not mean it's useful in that category. And so on.
There was support and further rationale for putting them in separate categories here because the user does not expect them there per w:WP:ASTONISH.
The images or their subject don't upset me at all.
---
The images could be argued to have potential educational value for showing diversity of or diverse human gentials / breasts and nude humans.
  • Beyond what I already said and potential child protection issues, these distracting images are not what the user searches for in these cats or finds useful there. They are also NSFW (not safe for work). Instead of putting (bodytext-)porn all over the place, making them show up under all kinds of searches and categories to which they irrelevant, you can put them in separate categories where they're expected, possibly theoretically useful.
In short, you can simply add these subcategories. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with Prototyperspective and King of Hearts' comment in the other discussion here. NSFW images shouldn't be showing up without warning in non-NSFW categories period, and the only way to deal with that is by removing the categories from the NSFW files. No one is looking for images of women's assholes when searching for kids games. It's totally ridiculous to act like they are or that having images of assholes in categories for kids games serves any purpose what-so-ever. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
And 2 weeks later someone is going to complain that NSFW images are grossly overcategorized and ask for them to be deleted. Trade (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
And? Just tell them no. It's not difficult. That's at least better then people seeing women's assholes when they search for kids games. The all or nothing approach that some people seem to take when it how NSFW are handled is totally ridiculous. No other site mixes images of nudity or pornography in with things related to children. Even if you take the children out of it, the other day I was looking for images of beds and came across an image of a women's vagina. No bed at all in the image BTW. Although I assume the person who categorized it that thought she was laying on one, but there's really no excuse regardless. Eventually people aren't going to use the site anymore because they don't want to sift through pornography every time they do a search just so a few users can virtue signal about how the site is free of censorship or whatever. I can guarantee no GLAM organization will use the site if we are that lax about it. I don't need or want to see images of people having sex when I'm looking for public domain pictures of furniture for a school asignment in the meantime either. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want a separate category tree for photos of nude people you need to make a proposal and discuss this. Removing categories of something that if definitely visible on a image is against the current guidelines, so as you want to this you need an approved guideline on this first. GPSLeo (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Removing categories of something that if definitely visible on a image is against the current guidelines How exactly is the name of a children's game written on the body of naked woman showing her asshole showing an image of the board game? Your acting like if someone uploads an image of the word "duck" scribbled on their penis and puts it in Category:Ducks that the only way to put the image in a different category is by doing a proposal, which is just nonsensical. It also assume a standard of perfection when it comes to how to categorize images that just doesn't exist. No one expects images of genitals with words written on them to be in categories for Waterfowl or whatever. You should be the one to do the proposal if your going to expect everyone to follow that fundamentalist of interpretation of the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
"No other site mixes images of nudity or pornography in with things related to children" Every other site either have a content filter or they simply dont allow it. We dont have the former and don't do the later (despite what some people might have wanted). Trade (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Does Commons have a NSFW policy? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • This is overblown. The user doing the mass-removal seems perfectly productive otherwise, just overzealous. In general images shouldn’t be in irrelevant categories even if there is a thing that technically fits, so yes you should remove images of nude women hypothetically on beds that don’t actually illustrate beds. However there is no policy recommending explicit images be removed from relevant non-explicit categories so if you think that should be the case village pump be thataway. Dronebogus (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    Of course a better solution, one that is already functionally implemented, is putting explicit images in specific subcategories like “nude women in bed”. Which prototypeperspective should be doing instead of mass-decategorization Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    I already did that. I just didn't replace all of the categories with subcategories in all cases because they often didn't seem useful and it would be a category-redlink anyway. (Note that I would have added a "Nude women in bed" category as replacement which relatively definitely sounds potentially useful).
    I don't quite see how e.g. photos of nude women with presented genitalia are useful in a category about a specific food with any potential for educational value just because that specific food is placed onto her body or is somewhere in the picture. This way or by writing on bodies you can add porn to nearly every category, regardless how unexpected, useless or irrelevant. However, other users could of course add such categories. That solution wasn't functionally implemented. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think that categories should be applied to images if they could reasonably considered a potentially useful illustration of something of that category. I do not think that presence of nudity somehow negates every other relevant fact about an image. We should not presume to know what all potential reusers are looking for. Let them decide for themselves. (I see no reason to assume that 100% of people looking for images of, for example, a bouquet of flowers, would find an image of a topless woman holding a bouquet of flowers completely irrelevant, and it is the job of Commons to hide that image from anyone looking for diverse collections of images including bouquets of flowers.) If someone thinks it worth their time and energy to make subcategories for other categories when nudity or partial nudity occurs, I have no objection. However IMO they think this a task that needs doing, and they make links to a slew of not yet existing categories, they should make a point of creating the new categories they have linked and placing them in proper category trees. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Infrogmation: does that mean that you think there is no problem if someone looking up a children's game sees a bunch of NSFW images? I'm fine with Commons hosting nude images (I've contributed a fair number!), and even porn, but I don't want it showing up when I'm looking for something else entirely. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
      Who’s talking about children’s games? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
      I don't understand the reference to children's games either, but I haven't tried to look at all the images Prototyperspective has edited. I have noticed that some that were scantily clad rather than nude, and I repeat the important observation that "mere nudity is not pornography" (per Jimbo Wales [30]), so I would say that the term "porn" was not appropriate for many of the edits. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Really, I've long thought that we should have some sort of search feature option for people who want to not see any "nsf" images - for example if they clicked that it would exclude ALL images in ANY nudity related category from the search. I think that would be far more helpful than trying to do granular micro-categories for all possible subjects which might have useful images that both may and may not contain nudity. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
      I think that’s a great idea, but it’s one of those things that WM in general has struggled to implement. And of course people are going to say “but what if I find images of grass offensive” and other tedious hypotheticals instead of just using common sense about what is “work safe”. Dronebogus (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
      The best and simplest option might be some sort of automatic opt-in gadget that allows you to toggle off any images that appear in “nsfw” categories (basically anything with “nude” or “sex” etc. in it). Dronebogus (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Quite apart from the issue of pornography, NSFW, the appropriateness of categorisations and Commons' handling of what is displayed in the results of a search. Removing correct categorisations without replacement is vandalism, because a previously searchable file is then no longer searchable. It is possible to replace an unwanted category with another category or a red category and then create it. However, it is also possible to create a depict statement as a replacement, or to add appropriate words to the image description, or to add a custom entry "Keywords" to the info template and then write in the appropriate keywords. This way, the findability is maintained. Removing a category without replacement, on the other hand, is vandalism. I admit that it is significantly more work and requires thought, but to remove only a category is to make it too easy. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, though: who would want to find these if they weren't specifically looking for the "Geekography" images or for sexualized images of women in general? I can't imagine the person who is looking for an image for "Two Han character combinations" and goes, "oh, just what I wanted, calligraphy on a woman's body." For an educational purpose, no less. - Jmabel ! talk 06:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, i wasn't writing about the specific case. But: Who would want to skip through all the Geekography files, just to find the one with two han characters. There is a commons where you can type "geekography han" into the search field and get the specific file and there is a commons, where you have to click through all depictions of han letters and through all depictions of sexuality, even though you know that you are on the look for one single file, that you have seen before. Which one is better? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I think this is another good point. To use an earlier example, instead of putting the photos (or videos) in subcats of a specific food just because that arbitrary specific food is placed onto (not inserted into) a nude person's body (or is somewhere in the picture such as drawn on the wall), I'd suggest placing it into a broader category like "Nude women with food" or "Nude women with food on their body".
Other examples just to illustrate what I mean would be "Nude women holding objects" or "Nude women with code written on their body" or "Nude women with logos of software drawn on their body". Note that the image would be findable when you search "geekography han" as well as "nude han" regardless if it's in that specific category due to the file's description (and its depicts structured data). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+1 to Prototyperspective on "findable". Categories are more about finding related images when you already have a decent starting point than about doing open-ended searches, where the description is just as important. - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Whatever the decision on how to categorize such files is, this definitely needs to be written down in some kind of policy to prevent edit wars or other disputes. GPSLeo (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I made a policy proposal here. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems to contradict COM:Categorization, so it wont fly, even if it attracts more supporting votes and opposing ones. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Even if it does contradict it, that doesn't matter because there could be exceptions.
I don't see how this policy "contradicts" my policy...actually it even supports it with e.g. "A file that depicts only one relevant subject should not be over-categorized".
Moreover, this could be mentioned there (but doesn't have to). Prototyperspective (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I can rather easily imagine some potential reuser looking for a free licensed image including Han characters in some eye-catching or startling context. Again: Let us not pretend to know what every potential reuser is looking for, and arbitrarily hide anything including nudity from results. And to reiterate previous points in different formulation: I have no objection the the notion of some sort of "NSFW" filters. However unilaterally removing relevant categories from all images which one user thinks includes people with not enough clothes is not a helpful way to go about this. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: if they were looking for that, then a subcat specific to nudity would be exactly what they'd want, something like Category:Han characters and human nudity. But I see no reason these should be in a normal category page that you see when looking for something else entirely, and I see no loss in not dividing them down as precisely as "Two Han character combinations". - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Please check User:Smax25

Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Please check User:Smax25. Tryvix1509 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear admins,

please take a look at the contributions of Smax25. Some of them make sense, but others look like vandalism to me, e.g. the two completely absurd file renaming requests. I also have the impression that this user is not a complete newbie (requesting to rename a file is not so obvious that I would expect newbies to do that), so maybe it would be useful to check if this user is a new sock puppet of some locked user.

Thank you very much, --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I don't have time to look into this, but putting user on 24-hour block so they don't do more damage while someone looks into this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Could someone please try to get a handle on this before that 1-day block expires? Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: This edit was certainly without a good reason.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if a lot of this is vandalism or incompetence to be honest... —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Finally looked through it all. Roughly 30% decent minor edits, 40% possibly well-intentioned but wrong, 30% either very confused or vandalistic. With no idea what language(s) this person speaks, it is difficult to work out how to engage. I wouldn't want to see a long block at this time, but if editing continued along these lines that's the only choice.
Please keep this thread open; I'm going to unblock and ask the user to join this discussion and explain themself; I'm hoping they have either enough English or enough sense to use a translatins s/w to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 02:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Jmabel, for all the work! I do not like to accuse anybody of vandalism, I know this is a severe reproach, but in this case I thought it was necessary that people with more competence than me have a look at these contributions; and I am glad that you found the time. I had the impression that some of the contributions are not just ignorance, but probably vandalism because of the well-sounding, but absurd proposed new filenames in the two renaming requests: [31], [32]; NB also the elaborate, but abstruse rationale for the latter request. I also stumbled over that very questionable deletion request [33], already been mentioned by Jeff G.. Also removing the most obvious topical category from a photo: [34] seems very odd; and filling the talk page of other users with text just copied from somewhere else, without any obvious reason or connection ([35]), is at least rather impolite. But it is certainly a very good idea to ask Smax25 themselves for an explanation. Thank you all and best regards, --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
And then they didn't engage here, and their first edit once back was another absurd move request. So I've indef-blocked the account, while allowing them to edit their user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done (indef-blocked). - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Doc Taxon

Hi, Doc Taxon is overwriting SVG files with completly different designs despite me asking him to stop last year (here). The worst one yet is this one where he overwrites the file from coat of arms to flag and then changes the name of the file.

I have been dealing with the Wappen Projekt from German Wikipedia for the last 3 years (see here). Dialogue is not an option for me anymore because they just talk between themselves on their Projekt and they do not care about what French Wikipedia thinks. It is not a problem that they make different versions of existing files but the fact that they impose their vision is tiring.

I do not want a punishment because, in general, Doc Taxon is doing good work, but a reminder about COM:OW is clearly needed. I cannot keep following his contributions to make sure he stops. And I know from this conversation that Doc Taxon is keen on trying to replace a file to see if someone reacts, so if it's just people from the french COA project telling him to stop I don't think it'll ever be effective. Kind regards, Espandero (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear admins. Meaning this in fact, there never ever has been a coat of arms like the old version (File:CHE Waldenburg COA.svg). I improved it to get a coat of arms of good quality. Please check the links in file description and compare. We don't need files showing coats of arms that never have been there in the past. The renaming of these files comply to #4 file name harmonizing within the German coats of arms project. The mentioned file above, File:CHE Waldenburg Flag.svg, okay - it was a mistake and I revert it. But I remain with the conclusion, that we should not upload coat of arms or flags that never have been officially used by a municipality and then put it a wrong coat of arms into Wikipedia articles of several languages. These files have to be improved. Thank you, – Doc Taxon • Talk • 16:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
No it is not justified. This way of making COAs has been used by the french COA project for more than 15 years. Doc Taxon is just overwriting stuff that he doesn't like without any consideration for other people's work. And the actions taken today on File:CHE Waldenburg Flag.svg by Doc Taxon are unacceptable. He is clearly abusing the tools he has access to: he made the renaming himself and now he's denying a renaming back to the original name of the file.
I would like to ask you, Doc Taxon, to please stop making any more modification to this files at least until this matter is resolved. Any more overwriting is plain provocation. And I'm asking the same to SpinnerLaserzthe2nd as well, for this or any other file. - Espandero (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I thought this is was a justification but I was wrong then. The person who made the French style COAs are inactive. Can you give clues on what Doc Taxon is keen on trying to replace a file to see if someone reacts? I had saved DOC's version just in case the files are renamed. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
What is a source of a fictional coat of arms and why do we put a fictional coat of arms into articles. – Doc Taxon • Talk • 18:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: the fact that someone is not active anymore doesn't justify destroying their work. I'm sorry but I don't understand the last part of your message.
Doc Taxon: I think I've told you enough about COM:OW. If you don't like this version of the COA nobody is forcing you to use it and you don't have to destroy it. All these files with the 3D effect are from the portfolio of other people so it is not correct to overwrite them and claim them your own. You can just as easily upload a new version in a separate file. I just don't understand what your problem is. And you say it's a fictional representation but heraldry is not a fixed art and there is not 1 correct way to make a COA. As long as the COA respects the description you can do whatever you want. - Espandero (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
To clarify the last part, I had saved Doc Taxton's version of the coat of arms and flag. This is to ensure that I can reupload them as a separate file. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh I meant the sentence before that, sorry. - Espandero (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Does Doc Taxon in the conversation actually said that he is keen on trying to replace a file to see if someone reacts? Because I think Doc isn't aware on how Blason Project styles COAs. He is also not aware that the Blason style of the COA are based on real COA. Seriously, Doc, the Blason Project version of Waldenburg's COA is based on the real COA. If Doc were to made a real version of a COA from France, he would get into a lot of copyvio trouble not just destroying the works of Blason. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
There's no destruction of a work, all the versions keep safe. And I don't do like the files, but I don't like it, when fictional coat of arms are shown in encyclopedic articles. I have no antipathy with the French coat of arms project, but I'd like to understand them our points in improving coat of arms files. File:CHE Waldenburg COA.svg has never been a granted or approved coat of arms, we shouldn't put it into encyclopedic articles. I don't claim improved coats of arms my own, see file decription. For example, File:CHE Waldenburg COA.svg as coat of arms of Waldenburg municipality has never been a granted or approved coat of arms, we shouldn't put fictional arms into encyclopedic articles. I don't claim improved coats of arms my own, see file description. But we need a usage to correctify coats of arms like officially used ones. Thank you, – Doc Taxon • Talk • 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Look, it’s okay if you make Swiss COAs but you had to respect other people's hard work. You can supersede Blason's Swiss COA but you cannot overwrite them. Look at what ARK is doing. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: It is what I understand from his messages from 12:11, 22. Mai 2022: (direct translation from DeepL) "I have now replaced some of the Swiss ARK emblems on the fr-wiki, but this has not yet been undone". This means he already knew that we were against it but tried it anyway. In this discussion ARK is clearly saying that the Wappen Projekt needs to upload their work under separate files to make a smooth transition but it is ignored by Doc Taxon. I wouldn't hold this message to high against him, but to me it proves his intentions (to do things in the French project's back). - Espandero (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay. I told Doc to take a look at what ARK is doing because ARK respect other people’s work. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Doc Taxon the fact that its "fictional" is only your interpretation. There is no definite way of making COAs. The shapes and colours only depend on the artist's will so you cannot force your view like this. It's not how heraldry works. - Espandero (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Look, Doc, you are not in trouble. We all make mistakes and we all misunderstood other people. You just respect them and their works. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, let's do it so ... I agree – Doc Taxon • Talk • 19:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Doc Taxon, nice. Thanks a lot and see you around. Best regards, Espandero (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done – Doc Taxon • Talk • 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The user who is the topic of the compliant should never place a ✓ Done tag unter the discussion. I also see that this topic is resolved, but you should not add that tag. I also want to add that this is a final warning to not override files against the COM:OW guideline. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

user:Yogalakshmi Bala

When users Balakumar Rao chinna (talk · contribs) and Raochinna (talk · contribs) blocked, new user Yogalakshmi Bala (talk · contribs) comes and uploads same file. AntanO 17:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User:CuboidalBrake06

CuboidalBrake06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked multiple times for uploading copyrighted Taliban-related content from news sources and the Taliban itself. I found they have returned from their block to upload File:Zabihullah Mujahid.jpg as "own work", despite claiming in the description they took it from the Associated Press. They have not responded to their prior blocks, and a new block is needed. 25stargeneral (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@25stargeneral ✓ Done indef. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

3RR edit-warring breach by MB-one at Category:Locomotives by Whyte classification

MB-one has decided to take against some rather obvious and relevant categorisation: that Category:Locomotives by Whyte classification is a relevant sub-cat for Category:Steam locomotives, despite it being there for nearly a decade. Their only argument seems to be the simplistic one (MB-one unable to think of anything more than the simplest and most literal version? That's hardly a surprise.) that unless every member of the sub-cat is also essentially a member of the super-cat, then there should be no relation between the two. This is MediaWiki: categorization just isn't that precise, we can't work by assuming absolutes.

There are two problems here: first of all, 3RR edit-warring breaches should be blockable. Even for admins. Of course nothing will b e done, it never is, but MB-one is one of those admins who demands subservience, rather than working collegially and it's long past time they stopped that.

Secondly, it's just categorization that belongs there: it works better for our readers with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  • So you're OK with 4RR edit-warring (a bright-line block), so long as it's another German admin? No surprise at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    An edit war always needs two people involved. Both you you did not try to use a talk page to solve the problem. If you discuss this now in a constructive way there is nothing to be punished here. GPSLeo (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • It's not only steam (which anyone familiar with the subject knows, and even Wikipedia manages to get right). But why should it be necessary for anyone to have to explain this, to an audience who don't understand the topic, but are adamant to change it (incorrectly) despite? If you don't understand something, don't break it.
Whyte is old. It began in the steam-only era. When non-steam locos (IC or electric) appeared, it was applied to them too, because it's what was available. But it was never a particularly useful system for this, for any more than the simplest cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Tuválkin, and GPSLeo: Thank you for your input on the Category matter. I opened a respective CfD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/05/Category:Locomotives by Whyte classification. Let's move this discussion over there.

As for the issue of edit warring, @Andy Dingley: can we both agree, that either of us should have started the CfD before reverting a second time? --MB-one (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

4RR is certainly not tolerated on EN so why should it be tolerated here ?, The CFD was created after the edit war not before so has no bearing on the edit war - MB-one should be given a 24 hour block for their edit warring. –Davey2010Talk 13:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
We do not block users for disputes if they are now constructively trying to find a solution just to punish them for the edit war that took place before. Blocks are to prevent disruptive behavior and no tool for punishment. GPSLeo (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Plenty of people are blocked before they have a chance to edit productively or otherwise find a solution to the dispute. There's more then one example of that happening in this board and I was blocked a few times myself without being given a chance to resolve the issue. Not that I'm saying MB-one should be punished for their actions, but its not like people aren't regularly blocked purely to teach them a lesson not to do the thing again and regardless of if they have done anything to resolve the problem in the meantime or not. Admins shouldn't get a special pass from that. Again though, that's not to say MB-one should be punished for their actions, but there shouldn't be a double standard about it either and at least from what I can tell there's nothing to indicate it won't happen again. So a block would be preventative otherwise MB-one should at least acknowledge the mistake and assure everyone it won't happen again. Otherwise at least IMO it seems perfectly reasonable to block give them a short block so they will get the message and not edit war again. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Of course «we» (and that means, you, admins) do it — all the time. On the other hand, most admins will have each other’s back to avoid mutual blocking and even will expunge logs to hide from the hoi polloi about those few times an admin was actually blocked (example). The cronyism reeks. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh, look: Now Davey2010 is blocked (indefinitely), 3 days after he dared to ask for an admin to be blocked for 24 h. Cannot make this stuff up, folks. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Mandaji Narsimha Chary 369

Repeatedly uploading copyrighted newspaper articles after multiple warnings and bulk deletions. Omphalographer (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Remaining uploads deleted (copyvio) and issued a last warning. --Túrelio (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
And they're back at it again. Omphalographer (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
And blocked by Herbythyme. --Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

user:Alisdare

I notice user:Alisdare it putting a lot of effort into filling image descriptions with lengthy political polemic containing campaigning URLs. The descriptions fail to actually describe the image and seem to be a vehicle for copy-'n'-paste political propaganda, apprently imported from the user's Flickr posts. Example image (there are many): File:Another Coronation View the MSM didn't show us (52880278926).jpg. I realise that Wikipedia's NPOV rules don't apply on Commons, but this still seems to be an improper use of the platform, hijacking Commons for activism. Are there any Commons guidelines that disallow this level of agitation? Or is this completely permissible? Cnbrb (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: another user is actually transferring the files from Flickr, but Alisdare often makes additional edits. They appear to be collaborating on a project to fill Commons with political commentary. The images are actually rather good and add a lot of valuable political historical content - I am just concerned about the misuse of description data. Cnbrb (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I warned both of them. These out of scope descriptions should be trimmed. Yann (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I nominated them for deletion as spam, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "roguenation.org".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the images themselves are actually rather good and wouldn't advocate deletion. They appear to be a valuable record of political protest, and arguably have legitimate educational purpose. It's just the descriptions that are propaganda spam and should be replaced. Cnbrb (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, thank you, after discussion with other editors we have reached a consensus to keep the images but rewrite the descriptions. I just wanted to make sure this was all within Commons guidelines. Not sure how this can be patrolled in future. Cnbrb (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Check user control

I ask if control this like say in other discussion that i written [36]: It was this user https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:93.148.93.45 https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.38.140.112 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.205.162.70 who false requested the deletions and maybe he is a account name is "Corvettec6r" sockpuppeting's vandal who acts as an ip to mask and hide his changes, example https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Suzuki_GSX250R.png&oldid=754834924 as in this case it does this on purpose to damage the project and cause valid images to be deleted. He asks for false cancellations immediately, taking advantage of the good faith of the administrator who is going to cancel. All and I mean all of your requests were either rejected or reinstated. From the modus operandi it seems to be the same user, looking at the talk of the aforementioned user where the IPs delete his "unwelcome" messages. 37.159.122.14 11:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I can't make head or tail of this. Is there some other language in which you might be able to state this more clearly than in English? If so, please do. - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I apologize if I explained myself badly. I simplify the concept. I ask if this this user 93.148.93.45, 2.38.140.112 and 193.205.162.70 (who false requested all speedy deletions) maybe they is "Corvettec6r", to abuse multiple accounts ip to "mask" his false request deletion, for damaging the project for delete legal and valide license's image. To abuse the trust of the administrators who believe him in good faith, wasting time to restore his misdeeds. I wonder if it's possible to cross-check to see if it's the same users. 37.159.49.15 13:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
PS: Jmabel See this [37]. 37.159.49.15 14:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I believe you are asking for Commons:Requests for checkuser, but be aware that those requests are not usually granted unless there is a very strong reason. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Given that there are only IP Addresses claimed as socks, there is nothing Checkusers are allowed to do about them, as that would be linking IP Addresses with an account.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User Ali Nizari

Ali Nizari (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads multitude of official portraits of Indian rulers which seems to me unlikely to be his own work as claimed. I have marked some for deletion but there are too many. They all should be deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I just found that his uploads are often bogus photos of a known person with the head of an unknown one such as in https://tineye.com/search/130307e2b979d87f690045b1347c1cdf97934ebe?sort=score&order=desc&page=1 where the head of King George IV of UK has been changed with the head of punial ruler. Pierre cb (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I have a terrible feeling that all of this user's activity is an elaborate hoax. Not only is that photo clearly King George with someone else's head pasted on (yay?), but many of the other photos appear to have been manipulated - for example, File:His Royal Highness Aqa Shah VII.jpg and File:The Imperial Coat Of Arms of the Punial State.jpg have the exact same background texture, and File:His Excellency Lord Prince Sameer Shah.jpg is an artifically aged version of the King George photo. With this all in mind, I have some very serious doubts about the veracity of the content this user added to w:Punial State; I've raised those concerns with that project. Omphalographer (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User A.O Mapping

A.O Mapping (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads from YouTube or copyrighted sources poor quality photos of tornadoes. I have warned him and put his uploads for deletion but he continues. Pierre cb (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

After multiple warnings, this user continues without justification. To be blocked indefinitely. Pierre cb (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I have already stopped sending copyrighted photos. Now I will only send images of maps created by me, how the destruction map of the 2013 storm in Piracicaba city. A.O Mapping (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User Smacklimy777

Smacklimy777 is a stalker.--UeArtemis (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

User:AWANGAHMADMULKLIFF

AWANGAHMADMULKLIFF (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Mulkliff. They've uploaded a number of useless PDF files with a description referencing User:Sultan Ahmad Mulk (another sock). Omphalographer (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose block these are not useless. They are government archives that are now public domain. Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
For anyone who hasn't worked it out, Stanislov Patrick 473 is a disruptive vandal, and his remarks should presumably be ignored. - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week pending review and investigation, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:AWANGAHMADMULKLIFF

AWANGAHMADMULKLIFF (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Mulkliff. They've uploaded a number of useless PDF files with a description referencing User:Sultan Ahmad Mulk (another sock). Omphalographer (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose block these are not useless. They are government archives that are now public domain. Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
For anyone who hasn't worked it out, Stanislov Patrick 473 is a disruptive vandal, and his remarks should presumably be ignored. - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week pending review and investigation, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Yasmin Karachiwala

I deleted some of his tagged files and realized they were previously uploaded by User:Blu Advisory. Socks? --Mhhossein talk 20:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Yasmin indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts and nominated one more logo for deletion. Taivo (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Boblstr

Uploading repetitive WP:NUDITY after repeated mass-deletions. Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

*COM:NUDITY (not WP:NUDITY :-)). --SHB2000 (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Should be indef. if these files reappear. Yann (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Patricminlooo

User:Patricminlooo , please check his uploads. he is naming files randomly and adding spammy(just random letters) descriptions. and, maybe copyvio files. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The combination of cryptocurrency logos, bank logos, and nonsense filenames is concerning - it leads me to suspect that the files may be getting used off-site in a phishing campaign. Omphalographer (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Right. Blocked indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 Thank you. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Bebel2024

All of User:Bebel2024 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) uploads are copyvio. They are, in their own words, a "a 14yrs old autistic boy". Due to their disruptive edits in the Pt.WP (their home wiki) and their perceived "lack of competence" they were indef. blocked there. Their edits in the en.WP are also very problematic. I suggest a sysop to look into their uploads and also weight on the necessity of a block. Regards. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and will close a lot of DR-s. Taivo (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 15:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User:PedroDuqueSantiago

Continued abuse of file revert despite warnings and a block -- H78c67c (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Seeing this, I reblocked him indef. Clearly NOTHERE. Yann (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Jahidh56

User:Jahidh56 is keep adding personal photos, please take action. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User King.godrat

King.godrat (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seems to use Commons as a test, uploading and modifying images, including selfies, without reason. He even removed description templates. Pierre cb (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There may be a slight touch of foot fetishism in their uploads too. Wutsje 18:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I reported one of a minor to T&S. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, I've deleted all but one of the feet pics as copyvios (the remaining one is not a copyvio, I think, and it's in use and I don't know what to do with it). There are two other images, both of which I think are in scope. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Given that every other "A picture of the feet..." image they uploaded was a copyvio, I think it's safe to assume that the remaining one is a copyvio as well. The use of the image on fawiki is trivial (it's basically a gallery). Omphalographer (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I deleted that last one because of COM:GCSD#F10. Better safe than sorry. Wutsje 21:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Not testing obvious duh Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I concur, the user appears not to be competent enough to edit Commons.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week, most files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Yann: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Reactivating complaint archived without Admin action

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 105#Trying to get to something some admin can deal with was archived without any Admin action being taken. The complaint is clear and without Admin action the Users will just carry on as they have been doing. Mztourist (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mztourist: Thanks.
Pinging @Tm, Dvaderv2 in particular, but really this goes for anyone: it is rarely helpful to categorize narrowly based in complex reasoning about the provenance of an otherwise ambiguous photo. The photo is useless as an illustration of the narrow subject (while it might still be useful as an illustration of the subject of a broader category), so no one is really helped by this categorization. It can be helpful to explain in the description why we might know more than is evident in the photo, but (at the other extreme) it is absolutely counterproductive (producing only arguments!) to express this only in setting a category and leave out the reasoning entirely.
I won't say I've never done the equivalent myself (mostly on things like dating a photo based on the buildings visible in it), but I will say that when I've done this, I've always laid out my arguments carefully, and I've backed off if anyone can show anything like a possible flaw in my reasoning. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
My time is precious and iam not waste my time with an user clearly did not knew what are the differences between an M16A1 and an XM16E1 but even so loves to waste other people time.
You claim, in the talkpage of File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg that i "can't tell by looking at this picture whether they are XM16E1s or M16A1s, the same as in the other photos where I have raised this issue." Really?????
1 - You are talking of the 5 771 × 8 577 pixels image where only you do not see the clearly visible teardrop forward assist, xm16e1 boss, uncaged magazine release, three prong flash hider? But of course it is not an xm16e1.
2 - Or are you talking of the the image where only you cannot see the clearly visible teardrop forward assist and uncaged magazine release with the xm16e1 boss. Or are talking of the visible three prong flash hiders visible under the transparent condoms? except for you.
3 - Or are you talking of the Image labelled by the US Federal Government as an M16A1 and so demanded to know "explain why you (me) have categorised it as an XM16E1 rifle" and when i explained you admited that was in fact an XM16E1 (and implicitly showing that you do not know what is are the differences between an XM16E1 or an M16A1"..
4 - Or are you talking of one image of australian soldiers taken in January 2 1967 or another photo of australian soldiers taken in March 18 1966 were you demanded to know why to know why are those rifles XM16A1 when you can clearly see, in those two images, the teardrop forward assist and\or xm16e1 boss and\or uncaged magazine release and\or the three prong flash hider. This two cases are even worst as i asked you if knew when was the M16A1 standardized, was in M16A1 was only standardized in February 23 1967.
Well this clearly shows that you cannot distinguish between an XM16E1 and a M16A1 but remove Category:XM16E1 rifle and when reverted always demand to know why for no good reason.
For that reason and for continue to wasting other people times i am out of this new attempt on exerting revenge. Tm (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
No-one objects to identifications, when those identifications are based on some reasonable evidence – as you've provided in some cases. A partial identification and a known date that limits the possibilities is fine too – no one is questioning these.
But what we aren't going to put up with is the continual edit-warring, and the attitude (just look at your post here!) that you're too important to have to explain yourself to the peasants. Because you're not. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Please no personal attacks Trade (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Tm: your response amounts to a bunch of arguments about specific photos, and absolutely no acknowledgement of what I, as an admin, called out as a problem. FWIW, I didn't "talk of" or do any of the things you are mentioning here. (Perhaps someone else did, but your comment follows mine, and doesn't ping anyone, so it appears to be addressed to me.) I stated a general principle: contentious matters like this generally don't belong in categories.
You are claiming that you are so expert that no one here can judge your work. That might be true, but insofar as it is, it also means that no one here can judge your claim to expertise, and we don't really have any reason to accept it on faith. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
FWIW Jambel my initial remark were all directed at Mztourist, not you or your actions.
But, alas, Jambel in Wikimedia Commons i never claimed to be or not to be an expert in anything, either explicitly or implied.
I only show that Mztourist does not know what he was talking about or doing but that did not stop him from question others and removing categories and that, on the contrary of Mztourist, i provide proofs of what i said, edit and add .
To Andy Dingley. I tought that us the peasants had already discussed this images to death and that i have provided more than enough evidence to support my edits more than a month ago. So what royal now that is making "continual edit-warring" by reopening this closed discussion?
That is why i will not waste more of my time in this on revenge as well said by its title "Reactivating complaint archived without Admin action." Tm (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Jmabel for clearly stating the correct approach to categorisation. Tm it is notable that you have continually failed to justify why the rifles in File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg are XM16E1s. Tm and User:Dvaderv2 unless the distinguishing features of an XM16E1 or an M16A1 are clearly visible don't add the category (also don't categorize pistols in holsters), its very simple. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Jmabel I'm requesting a block of User:Tm for continued edit-warring of categories despite your clear instructions above. Following your instructions I returned to the various images where categories had been added and removed the weapon categories where the weapon is not clearly visible in the image and Tm then reverted those changes. The examples are: (1) my change [40] and Tm's revert [41], this image was discussed on the [Talk Page] that the gun has attributes of two different models, the XM16E1 and the M16A1; (2) my change [42] and Tm's revert [43], they claim that you can see the distinctive muzzle of an XM16E1, I don't believe the photo is clear enough to make that distinction; (3) my change removing categorisation of a pistol in a holster: [44] and Tm's revert [45] and (4) my changes [46] and Tm's revert [47]. Tm has completely ignored your instructions and clearly continues with their attitude that they are so expert that no one here can judge their work, only a block will prevent further disruptive conduct. Mztourist (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 07:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Mztourist (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

For the record, User:Tm has objected on their user page. I have no intention of replying there: they are repeating things they have already said, plus claiming Mztourist's actions here constitute "vengeance". If any other admin wishes to engage, feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Stanislov Patrick 473

Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk · contribs)

Another of those miraculous new users who come from nowhere and dive immediately into complex arcana. I've no idea what's going on here, but it's nothing good. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur, their inappropriate edits include this, that, and reversions of the actions of authorized bots.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done I have blocked the user for a temporary period of 1 week, with the option to extend the block if disruptive editing continues. --TadejM (t/p) 14:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Seeing the amount of disruption, I extended the block. New account, and most edits are pure vandalism. Yann (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@TadejM and Yann: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Figub Brazlevic

User:Figub Brazlevic https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figub_Brazlevič , please block this account. it is not verified. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

WHat do you mean by "verified" and which Commons policy do you think requires that? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
modern_primat presumably means that given that this is a the name of a well-known person, this account should exist only if it is verifiably that person. Which is true, but if someone wants to pursue it, it would seem that the place to start is a request for verification, not a block! - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
They are also active on de.Wikipedia which has a working process to verify accounts. I have asked them for verification of the account there. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

User:RevengerTime

RevengerTime (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Is a problematic user. He abuses Commons uploading all the time unfree files. Look at his talk page and latest uploads please. Other people have been blocked for much less. 186.175.229.250 02:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I warned this user. However some of their uploads were wrong tagged, as they are under a free license at the source. Yann (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Can you just please block this user already, after I receive a last warning. Hookmeupabit (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think a block is needed at this time. Yann (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User Shreenad

Shreenad (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The uploads of this user seems to be photos he has taken of paintings of Indian historical rulers in a museum. This seems close to copyvio to me but could an administrator decide if it is the case or not. Pierre cb (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  • These look old enough to most likely be out of copyright, but they should be credited to their artists (or to Unknown artist), and they should carry at least approximate dates. - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Assuming they took the photos themselves it might be a case that they don't understand FOP rules - I made the same mistake once. I don't see any malice - they are likely a new user who doesn't know better. An RfD would have been better than AN IMO Gbawden (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yashwa Emmanuel

Yashwa Emmanuel (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Continued spam after warning--Trade (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Spam only, no useful contribution. Yann (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Gondolabúrguer

Asking for other people's personal information after their files have been marked for deletion is intimidation. Harassment, crosswiki abuse. Guy is indeff on en.wiki and blocked on pt.wiki see more on en:user talk:Gondolabúrguer Ertrinken (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I have hidden the information. Yann (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

MihaiUpload

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

edits seem strange, like contributing in both Malayalam and Romanian. blocked on enwp. RZuo (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo: I can't speak for the Malayalam, but his Romanian looks entirely correct (I'm not native, but I read Romanian pretty well). I suppose there has to be at least one Romanian in the world who also speaks Malayalam! Is there anything else "strange"? - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll admit most of his uploads look like useless low-quality video, but not actively malevolent. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, one of this person's socks was blocked on Commons as Huggingface.co (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done This user is just testing. It is very unlikely this user really knows Malayalam. I sent them a final warning, and deleted the test pages. Yann (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
it's not just pages in those languages. the user also created many rather useless empty cats. RZuo (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Links for the empty categories? Mihai Popa Message me! 13:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, please take a look at my Romanian edits! Please collect some links! Mihai Popa Message me! 13:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Still creating nonsense pages and files. Blocked for 2 weeks. *sigh* Yann (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Dion Art

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

Dion Art has made inappropriate comments and has posted revenge votes at this FPC nomination and this nomination of theirs. Any help welcome, please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  • This user is also highly defensive in reaction to votes against or criticisms of their work, so far always talking back and never conceding that others might have a point or that they might learn anything from any criticisms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose any administrative action, as of writing this. Their incivility seems to have ceased after I placed a civility warning on their talk page. If they do return with uncivil behaviour, we can always go from there. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • What are you opposing @A.Savin: ? I haven't asked for a block. I've asked for help. And I did not ask for this user to be branded a fascist by you or anybody. Quite uncalled-for comment. I just want my FP nominations to be fairly judged. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Do you believe you have some special entitlement to call my vote a nonsense vote? Doesn't sound like the words a responsible admin would make. It's a sad day when two admins post here - one calling my contributions 'toxic' and the other 'nonsense'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Charles, while this isn't intricately related to this discussion as a whole, my question to you is if you really think it's okay to oppose a nomination from Russia, should FPC ban all nominations from countries where governments have committed horrible atrocities? Many governments have blood on their hands in some way or another; singling out certain countries for political reasons is antithetical to the purpose of having FPs. SHB2000 (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it's more a case of instrumentalization rather than some political conviction. As a simple example, not everyone who insults you a Nazi is actually against Nazis. Regards --A.Savin 12:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Andrea Pergamino

uploading copyvio images after multiple warnings, also uploading attack image. see: User talk:Andrea Pergamino ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 20:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 2 weeks for uploading attack image. Yann (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Repeated uploads of clearly copyrighted images by User:Materialscientist

As can be seen by User:Materialscientist's talk page archives they have a pretty well established history of uploading images that end up being deleted as COPYVIO. Something that at least I have asked them to be more careful about in the future, which from what I remember they blow off. Regardless, they recently uploaded a bunch of images of Lativian stamps. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Latvia is pretty clear that stamps from the country are likely copyrighted since they aren't specifically mentioned in the law and therefore shouldn't be uploaded to commons. To make things worse, the images that Materialscientist uploaded come from a Flickr account for the main postal service provider in Latvia, where the copyright status is clearly "All rights reserved." As can be seen by this image, which Materialscientist uploaded here.

It's pretty clear from that, the multiple uploads of Materialscientist's that have been deleted as copyright violations over the years, and the ambivalent way they treated me about it that they think the rules don't apply to them. So I think they should receive a final warning not to upload copyrighted material again. Either that, or they should just be blocked for repeatedly and blatantly disregarding the guidelines. There's really no excuse for uploading images that are clearly copyrighted. More so considering Materialscientist is an administrator and really should know better as one. Adamant1 (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: If I see it correctly, you have just right now nominated four of Materialscientist's uploads for deletion and a short moment later on you are opening this section at COM:AN/U without even waiting for the outcome of these DRs. I just went to the recently nominated uploads of the talk page history. The most recently deleted one is this URAA case, a file which was perfectly ok at the time of the upload. If you see a real case here, this has to be researched first and then properly presented with evidence at this board. This is disruptive otherwise. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
That's why I said they have a history of uploads that are deleted as COPYVIO. In no way is my ANU complaint solely based on the outcome of the most recent DRs. Although I doubt there will be any other outcome with the DRs then delete since the guidelines are clear that stamps of Lativia are probably copyrighted and the source for the images (which again is the postal services of Latvia) clearly states they are "all rights reserved." If you want to wait until the DRs are closed as delete though, cool. I'm more then willing to revisit this once that happens. Although I think the ANU complaint stands on it's own anyway. No one who is being at all honest about this would argue that the sources for the stamps don't say they are all rights reserved. What more evidence do you need then that and their history of repeatedly uploading COPYVIO?
And in no way does your single, cherry picked example disprove their history of uploading images that are subsequently deleted as copyright violations. One reason being that they still should have known about and accounted for the URAA before uploading the file. It's not like there aren't DRs like this one where they used an obviously fallacious argument to try and get the image kept in the meantime either. Oh yea, there's also this one where they lied and said the image was created anonymously when the file clearly stated who the author was. This DR has nothing do with the URAA, just them acting like Yugoslavia's law about official materials of state bodies applies to stamps when it clearly doesn't. This DR and this are similar BTW. That's what, 11 files that clearly shouldn't have been uploaded between just those 3 DRs? And MaterialScientist making blatantly false arguments in all of them to. They clearly have an issue with following the guidelines. Either it's intentional or they are just incompetent. Personally, I think they are intentionally ignoring the guidelines since stamps of Lativia are obviously copyrighted. Plus they go out of their way to obfuscate and make false statements whenever their images are nominated for deletion. Seriously, what more evidence do you need then that? If your answer is "more", then I'd like to know how many clearly copyrighted images a normal user could can away with uploading before they are at least warned not to do it again. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Nobody is perfect, and I quickly adjust my edits after a civil comment on my talk. I go by Commons policies, and the one related to Latvian stamps has been changed very recently [49]; be it correct or not, I've missed that update. With all that said, I consider the note above by Adamant1 as a personal attack to a Wikimedia volunteer. Materialscientist (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Nobody is perfect, and I quickly adjust my edits after a civil comment on my talk. Sure, I don't expect anyone to be perfect and honestly I wouldn't have reported you if it wasn't so blatantly with the stamps of Latavia or if you hadn't of acted so disgruntled toward me when I asked you to be more careful about it, which your response here accusing me of personal attacks is a perfect example of by the way. I don't see how you could have just missed that the stamps are copyrighted. Nor does you responding the defense and deflecting way you have about it here and in other places make me think you even care about it. Otherwise you'd just acknowledge the mistake and say you won't do it again. The fact that Copyright rules by territory Latvia was recently changed doesn't matter because the source where you downloaded them from is clear that they are copyrighted. At the end of the day the guidelines are just that, guides. The Post of Lativa the authority on if the copyright status their stamps and I don't see how you could have missed that the images were "all rights reserved." And again, it's a chronic issues that you've repeatedly been unwilling to acknowledge or remedy. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Before rushing to blame people, try to understand how Commons deals with copyright. "All rights reserved" merely means the author owns, owned or has some reason to claim copyright on an image. Commons respects that, but applies its own set of copyright rules above that (such as those in Commons:Latvia, which wasn't on my watchlist): copyright might have expired or is inapplicable, or the author has released the image elsewhere, or many other reasons. For example, you'll find zillions of antique paintings on zillions of respectable websites saying that the image is copyrighted, while it is obviously in the public domain. Materialscientist (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Before rushing to blame people, try to understand how Commons deals with copyright. I've been nominating your COPYVIO uploads for deletion since at least April of last year and I discussed it with you once already before starting this. So in no way am I rushing to blame you for anything. Your patently false comment about how quickly I started this report aside though, it seems like your attitude about this is that it isn't the job of users to know what the relevant guidelines and laws are before they upload images. Otherwise, can you at least acknowledge that it's the users' responsibility to know what the relevant guidelines and laws are before uploading an image and that ignorance of either one isn't a valid excuse to repeatedly upload copyrighted material over multiple years?
you'll find zillions of antique paintings on zillions of respectable websites saying that the image is copyrighted, while it is obviously in the public domain. I don't disagree with that in general. The source of the Lativan stamps is the official Flickr account of the Lativian postal service, not a personal website of some random collector of Lativan stamps. I'm sure get the difference. If they aren't an authoritative source for the licensing information of stamps they created I don't know what would be. Especially considering there's zero evidence in the meantime that the licensing of the stamps have expired or are otherwise inapplicable. At least from what I understand we always defer to the official source and/or creator of the image work when it comes to how something is license regardless though. At least baring a few exceptional instances that don't apply in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
We have a very unclear position on a piece of copyright arcana, which very recently changed our interpretation, largely owing to an opinion piece with no cited foundation (Guess who that was by?). Now you're seeking to have an admin blocked because of the "ambivalent" way they treated you.
You really are a nett negative to this project overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
We have a very unclear position on a piece of copyright arcana I'm not really sure what someone repeatedly downloading files from the Lativian postal services Flickr account where it unambiguously says the images are copyrighted has to do with "arcana", but OK. It's at least clear from this and the last discussion where you came at me for similar spurious reasons that your always going to do your little "Adamant1 bad" song and dance whenever you have an opportunity to. That said, I think we'd both agree that people shouldn't be uploading files from official sources that make it clear the images are copyrighted. Sure, you can maybe quibble about the guideline recently being changed, but like I said, it's a chronic issue that Materialscientist has been unwilling to discuss or remedy and there's no way they just missed that the Lativan postal services Flickr account says the stamps are "all rights reserved." Otherwise, they are free to just say so. I'm mine with honest mistakes, but there's zero indication that it was one. Same goes for the rest of the images he uploaded that turned out to be copyrighted. Of course baring ones that involve URAA case retroactively being applied to old uploads, but those are the extremely rare exception as I've shown with the DRs I linked to that have nothing to do with it and there's plenty more that don't where they came from. And here I thought you were holding to admins to the same standards as every other user. Apparently that goes away when I'm the one who files the report. Go figure. It's fine if you think I'm a net negative to the project, but at least put aside the Adamant1 derangement syndrome for a minute and look at the evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I support comments made by AFBorchert and others above. I warned Adamant1 about changing behaviour regarding interaction with other contributors. Yann (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I left you a message on my talk about the "warning. I'll try to be more succinct and/or measured next time. Although I'm not really sure what "behavior" your warning was in response to since you didn't give specifics. Nor do I see any specific examples by AFBorchert or Andy Dingley in this complaint. All AFBorchert said was that I should present better evidence for the complaint, which has nothing to do with my "behavior" and I think I've done in the meantime. In fact I think I've been pretty clear about why I started this and have provided plenty of evidence for why I think Materialscientist should at least receive a warning. I'm fine with people disagreeing with the evidence, but just doing handwaving about how I'm a net negative to the project or writing vague warnings on my talk page about "behavior" that you can't be specific about isn't really helpful. Nor am I inclined to such comments seriously when they are coming from people like you or Andy Dingley who have made spurious accusations about me and my "behavior" in the past that so far hasn't led anywhere.
That said, I would be interested to know exactly what your issue with the actual merits of the ANU complaint are if you have any though. I'm more then happy to provide more evidence if what I've already provided isn't adequate. I think the DRs I've linked to and Materialscientist's comments in the meantime speak for themselves though. Otherwise I'm going have to assume your "warning" and comment here are more of the same old same old personal grievance axe grinding toward me that you seem to have a pretty established history of doing at this point. Instead of anything to do with the actual complaint. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment BTW, if anyone wants another good example of why I opened this check out the images of stamps in this and this, all of which appear to have been uploaded by Materialscientist. Both Category:Stamps of Nicaragua and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nicaragua are clear that stamps of Nicaragua are copyrighted. Yet Materialscientist still uploaded the images and did so using PD-NI-exempt when it clearly doesn't apply to stamps. I've already provided the example where he uploaded stamps from the official Flickr account of the postal service of Lativia that were clearly all rights reserved. Andy Dingley and Yann can deflect from the reason I opened the complaint by axe grinding all they want, but I don't see how anyone can honestly argue he isn't intentionally ignoring the guidelines or the copyright status of the images he's uploading when there's multiple examples of him clearly doing exactly that. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: This board is for the discussion of user problems but not for copyright-related discussions. If you have concerns regarding files in these categories, you are free to discuss this at COM:VP/C or to file deletion requests. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware, which is why I'm not discussing copyright. That said, if I nominate the images for deletion and they are deleted I doubt the response to this will be any different. I'm more then willing to do it and re-open this once the files are deleted. Although I don't think it should be necessary since there's plenty of examples already and I haven't anyone else have to follow that standard. Regardless, this is clearly the place to discuss people who have chronic issues with violating copyright guidelines. Your free to disagree that Materialscientist has an issue with uploading copyrighted images, but this the clearly place to discuss the topic of users who repeatedly upload COPYVIO. Again though, I'm fine nominating the images for deletion and getting back to this after they are deleted, but like I said, I doubt you or the people who have commented so far will treat me any less dismissively about it. I've also read through plenty of similar complaints and no one has been treated the way I have been about them. Nor was anyone, at least from what I can tell, told this was the wrong place for the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
As you are accusing a user for copyright violations, the examples you give are relevant. Our guidance on Latvian stamps was changed recently by you and Aymatth2 (neither of whom read Latvian, I suppose), while that on Nicaraguan stamps was changed by Aymatth2 with an edit summary of "fmt" (note the "not copyrighted" in the previous version, possibly ignored by the user who added the copyright image). I think accusing people of copyright violations with such examples is bad tone. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Just for the record, I wasn't the one who changed it, Aymatth2 was. For that matter I didn't start the discussion. So if you have a problem with the change the person to blame it on or take it up with is Aymatth2. Although from what I remember you had the chance to object to it at the time. Which it seems like you did, but it's not on me that Aymatth2 made the changes anyway. It's not like anyone else objected to it in the last two months either. So I'm not really sure why your even bringing it up here after the fact. It's not the Flickr account of the Latvian postal service where Materialscientist got the images doesn't say they are rights reserved either.
Like you say, none of us read Lativan or really know the law, but we can all see what the copyright status of the images are based on information we have at hand from the postal services official Flickr account. Maybe you can nitpick not enough people were involved in the conversation before the guideline was changed, but the source of the images says what it says and there's zero evidence that its wrong. Or should we just ignore that even though it's an official source that we have zero reason to doubt and allow Materialscientist to continue uploading clearly copyrighted images of the stamps just because you don't like the tone of me pointing it out? BTW, just an FYI but the main reason I nominated the Lativan stamps for deletion was because of the source saying they were all rights reserved, not because of the guideline. So be my guest and ignore it if you think Aymatth2 went about it the wrong or whatever. I could really care less because it doesn't change the fact that source of the images says they are copyrighted. Which Materialscientist ignored when he uploaded the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Materialscientist might have believed the previous version of our guidance. Those pages are often rough approximations of the copyright situation, so uploading a file despite those pages saying they are copyrighted is often OK. Doing that when the source says they are copyrighted requires you to have a good basis for not believing it, and if Materialscientist saw our guidance, they should have stated their opinion on it. But if they read the previous version and missed the change, then I cannot blame them. –LPfi (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd have zero problem with that. Except the reason Latvian stamps were supposedly in the public domain was because official symbols and signs are, which you should know from the conversation about stamps of Finland has never held water. In fact, there's been multiple DR conversations having to do with stamps of other countries that Materialscientist was involved in where the images were deleted by administrators because it wasn't valid. So even if I grant you that he missed the article being changed, he still knew before then that the original reason stamps of Latvia were supposedly PD didn't hold any weight since at that point multiple administrators had already told him as much. Hell, I even told him multiple times that it wasn't valid. Seriously, how many times does someone have to hear something from multiple people and ignore it before it's OK to assume their just acting willfully ignorant about the guidelines? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading, User:Adamant1 is asking that User:Materialscientist receive an administrative warning for not having noticed a change to our understanding of the copyright on Latvian postage stamps. That isn't going to happen. Can we close this thread? - Jmabel ! talk 15:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for a warning because User:Materialscientist repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images of stamps over multiple years (99.99% of them aren't even Latvian stamps BTW!) and continued doing it even after I asked him to be more careful. Including recently uploading images of Lativian stamps from the official Flickr account of the Lativian postal service where the it clearly states the images are "all rights reserved." That's what I want him to receive a warning for.
The thing about him not noticing the guideline changed recently is just a red herring to distract from the fact that the source where he got the images from, which again is the Lativian postal services official Flickr account, says they are copyrighted. It also distracts from the multiple years of him doing it and the fact that he blew me off when I asked him to be more careful about it. That said, go ahead and close this since it's pretty clear no one is going to actually address why I opened it. I'll just open another one in a year when he's still uploading copyrighted images because no one wants deal with it now for whatever reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Your concerns in copyright-related matters are welcome. This, however, should be handled through the well-known processes. You are wondering why “no one wants to deal with it now” but you failed to present actionable evidence. Please do not “just open another one in a year” like this one without presenting a proper case with compelling evidence. Your final comment implies a lot of bad faith if you assume that you have to come back here within a year. Instead, please assume good faith instead. There are challenging discussions about copyright-related matters all the time. Law, case law and legal opinions can change. Older uploads and honest mistakes should not lead to openings at this board. And a statement “all rights reserved” can be null and void if the material is already in the public domain or was previously released under a unrevocable free license. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
should be handled through the well-known processes. You mean the multiple DRs that have already occurred and the conversation I had with him already? Or are you talking about other "well-known processes" that I haven't made clear already took place and didn't do anything? I'm more then willing to handle it through other avenues, but I've already handled it through the channels I'm aware of they and weren't effective, which is why I brought it here. So what other avenues are there besides DRs, asking the person to stop, and ANU complaints if they don't?
As to your second point, You can look through his talk page and see that there's at least a couple of images a month (if not more) that are deleted as COPYVIO. Including plenty of recent examples. Also, I have zero problem with people making honest mistakes. That's why I talked to him about it first and waited a year while he kept doing it before I reported him. So I'm not really sure what your talking about. The fact is that I went out of my way to allow him to make mistakes and correct them before I opened this. Lastly, Sure, images "could" have previously been in the public domain or whatever. But there's zero evidence of that being the case with the Latvian stamps. Whereas, the source of the images says they are "all rights reserved." Which one sounds more likely to you, that the images are copyrighted because the Flickr account says they are or that they are in the public domain due to some non-exiting evidence that they were previously released under an irrevocable free license? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
That's patently false. "All rights reserved" reserved has nothing to do with the page the file is being hosted on. What it days mean is that "you retain all rights provided by copyright law." That's why it has the word "all" in it. Even if went with your definition of it supposedly "often" means though what evidence do you have of it being how the Latvian postal service meant it in this case? (And no, random Russian websites that have nothing to do with the discussion aren't evidence).Although if it was specific to the specific page the images are being hosted on I think that undercuts your own argument since you got the images from a page that says "all rights reserved" on it, which just goes to show how nonsensical your arguement is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
You've missed the entire point: ukrposhta.ua, kazpost.kz and rusmarka.ru are the official websites of the national posts dedicated to distribution of postmarks and maintained by the governments (the Latvian flickr account is also official, but it uses third-party platform, flickr, which limits the choice of licenses, and this has been a major problem for Commons in case of CC0 tags). Anyway, all these websites do place the "All rights reserved" note on the pages presenting their stamps, but this does not mean we can not host these stamps on Commons, at least for Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. This "blanket copyright of the entire website" is a general situation that applies to many websites like getty and npg.org.uk, but does not mean we can't use their images. Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not that I missed the point, it's that I asked specific question about the images you downloaded, which aren't Russian stamps and don't come from ukrposhta.ua, kazpost.kz or rusmarka.ru. You clearly can't just answer the question though because there's zero evidence the images you downloaded from the Latvian postal services' Flickr account are in the public domain. Look, at the end of the day this is pretty simple, either there's evidence the images are public domain or there isn't. That's it. So why not just answer the question instead of doing the vague handwaving about general situations that maybe sorta might apply to some websites in certain situations or whatever?
Really, the fact that you need to cite 5 other websites, as many countries, and couch everything your saying in multiple disclaimers about how what your saying "might, maybe, could, perhaps generally apply to other websites" really just goes to show why I started this ANU complaint. Same goes for your completely ridiculous claim that the "all rights reserved" licenses where you downloaded the images from is for the website in general and not the specific images. You know full well that's completely untrue and that the licenses apply to the images only, not the Flickr website in general. And to think people dragged me in defense of such transparent nonsense SMH. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Again: there is clearly not going to be any administrative action here. If you both want to argue with each other, please take it somewhere else. There is no reason to continue this on this noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk 05:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done I am officially closing this. As Jmabel pointed out, this is no longer a case for discussion on this page. Please use a bit of AGF per AFBorchert, when discussing this elsewhere. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_105&oldid=770758632"