Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 102

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

User:طاهور الدريبي

Uploading out-of-scope files after several warnings. Apparent sock of User:فهد احمد عبدالله * Pppery * it has begun... 18:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, and one sock blocked indef. Yann (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: They've come back as User:محمد الحمديه ‎ * Pppery * it has begun... 01:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Next sock: User:مسفر علواني. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

user:Davey2010 continuing to make uncivil remarks after trying to resolve dispute peacefully

Open-and-shut case, nothing to do here. Dronebogus (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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

I traded blows with this user, quickly regretted it, tried to admit fault, and the user is continuing to attack me. Dronebogus (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus, I apologise for my comments towards you at the DR and I appreciate your comment on my talkpage as well as you removing that entire section at the DR. I simply don't appreciate my comments being called "nonsensical" - No matter how daft someones comment is calling it nonsensical doesn't help anyone, Anyway I apologise for what I had said. Have a great 2023. –Davey2010Talk 22:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Datopaduka

Datopaduka (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is uploading numerous photos of political personalities claiming they are his own works. This is unlikely since they looks like official portraits and they do not have META data to prove the uploader is the source. I have already warned him and flagged some of those photos for deletion but they are too numerous. All photos from this user without META should be deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Olusola David, Ayibiowu

I've opened a DR for some files of user:Olusola David, Ayibiowu because they're IMHO out of scope, self promotion and spam. What I received were comments as follows: "User:Ganímedes. It's just evil and wicked. Trying to take power in his own hand." "This Volunteer Response Team who selected all this files for Deletion request is irresponsible, selfish, authoritarian volunteers who handle queries for his own personal interest,gain and self reputation.Who is sarcarstically and mentally disturbed and not qualify to be among the Volunteers Response Team on Wikimedia Commons", and a long list of etc. Ganímedes (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Now he continues with @Yann: , [1]. The insults through VRT (ticket:2023010210001879) were just yesterday and then stop (thanks God). --Ganímedes (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Please block sockpuppets

With reference to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fenrk/Archive, all of the above are CU-confirmed on enwiki and require no further CheckUser action, per @Elcobbola and @Krd. Elizium23 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done All blocked, and all files deleted, except 2 with EXIF data. Yann (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:202.75.86.157

Sockpuppet of User:Abcdefghixx, making vandalistic deletion requests of photos of Hong Kong as usual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Account ✓ blocked. Edits already reverted. --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Salebot8

Just for the record: I've indef'd Salebot8 (talk · contribs) as vandalism-only account for their massive vandalism of File:Microsoft Edge logo (2019).svg. --Túrelio (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Successor-IP 188.162.254,245q also blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Poya shamsi

Poya shamsi (talk · contribs) is making legal threats on File talk:Molavi Abdul Hamid in Iranian Presidential center.jpg Lemonaka (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It's strange that he claim to be the photographer, when Tasnim agency, from where it was taken, mentions another photographer[2]. --Túrelio (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy tagging by Εὐθυμένης

Εὐθυμένης is a very prolific tagger of copyright violations, especially logos. While their efforts are appreciated, many of their speedy taggings are inappropriate:

I (along with other admins) have raised these issues several times on their talk page, but they have not engaged or attempted to correct their behavior. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: I think that when proposing a large number of files for deletion, a number of them can be indeed by mistake tagged as something that they're not or propose them for deletion when they shouldn't. The only solution that I can see here is for to me lower the rhythm/speed of my deletion proposals, so that I can avoid any such mistakes. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering what your workflow actually looks like. The two personal photos I mentioned above were in Category:Logos, so I assume you were looking in that category for potential violations. But how could you not immediately tell from the thumbnail that they are not actually logos? Obviously, these two specific photos don't matter, I speedied them under COM:CSD#F10 anyways, but what worries me is that a process that could lead you to tag such photos as {{Logo}} is inevitably going to result in many more mistakes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Indeed, I'm mainly looking in this category (due to its actual size I always start from some specific letter), as well as the category "Undefined logos", as well as more specific categories, where there might be files with problematic copyrights status. However, I'm mainly checking most of the time the categories "Logos" and "Undefined logos". 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
One other case: I just found that you tagged an image which has already been LicensedReviewed (File:ELECTORES.jpg). In general, you should never speedy any image which has been previously endorsed by a trusted user (admin, license reviewer, or VRTS agent) in any way, including if they 1) close a DR as "keep"; 2) decline a speedy tag; 3) add a LicenseReview tag; or 4) add a VRTS tag. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Normally, when proposing and upon the opening of the pop-up window a notification would appear informing me that a discussion already took place regarding the file in question. Such thing I did not encounter in this case, otherwise, of course, I would have taken it into consideration and not proceed with any actual deletion proposal given that it was already kept in the past. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 10:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Such a pop-up won't appear in all cases mentioned by King of Hearts. --Leyo 12:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
A month later I find a lot of logos in speedy list where the uploader name partially matches the copyright owner. I do not think it is appropriate to use speedy in these cases since we might assume that the uploader possibly owns the copyright, and should give them a chance to prove this. The purpse of deletions is not to "punish" people for not being careful enough. grin ✎ 20:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed the tagging with {{Logo}} and the speedy-deletion of File:Logo Yverdon Sport FC.png. This logo is clearly not above the TOO in Switzerland, especially when considering that one part is based on the (historic) coat of armes. Reading the above, I reserve the option to block the user if they do not change their approach and again clearly incorrectly tag logos. An inaccurate way of working creates extra work for others as well as frustration. --Leyo 08:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Leyo: Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but to me it looks/looked mostly like a modern recreation/adaptation of the historic coat of arms rather than a reproduction of the original ones. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 10:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you are wrong concerning the TOO. Please leave out Swiss logos then. --Leyo 12:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

User:ALDELONEPÍPOL appears to be an SPA uploading bizarre and offensive imagery without obvious reasoning

Their fist and only upload was an AI generated artwork depicting Joe Biden with a scantily clad clearly underage girl in w:lolicon style. I can’t think of any reason to upload such a thing beyond defamation and/or pure vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done File deleted, user warned. Yann (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Their first and only upload was an obscene AI generated artwork depicting Gabe Newell. Possibly related--Trade (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus

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

Personal attack here, and non admin closure on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Benlisquare to push his point. Yann (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack. Dronebogus (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
You are free to debate the closure but your own record of out-of-order closes isn’t exactly clean. Dronebogus (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dronebogus, accusing another user of "hatred" and immediately calling for "should be de-mopped" is an inappropriate PA. One can disagree in a civilized manner. --Túrelio (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, fair, I can tone it down. But it’s tedious that this had to end up at ANU this fast over something so minor. Dronebogus (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
But while we’re here I’d like Yann to politely explain why he has such an intense opposition to erotic art made by an AI and also refrain from closing any more AI related deletion requests since his closes aren’t very neutral. Maybe it was fair to delete the wall of anime AI pics as OOS but baselessly saying “AI erotic content is not welcome” is about as far from a competent closing message as it’s possible to be. Dronebogus (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This is not something minor. This is a huge violation of the Commons:Deletion requests guideline. The guideline says:
"Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. If in doubt, don't do it."
As there were several votes on keep or delete the file. this is definitely not a "not controversial" case. GPSLeo (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
You’re right. Dronebogus (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I won’t make obviously controversial closes again. I’ve toned down the comments about Yann. I’ve opened a separate discussion about Yann’s aforementioned behavior so this discussion can be closed. Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
You might want to take a pause from the AI deletion requests while this 'situation' calms down Trade (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It shouldn't be controversial to close that as "no deletion" as Dronebogus did. Their rationale was right, this wasn't an "absolute keep" for these images, it was more a question of "This bulk DR is too broad and too broken to stand. If it's to be done, it needs to be done on more specific bases." That much is a regular, procedural issue and should be far from controversial. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes but it was out of order. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I mean I don't agree with the tone of Dronebogus's "PA" but they have a point - Where was the consensus to Delete them?, Zundark's comment was enough to speedy keep the DR,
Also we all on this very platform sing from the same hythm sheet "INUSE = Instant Keep" .... so why has INUSE been ignored here ?, Zendark made it clear the file was being used yet was ignored .... Why?. –Davey2010Talk 18:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
You should probably repost that to the undelete request. Dronebogus (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Done. And before someone picks me up on the above comment - Maybe the only inuse files were kept and the deleted ones weren't inuse.... however logic says if the kept files have value then so would the deleted files ?. –Davey2010Talk 18:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

THIAGOW13

THIAGOW13 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) have uploaded [4 pictures] as "own work". However, the images are obviously not own work since they are historic images. I have then tagged them as missing source. So, the user simply reverted my edits, taking out the tags. I then reverted them and notify them about it in their talk page. They then simply ignored and removed all my notifications from their talkpage and again untagged the images. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've retagged them as {{PD-old-assumed}}. As long as we have no reason to doubt that they are really from the 19th century, we don't need a source since they are automatically PD due to age. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts But you'll let it source as "own work"? This is obviously not own work. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
That needs to be fixed. But as long as we have enough information to conclude that a file is freely licensed, incorrect information in the description is not a reason to delete the file, but a reason to fix the description. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts Thanks for your answer. So, in these cases, what is your suggestion? Should I try to find the source? Let it be? Anything else? Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 14:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Kacamata In the case of Clemens_August_Lehmkuhl.jpg for example, it seems that the files comes from a family archive (obra familiar), so the correct source tag could be {{Family archive}} or even {{Own scan}}. Ruthven (msg) 15:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts and @Ruthven Thank you both. You've been both very helpful. I'll take note of this for the future. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Spam

Aounzia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Repeadetly uploading images advertising himself --Trade (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. All uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Yann, violation of Commons:File renaming, threatening by block and other issues with abusing the admin rights

I skipped several months of contributing here (I did my last edit on September 6th) since I faced a very disappointing situation about clearly not-following Commons:Policies and guidelines by User:Yann. This user made a renaming of File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg to File:Flag of the Slonim County (1764-1792).jpg without providing any valid reason for it [3], and providing the reason for renaming is obviously required by Commons:File renaming. When I asked politely about the renaming reason the user called me a troll and threatened to block (everyone can read this conversation here: User talk:Yann/archives 51#Renaming File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg. In the meantime, I can't find any direct problem statement about the original filename by any user. This name was in Belarusian language (as a depiction of Belarusian historical emblem, took from the book of Belarusian professional heraldist) and the file is still in use in the correspondent article be-tarask:Пагоня in the Belarusian Wikipedia. On the other hand, the new file name is totally misleading since it is based on some amateurish original research, not on the reliable sources or some sound and clear evidence, which is quite clear from uninvolved user's comments in this discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Files with clearly misleading names. I have also been informed about some other issues with administrative actions by User:Yann (like selective blocking of just one side of the edit war conflict and this blocked side wasn't an initiator of the edit war), that don't concern me directly, but I believe should also be discussed here. But first I would like to make sure, that the Commons:Policies and guidelines are not just a nice declaration and such requests are not wasting of my time. Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This is part of a large ongoing dispute regarding many files. There is also many people involved. The DR speaks for itself. Pinging other people involved: @Pofka, Лобачев Владимир, Adamant1, and Marcelus: . Yann (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Since you took an admin action here, I would like to see you exploration of renaming the file (according to Commons:File renaming) as well as calling me a troll and threatening to block me. The mentioned disruptive DR (the only purpose of which as well as many similar ones was harassments of the users with long constructive contribution history) has nothing to do directly with your clear abusing the admin rights. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe that we should name the files as in the source from which the image is taken. Questions about how to properly name an image should be on Wikipedia. Renaming disputed files contrary to the source, only guided by the opinion of one user, is wrong. This can lead to edit wars, which has already happened. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, an administrator is involved within an ongoing edit war, as I mentioned via Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Dont remove warnings, is that panorama dynamically happened? if so then I'd love to seek whether opening a de-adminship request for Yann. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Please finally permanently block Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев Владимир to end this constant trolling mess. These two users have caused enough chaos here and continues to do so. Users @Ke an: , @Cukrakalnis: also noticed their malicious activity in Lithuanian affairs. I have requested this many times already and when finally they were rightfully warned and even blocked for trolling in Lithuania-related affairs – they now request to take sanctions against administrator Yann who rightfully taken actions against their malicious activity. Yann has done nothing wrong and should not be persecuted for taking actions against aggressive Russian/Belarusian trolls (Russia and Belarus are waging aggressive information war against NATO/Western countries and Ukraine). The mentioned file was rightfully renamed with support by other users in a well-motivated nomination (e.g. see arguments by @Guido den Broeder: ). The only strictly opposing users were Kazimier Lachnovič (who call Lithuanians as rubbish, see: 1, 2, 3, so as already mentioned many times – he is not a trustworthy person in Lithuanian affairs as he demonstrates enormous nationalistic hatred towards Lithuania and Lithuanians) and Лобачев Владимир (he was recently blocked for trolling in Lithuanian affairs and continues trolling immediately after his return). They closely collaborate as they together participate in discussions and seek trolling-related goals and now they even try to mislead other users to take actions against an administrator who rightfully taken actions against their malicious activity. They were warned already to stop trolling and misleading other users, but since they are becoming even more aggressive – I cannot see any other solutions than applying even stricter sanctions against them (preferably, permanent block as clearly they will not learn and they are here to troll). As you can see, they are trolling and seeking their goals even during the biggest festivities of the year (likely they are paid trolls). So merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you! Don't feed the trolls – block them. -- Pofka (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked 6 months for Kazimier Lachnovič, and indef for Лобачев Владимир (because he was recently blocked 3 months on Commons, and is blocked indef on Russian Wikipedia for vandalism/trolling). --A.Savin 02:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Thanks for taking actions against trolling. I noticed that user Kazimier Lachnovič currently has filemover rights in Wikimedia Commons, but I believe such privilege should be reserved only for users with unquestionable reputation as it allows access to quite sensitive actions. Since Kazimier Lachnovič's behaviour is problematic in a long-term maybe this privilege should be revoked? What's your opinion, A.Savin and @Yann: ? -- Pofka (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
+1. I agree. Yann (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, probably should be revoked too. --A.Savin 14:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
What the hell is going on here? Almost half of all articles are on my watchlist in the Belarusian section. And so when the file name changes, I almost always see it. Kazimier has done a titanic job of renaming Belarusian-related files over a long period of time, doing it with responsible use of sources, a unitary approach and the simultaneous use of both the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets, which is typical of the Belarusian language. I never wrote this to him, but I have always been grateful for his professionalism in this matter and for his painstaking improvement of Wikipedia and Commons. There is a long overdue problem in Wikimedia Commons when the transliteration of Belarusian names is done from Russian, although according to Belarusian law this must be done from Belarusian. And yes, I understand that Belarusian laws are not a decree here, but the conditional Pahonja (Belarusian transliteration) is in Belarusian sources, but Pogonya (Russian transliteration) is unlikely to be found. Because of this problem and the preponderance of Russian-oriented users, constant conflicts arise that lead to some incomprehensible grievances and accusations of pro-Belarusian participants in trolling. I am severely disappointed by the blocking of such an experienced and hardworking participant without proper discussion, clarification of the opinion of interested users, and even for such a completely barbaric period. This is disgusting and undermines the credibility of the adequacy of the administrators of this place. I demand a trial of non-affiliated administrators, unblocking and making a public apology to Kazimier. Where has it been seen that a person asked for help, he definitely wanted the situation to be sorted out objectively and accurately (typical behavior of a troll, yeah), and he was blocked for half a year for this !!! I have seen everything in fifteen years on Wikipedia, but this has not yet come across ...--Хомелка (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
If you are admin on another project why do not you login and sign your reply properly? Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't sign just out of inattention, corrected--Хомелка (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
And btw a Belatusian law is a law of a criminal terrorist state. Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Do not bring to the point of absurdity. I do not urge to act according to Belarusian laws. I just note that the transliteration of proper names in Belarus is done in this way. And they are used in authoritative sources. Yes, people will be able to use the search normally.--Хомелка (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
How relevant are such statements to discussed problem? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Not relevant, but they should not have brought here as an argument at all. Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm "non-affiliated" here too. But I'm watchlisting ANU and know both users as "permanent guests" here since months, so definitely someday something had to be done to stop this. --A.Savin 17:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
IP 178.124.160.120 is located in Minsk (and it is the first edit from this IP in Commons), so it is located in the same place as Kazimier Lachnovič (according to his English Wikipedia's userpage). Consequently, it is likely that he is abusing sockpuppetry to whitewash himself here... -- Pofka (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I was in in Minsk, where, by the way, the population is almost 2 million people,and did not see that I was not logged in. We, you know, in Minsk sometimes have to do this, because we live "under the hood", but here I am correcting myself and signing all my messages, including this one.--Хомелка (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Back to the topic. The dispute is weather the Russian oder Belarusian transliteration of places in Belarus should be used? And the currently banned user moved the files from the Russian to the Belarusian transliteration?
If this is the case I do not see a problem here because we generally name places by how to majority of people living there call them. Or if existing by the English name. GPSLeo (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
No, the problem is long-term seriously problematic behavior which includes unlimited edit-warring, personal attacks, and trolling. Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, and what with renaming of File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg to File:Flag of the Slonim County (1764-1792).jpg without providing any valid reason for it [4]?--Хомелка (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
There was a deletion request which is linked to in the first message of this thread and which was closed as rename. You can disagree with the decision, but saying "no valid reason" is a misrepresentation of the situation. Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Just my opinion as someone who has been at the butt end of exactly the type of behavior Kazimier Lachnovič reported Yann for. There's clearly a problem with how Yann handles things and it's pretty obvious he's abusing his admin privileges in this case, if not others. I don't really feel like dealing with the birgading, intimidation tactics, personal attacks, and other nonsense that I can guarantee him, Guido den Broeder, Pofka, and their cronies will inevitably come after me with for speaking out about it though. That said, the two blocks I received from him are perfect examples of him abusing his administrator privileges for his, Pofka, And Guido den Broeder's benefit. TLDR though, Yann made up false accusations that I did things after receiving warnings not to do them in order to justify blocking me so he could "win" a couple of disputes we were having at the time. Including the whole thing with Pofka, Guido den Broeder, and the renaming of files.
100% the first block was meant to intimidate me away from discussions involving the renaming of files though. Guido den Broeder even made it clear before Yann blocked me that he was trying to get me blocked over the disagreement I got in with Pofka. Then Yann blocked me just because I wrote Guido den Broeder a message in an ANU complaint. I don't know how that can be interpreted any other way then Yann using was his admins tools to do Guido den Broeder and Pofka's dirty work. It wasn't something that I should have been blocked for regardless though. Same goes for the second block. Hell, you can completely take the nonsense with Guido den Broeder and Pofka out of this and Yann is still extremely careless and abusive in how he uses the admin tools. He totally uses them to his benefit. That said, there's no doubt he's using the admin tools to benefit Pofka and Guido den Broeder in edit wars. Personally, I was a pretty productive user until he and Guido den Broeder repeatedly came after me. Now I don't even contribute anymore because I'm to scared of Yann and Guido den Broeder coming after me over a petty personal vendetta again. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User IulianaIvanov

IulianaIvanov (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Only uploads copyvio logos and photos from website. I warned him and submitted his uploads for deletion. I let any administrator decide if more is needed. Pierre cb (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Already warned, file deleted. Yann (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Prasadkarhad

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

Prasadkarhad has uploaded three blatant copyright violations. I'm just putting this here in case anything more than "speedy deletion" needs to be done. I dream of horses (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

UR-Rh

UR-Rh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) keeps adding the permission template on this file he uploaded. The problems with the permission have not been resolved yet (the user doesn't provide the necessary info to the VRT agent). In addition he used a sock puppet on the file and in regards to the permission. XenonX3 (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Sock blocked indef. Yann (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

MadroDragon

MadroDragon (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) persists in uploading copyvios despite being warned to don't upload, insists on taking photos of any site. Taichi (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

BeeSpeed1989

BeeSpeed1989 (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) Repeatedly uploading copyvio of the game Roblox, engaging in personal attacks, editing the comments of editors. I think limited timeout might be necessary.--Trade (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

They don't seem to have been warned. @BeeSpeed1989: You have edited other people's comments on discussions. (1, 2). This is not acceptable behavior; please do not continue it. Additionally, you do not have the right to prevent your files from being deleted if warranted, or to mandate how closing admins close deletion requests. Please see COM:Screenshots for more information about copyrights of screenshots, and COM:L for more about copyrights generally. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately i could not find the correct template to warn him Trade (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

188.162.254,245q

188.162.254,245q (talk · contribs) is creating something outside scope and has a misleading username. Lemonaka (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I do not see a problem with the username but with the upload of copyvios and vandalisms. Blocked for a week. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a misleading name for 188.162.254.245 Lemonaka (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I am aware of the closeness of the username to IP addresses but I still think that this username can be easily distinguished from an IP address due to the “q” suffix. Hence, I do not see a violation of COM:UPOL here. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@AFBorchert Now locked, we can archive the case Lemonaka (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Alterbulat

Alterbulat (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  new set of copyvios after multiple warnings and a long-term block. Xunks (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 6 months, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alterbulat‎. More files need review. Yann (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I nominated all pictures for deletion. EXIF data for File:Магомед Даудов с Рамзаном Кадыровым.jpg and File:Магомед Даудов в ЛНР.jpg are not recognized as valid by Chrome EXIF Viewer Pro extension. Anyway pictures of the same guy was deleted as copyvio (see talk page). Yann (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Violation of warning by Pofka

Pofka (talk · contribs)

A few months back there was dispute between Pofka and another user Лобачев Владимир in relation to some supposedly "imaginary" flags, which I don't really feel like getting into because it isn't really relevant to the report. Except to say that on 27 August 2022 Yann left a message on Pofka's user page saying "stay away from anything (files and board) related to Лобачев Владимир." In the meantime, Pofka has nominated two files that were uploaded by Лобачев Владимир for deletion, File:Seal of duke Skirgaila -1386.svg and File:Coat of arms of Lithuania (1990–1991).svg. Which is clearly a violation of the recommendation/warning to stay away from Лобачев Владимир's files.

As a side to that, the dispute about "fake flags" or whatever clearly wasn't resolved by Yann just blocking and/or otherwise silencing one side of the dispute. So more is clearly needed here. Although, I'll leave it up to others to decide what if any action should be taken. But being extremely authoritarian towards one side of a dispute while letting the other side act however they want with impunity clearly isn't an effective way to resolve disputes. At least not in this case since it's still going on 5 months later. If Yann really cared about the whole thing being settled then Pofka should face the same exact consequences as people on the other side of the disagreement. Like being blocked. More so since he has already been warned not to screw with Лобачев Владимир's files. Seriously, how much rope is he going to be given before he faces consequences for his actions? Adamant1 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: You are mistaken. See my comments in the deletion requests. Yann (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The files were nominated for deletion after user Лобачев Владимир was blocked indefinitely for trolling and long-term abuse. Being Lithuanian myself, I cannot ignore clearly distorted Coats of arms of Lithuania when I encounter them in Commons categories, so I requested to evaluate them according to the Commons procedures (namely COM:NOTHOST). I do not create distorted national symbols of other countries and do not troll by doing so. -- Pofka (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
A warning is a warning, and you violated it. You can't just use your national identity or the fact that the person was blocked for trolling as an excuse to do something an administrator told you not to or to otherwise break the rules. Get real dude. Whatever the deal with the flags is, someone else who wasn't warned to leave the users files alone should have nominated them for deletion. Period. It's ridiculous to act like your the only person who could have done it "Because Lithuanian" or whatever. In no other instance would it be OK for someone to ignore a warning and then cite their nationality as a reason. the images being distortions and you violating the warning aren't mutually exclusive, though. Just like someone can be in an edit war, but it's still an edit war, obviously. You can't just say it's fine for you to edit war someone after being warned about it because your Lithuanian. Get real dude.
I encourage anyone to look at the clearly overly authoritarian way the other side of the dispute has been treated compared to the kid gloves being used on Pofka. Yann blocked me for a week a month ago simply for responding to a message Guido den Broeder wrote me and I wasn't even warned not to talk to him. Where as in this case he could apparently care less that Pofka did something he told him not to. 100% I couldn't have just gotten out of the block by citing that I'm American and saying Guido den Broeder was blocked on other projects or whatever. Come on. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW, apparently Yann and Pofka copied and pasted the exact comments into the two deletion requests. I guess they couldn't even be bothered to come up with a reason why the images should be deleted outside of doing the same handwaving about Лобачев Владимир's behavior in other projects in both DRs. It's pretty obvious both of them are just in this to push a pro-Lithuanian POV that is specifically targeting Лобачев Владимир for some reason and don't really care about the actual details or if images should ultimately be kept or not. How is that at all acceptable? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. Adamant has a point, as he well explained. Yann warned Pofka and Pofka violated the warning. So I blocked Pofka for a week. Also I will close one DR as kept. Taivo (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
But @Taivo, the person who issued the warning, Yann, said that Adamant1's statement is mistaken [5]. If the person who issued the warning (Yann) is against the warned person (Pofka) being punished, why should he be punished? It's illogical to block Pofka in this case. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Taivo In case you didn't see what Adamant1 wrote in another section before, Adamant1 accused Yann, Pofka and Guido den Broeder of working together to push a Lithuanian nationalist POV [6], but this is impossible considering that most of them aren't even connected in any way to Lithuania - Yann is French and Guido den Broeder is Dutch. How on earth can there be Dutch or French Lithuanian nationalists? This makes zero sense. Adamant1 is slandering others. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Just to add for the record, Adamant1 also twice assumed me to be kind of a meatpuppet of Pofka, probably just because I had closed an ANU opened by Pofka not the way Adamant1 would like. --A.Savin 19:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think me saying Pofka was playing defense for you or otherwise acting like your spokesperson at all insinuates he's your meatpuppet. Just that he answered the question about why you blocked Лобачев Владимир for you, which he clearly did. That doesn't mean I think you asked him to answer it though, and I never claimed otherwise. Regardless though, it's not that unreasonable of me to expect the person I ask a the question to answer it themselves. Especially if they are an administrator. There's zero legitimate reason Pofka had to give his opinion. Especially since Yann told him not to stay away from conversations involving Лобачев Владимир. Which I assume would include him leaving messages on Лобачев Владимир's talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

MRCLD's behaviour

Hello All,

Since several weeks, the user @MRCLD: is cropping pictures right and left without giving any explanation, and does not respond to any message on his discussion wall. I think it desorganises the encyclopedia. Is it a legitimate motive to ask an administrator to step in, and to assess the situation?

As an example, I can cite file:Robert Faurisson en 2014 (cropped).png or [7] or file:Daniel Filipacchi en 1958 (cropped).jpg but nearly all the contributions have the same purpose.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Best regards, CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no problem for File:Robert_Faurisson_en_2014_(cropped).png and File:Daniel_Filipacchi_en_1958_(cropped).jpg. I warned MRCLD about COM:OVERWRITE. Yann (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@CoffeeEngineer: You are required to inform a user when you report them here, which I did for you now. Yann (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. Yann warned the user. I closed multiple DR-s as deleted. At moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Valdinho777

On Dec. 15, 2022, Valdinho777 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) was given a final warning by Tulério. However, they kept uploading unfree images. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User:RalfMateus11

RalfMateus11 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Seeing his discussion page, I think after uploading this file he should blocked indef. Stepro (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Blocked indef, for a serious personality-rights violation against a living person (en:Tarja Turunen), by upload of above linked attack-image and inserting it in 3 articles on :pt[8], in addition to the upload of numerous copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Italyoz484

Italyoz484 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) is a user that I feel is a likely sock of Mazum24 as they have been doing the exact same reverts and unhelpful AI colorizations of images and tornadoes. Can someone confirm this or at least provide input on my opinion? Thanks, CutlassCiera 19:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Adamant1

Adamant1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hi, Could someone please block this user for harassment, several of edits on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems? Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume your referring to my comment that "@Yann (A), @Pofka, and @Guido den Broeder are working together to push a Lithuanian nationalist POV." I'll copy and paste my rational for that below this. Anyone can tell me where it's wrong and I'll correct it and apologize. I also replied to the comment made by A.Savin that I said he was a meatpuppet of Pofka or whatever. Hopefully it clarifies things. Obviously I don't want to make any spurious accusations of COI editing or whatever that aren't backed up by evidence. I'm also more then willing to provide diffs to support anything I've said if you want me to provide them. I'd be interested to know what exactly you or anyone else disputes about my version of events though since I think it's a pretty reasonable summary of how things happened.
"In the ANU complaint I filed below this Pofka literally said "Being Lithuanian myself, I cannot ignore clearly distorted Coats of arms of Lithuania when I encounter them in Commons categories." So he's clearly doing pro-lithuanian editing. In the meantime, there has multiple ANU complaints where Guido den Broeder tried to have me blocked because I voted to keep lithuanian flags that had been uploaded by Лобачев Владимир, which Pofka at the time was claiming were hoaxes. Guido den Broeder also made it clear he was trying to get me blocked because I voted several times to have Pofka blocked. So again, that's literally their positions. Both of them have made it clear that they are doing pro-Lithuanian edits and have came after people (well mainly me) for getting in their way. They have also repeatedly done it together. In the same DRs and ANU complaints.
In the meantime Yann has had multiple opportunities to block Pofka for his role in the whole thing, which no who is being half good faithed about this is going to argue has been 100% above board. Instead though Yann has repeatedly sided with Pofka and Guido den Broeder while being extremely harsh toward the other side. You can just look to the ANU complaint I opened below this, where it took Taivo to block Pofka for violating the warning that Yann gave him. Same goes for Yann blocked me for a week simply for replying to Guido den Broeder. Does that mean they are working behind the scenes together as paid actors or something? No, of course not. But they are clearly working together and in a way that favors pro-Lithuanian edits. Literally everything having to do with this somehow involves the three of them and they always side with each other. Period. That's on them for not being more neutral in how they handled things. Especially Yann. He had multiple opportunities to handle this in a more neutral, fair way and didn't."
Just to support the part about Guido den Broeder, I encourage everyone to read his comments in both User_problems/Archive_Pofka:_falsification_of_the_file_name and User_problems/Archive_99#File:Flag_of_the_Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania_1792.svg_and_User:Pofka, especially toward me. Dude clearly has an axe to grind with me for some reason. I see no other reason why he would except for the Lithuanian flag/Pofka thing. Since I don't think I've dealt with him anywhere outside of that. Just to give one quote from him "you're the one bothering Pofka, not the other way around. So all you need to do to stay out of it is, well, stay out of it." He also claimed that Лобачев Владимир and Kazimier Lachnovič were filing frivolous complaints against Pofka to "silence the opposition" and then went on to advocate for blocking literally everyone on the other side of the argument. Either way, Guido den Broeder hasn't been shy about the fact that he's purely working on Pofka's side and in support of pro-lithuanian editing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you are wrong. Deducing that Pofka "push(es) a Lithuanian nationalist POV" just because he is Lithuanian is slander. Same for your accusation against A.Savin. I have no interest in Lithuanian issues. But I block trolls, vandals and PoV pushers when I see them. Yann (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Yann diffs? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Adamant1 provided some above. Otherwise see [9]. Yann (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Here's the thing, Yann. The ANU complaints where I made the statements specifically had to do you with your behavior and your the one who originally pinged me to get my opinion. Otherwise, I haven't had anything to do with you. Nor have I accused you of anything outside of ANU that I'm aware of. Hell, I haven't even filed a COI complaint against or anything over this. Even though I probably could have. According to Commons:Harassment "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." So where exactly have I shown a "pattern of repeated offensive behavior" that intentionally targeted you? Because making an observation about how your acting in a discussion that was specifically about that isn't "a pattern of repeated behavior." Nor is it intentionally targeting you.
Again, I've had nothing do with you outside of this and your the one who pinged me to get my opinion about the whole thing. Otherwise I would have had nothing to do with you or the ANU complaints. So how exactly is me making a couple of statements that were perfectly within the context of the discussion and that you asked me to provide harassment? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

ADOAAODA

ADOAAODA (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has been uploading photographs of politicians with incomplete or incorrect source information, and has repeatedly removed problem tags despite being asked not to, and in some cases, they have added fake license review templates: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], pretending to be Wilfredor. The user has not engaged in any discussions so I feel like this is the only course of action. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Blocked on the spot for adding faked LR-tags[15]. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I would like to confirm that this user is not me --Wilfredor (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

CatseyeTaku

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

A long history of copyvio uploading, with a lot of warnings on talk page. Lemonaka (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Roy17

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

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

Recreation of deleted files

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

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

Abusing multiple accounts

Redarm (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Tuttybet (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , both with a history of mass copyvio uploads, re-uploading immediately after deletion: e.g., [16]. Xunks (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a current hierarchy: Category:Frank Welker → Category:Frank Welker characters‎ → Category:Scooby-Doo (character)‎ → Category:Scooby-Doo interpreters‎ → Category:Frank Welker → …
With regards to the film location edits, like removing Category:Buckingham Palace from the parent category Category:Film locations of Peter Rabbit (2018) in London), note wiat @Pi.1415926535: said on Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Film locations of Sonic the Hedgehog:
Closing as delete. Per discussion here, use as a film location is usually not a defining characteristic of a location. Categorization of filming locations under a media should be reserved for the few locations where substantial changes made for filming are visible (like Category:Onk Jmel), where the location is only notable for its filming use (like Category:"Home Alone" house), or where a defining feature of the location in the cultural consciousness is its use in certain media (like Category:Rocky Steps). Otherwise, locations should be listed on the article about the production and/or on Wikidata using P915, both of which allow for the needed citations.
And related to both of those, Category:Scooby-Doo! The Mystery Begins had these parent categories:
Category:Scooby-Doo! (2009 film series)
Category:2009 comedy films
Category:Warner Bros. animated films in the 2000s
Category:Warner Bros. animated films by title
Category:Animated films by title
Category:Warner Bros. films by title
Category:Warner Bros. direct-to-video films
Category:Hanna-Barbera films by title
Category:Films by title
Category:Films by Brian Levant
Category:Films featuring Scooby-Doo (character)
Category:Films featuring Shaggy Rogers
Category:Films featuring Fred Jones (Scooby-Doo)
Category:Films featuring Velma Dinkley
Category:Films featuring Daphne Blake
Category:Films starring Frank Welker
Category:Films starring Nick Palatas
Category:Films starring Robbie Amell
Category:Films starring Hayley Kiyoko
Category:Films starring Garry Chalk
Category:Films starring Kate Melton
Category:Adventure comedy films of the United States
Category:Mystery films of the United States
Category:Children's comedy films of the United States
Category:Children's animated mystery films of the United States
Category:Films scored by David Newman
The category only contains Category:Templeton Secondary School‎, a filming location, and nothing directly related to Scooby-Doo! The Mystery Begins, or any of the above parent categories.
Here's another example: Category:The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas, contains categories for that film's actors, but no files at all. These and similar categories appear to have been created just to create category hierarchies for their own sake, whether or not they're necessary or helpful in actually categorizing files. Trivialist (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
You might wanna look at the Scooby Doo-related categories just in general. Seems to be a common theme Trade (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I suspect that it's the same editors who have been creating Wikidata items for seemingly every element in the last Scooby-Doo and Space Jam movies. Trivialist (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
So what? If they are dumb and wrong, have a CSD and make your argument. Don't empty categories like Category:Film locations of Harry Potter in Oxford and then move to delete them as empty. C2 is for "obviously unusable" categories, not "categories that Trivialist doesn't like so he emptied them and wants you do to delete them for him." All you'll do is encourage the same users to recreate and try to repopulate the articles rather than have actually resolve this logjam. If not, accept that you lost an argument on the internet and move on with your life. I'm nominating that one for discussion. You can choose whether to explain your reasoning or just keep up the emptying and deleting game until you get blocked. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley Andy, here is a 2020 reference to Wikipedia policies and a "Self Rollback Request." Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 82#Self rollback request -- Ooligan (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Massive image deletion requests by user A1Cafel

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

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

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

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

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

User:Fox4fan2

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

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

User:DaDeadzombie

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

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

Second opinion on unblock request of User:Kazimier Lachnovič

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 2023 (UTC)

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

Yann

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

Admin supervoting with illegitimate rationales.

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

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

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

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

Alterbulat

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

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

When will you stop being a pain? Admins have been doing that since the creation of the project. These qualify for speedy deletion, so what's your problem with blocking and deleting them? Yann (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
When you start following the policies that you, as an admin, are required to follow.
Why close DRs like this immediately [20][21], so that there is no chance for any other editor or admin to see what's going on? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not see why we should give this user time do answer. The user was asked multiple times if the files are own work and never answered or indirectly said that the files are not own works. But why do you create a deletion request page for these files when you delete them immediately @Yann: ? Normally we delete such files direly without adding them to a deletion request page. If we get would get VRT confirmation that the files are own work we could undelete them. GPSLeo (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Because there is a specific rationale for deleting them (copied from Facebook), which is not in the VFC list. You can aslo see that I listed the files for deletion in 2 other batches: one for small size and missing EXIF data, and one for inconsistent, possibly fake, EXIF data. This user is blocked for 6 months, so they won't be able to answer into the DR. Yann (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Not allowing blocked users to participate in the deletion requests of their files seems like a pretty big flaw tbh. Trade (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
They can reply on their talk page and sending a mail to VRT is also possible for blocked users. GPSLeo (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
And it's not like every image that was uploaded has been deleted. This one is from Flickr and seems fine. Still, anyone can argue that we should give this uploader the benefit of the doubt for these images at the discussion page. Either way, people can propose a policy change. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Expecting a blocked user to somehow litigate multiple DRs on their talk page is kind of ridiculous. Especially if they aren't even indeffed. Also, from what I can tell it doesn't seem very clear that the images aren't his own work to begin with. So is there a reason why the files couldn't have just been dealt with after he was unblocked? Like honestly, why the rush to immediately delete the files? It's not like DRs don't take multiple months or even years to be resolved in a lot of cases already anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This has been policy forever. If you want to propose changing it, fine, but to complain that one admin is wrong because they are following the current policy sounds background-y unless you actually proposing a change in the policy. You won't change blocking policy at ANU. Feel free to go into every deletion discussion involving a blocked user and arguing for it to be canceled on procedural grounds that the uploader should be unblocked to comment but it won't succeed because no one wants to wait around and have to remember the problems later. The uploader can ask to be unblocked, can offer to provide an explanation, can submit to VRS via email, or a host of other things.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: "This has been policy forever." Where does the policy say that if someone is blocked that it means their uploads immediately and automatically qualify for deletion? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I’m pretty sure that only applies to non-productive users. Dronebogus (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Ricky81682, File:Мечеть в селе Гелдаган Курчалоевского района Чеченской Республики имени Макки Даудовой.jpg neither is from Flickr nor seems fine. It was from Instagram in 2017, when it's been reviewed, then Alterbulat overwrote it in November 2022‎ with no source provided. --Xunks (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Giuseppe Frascaroli, master painter or sockmaster?

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

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

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

Copy right violation and Fake License

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

[22]

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

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

NewsRoyal

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

When I say "own work", I mean the author's own work, which allowed me to add the images to the commons. NewsRoyal (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@NewsRoyal: Who are the real authors, exactly? How did you get permission from them?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G. My friend @GabrielDorneles the copyright holder of the works allowed me to put his works on commons. So he sent me the images, and I added them. Then he came adding them in higher quality. NewsRoyal (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@NewsRoyal: Which of your 94 surviving overwritten uploads is this about?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Of the ones I mention (by Gabriel Ronzani). NewsRoyal (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@NewsRoyal: Which ones are those, exactly? Why are they not categorized as such?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G. They are! at "Category:Portraits by Gabriel Ronzani":
@NewsRoyal and GabrielDorneles: The portraits in Category:Portraits by Gabriel Ronzani are of people who died long before you were born. How do you know what they looked like? We need sources per COM:EVID.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@NewsRoyal: Which existing images, exactly? What is their copyright status?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I am real author, i give him permission for post all my work! you cam see more works by me in my instagram GabrielRonzaniArts GabrielDorneles (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@GabrielDorneles: Please send permission via VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 Comment: Looks like AI art to me. Therefore it might be {{PD-algorithm}} or it might be an image-to-image translation, in which case the copyright situation is a little more complicated. Either way the phrase "scan of Oil Portrait" in the upload comments confuses me. Why would you need to be deceptive, when AI art isn't banned here? Maybe it's an attempt to circumvent a deletion for COM:OOS? TilmannR (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Please block them again for uploading yet another copyvio, File:Funeral of King Constantine II of Greece.png.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G., The image was added because several others like: File:Jade Picon Lollapalooza Brazil 2022 (06).jpg and File:Arthur Aguiar.png have the same form of licensing. NewsRoyal (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@NewsRoyal: Clearly, deleting Admin Túrelio saw that they did not have the same form of licensing. Those files have the "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" on YouTube; File:Funeral of King Constantine II of Greece.png did not (it only had the Standard YouTube License, which is incompatible with Commons). Pinging @Taivo as the final warning Admin and Yann as the first blocking Admin.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:PerrengueGlobo

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

user:VoidseekerNZ

VoidseekerNZ has been blocked indef. as per discussion here, and on their talk page. Yann (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

VoidseekerNZ (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license on December 26, 2022, (log: [23]).
On January 19, 2023 he overwrote it with a completely different image, stating "taking back my copyright, only photos of Powelliphanta patrickensis belong to me". When I reverted to original version, he requested speedy deletion "because this is my photo and i own the copyright for it and i am informing you that i retract all creative commons attributions and assert full legal ownership over this photo. wikipedia is illegally hosting my IP right now as this photo is against my permission, hence why i requested deletion".[24].
I finally converted the speedy to regular DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg to allow for discussion. He then denied having uploaded the image under a CC-license by himself and claimed "anyone could have done that." ... "perhaps someone else with access to my network uploaded it".

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

hi there, apologies for any troubles or misplaced things, i don't know wikipedia that well. hello again Turelio.
this is pretty sudden, i dont use this website very often now i have had two people request a block against me. obviously i've trodden on some toes, and that wasn't my intention. but please try see it from my side, this photo (perhaps more? i dont even know how to check) are up here without my knowledge and are extremely sensitive key landmark parts of my portfolio that i put a lot of work into achieving. i dont know how they got here, but i do know that these are *my* work and i worked very very hard to get them, and it is extremely frustrating to find out that anyone could have been downloading it free of charge the whole time, and then when i try a simple thing like deleting a photo of my profile i am met with wall upon wall!
i apologise for not knowing the wikipedia etiquette but please, try remember photographer etiquette! for whatever reason, it does not even really matter materially, my commercially sensitive photos are on here and everyone is too busy focusing on how to get me banned than how to fix my problem. :( VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Someone under that account vandalized a popular page on enwiki -- twice -- and argued about how horrible Wikipedia is after having donated "hundreds of dollars over the years" to the WMF. And these defacements were more or less simultaneous with the upload (not the dispute) dispute of the photo in question. So I'm not sure this is being done in good faith. Elizium23 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
i only discovered said photos when logging into my account due to wanting to change from the skin finally. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
"Said photos"? How many photos are we talking about here? Elizium23 (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
like i said i dont know for all i know my whole gallery is up, i dont know how to use this website VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg is the only image uploaded from your user account Trade (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete all and indef block.
I don't have time for this. Yes, licences are irrevocable. We're within our rights as Commons to keep these. After all, photographer's wishes count for nothing with WMF (a bad decision, but that's how it went). But the value of these image(s) to the project is small, the hassle factor is excessive for them. So if this photographer wants them to go, I think we are most easily served by allowing that. Although the cost would then have to be that we do it to all their images (in case they do it again) and they're indef blocked to stop it happening again.
Commons also (still!) needs to improve its communication to photographers and new editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thank you. i humbly disagree that a block is warranted and it seems punitive rather than prohibitive to my eyes, and i pointed out multiple times to other users that this was a small issue that could be quickly solved with little hassle. my apologies, it's your prerogative to ban me if you choose, another good way to end a horrible day on wiki i guess. thanks for your help, seriously. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The same image is here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/71064879 although under a CC-nc licence
Over at en:WP [25] the uploader and licensor is now unsure of the species identification.
The veracity of the many claims being made here is unconvincing to say the least. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
If this is truly the same image then we should probably delete it just for the copyright violation regardless of any claims about compromised accounts Trade (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey, Andy, thanks for that external link and that's a good find. I wouldn't want to out anyone, especially someone with a putatively compromised account, but links can be followed on inaturalist.org that indicate an interesting profile, with a self-description of this person's occupation and qualifications, with "65 observations" and CC-BY-NC images attached to each one. Elizium23 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
i don't make a habit of publishing my life and qualifications online. Voidseeker is not a person, it is a brand. if you want to believe random inaturalist bios, that's your choice. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@VoidseekerNZ Not to sidetrack things, but an account name should represent a person, not a company or a brand. David10244 (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
more evidence of the commercial nature of this operaation regarding these photos that shouldn't be on wikipedia, i guess. my apologies, i didnt know that. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
" Voidseeker is not a person, it is a brand. "
Throughout this you've argued that "I didn't upload or license this" and also "My account is now secure, only I have access to it" (which we anyway can't trust, given the first). Now you're saying that your account is a "brand", presumably implying that multiple people could be using it (which might also explain how it came to be licensed by someone else).
Can we just get the inevitable indef block enacted here and move on, without wasting any further time. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
i am the only person who has my permission to be using this account. when i say brand i dont mean group. i just mean my name is not actually voidseeker, this is a fictional alias. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
i would appreciate saving any blocks until after the commencement of the deletion post, at which point i will happily concede. but in the meantime i wish to have the right to defend my copyright if that is agreeable. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
alternatively, i would appreciate no block at all, as this is a simple matter that can be resolved by a quick removal of the copyrighted content from the Commons host. in that scenario, a block would not be needed at all, as there would be no preventative need for it. i would happily depart the website of my own volition in that scenario. that would be the ideal outcome i think. but that's just my view, sorry for spamming a bit VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
‘Commons also (still!) needs to improve its communication to photographers and new editors.’ Clearly. That’s the key message from this discussion (and so many others). Brianjd (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
No, it’s not. If anything, Commons already carries photographers around like royalty: We need less of that, and this kind of diva behaviour must be nipped in the bud. (Also, it’s probably an insult to professional photographers, even acknowledging the clashes they often have with Commons, to take this user as a typical representative: Regardless of the great snail photography, this is someone who says «for all i know my whole gallery is up» — which is not at all how professionals work.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you two are working with different definitions of "photographer": Brianjd means "anyone who takes a photo", while Tuválkin means "someone who might show up at FPC". I have too much of a COI to comment on the latter, but I definitely agree with Brian that a new user trying to upload their own work has to jump through a lot of hoops to ensure it doesn't get deleted. (For example, there is an unwritten requirement that a photo can't be low-res without EXIF, except it isn't really a strict requirement, but a patroller might tag as "no permission" anyways and so it turns into an implicit requirement that they must check their account at least once a week to defend their uploads.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin and King of Hearts: Indeed, I am referring to ordinary photographers unfamiliar with Commons. The kind who upload what they probably think is a good photo, only to find it tagged as ‘no permission’ or ‘no FOP in <country>’ or even ‘OOS’ and have on idea what is going on.
(Note: Unfamiliar with Commons. Not unfamiliar with Wikimedia. I saw something like this happen to an admin on another project, and helped to save their upload by assuming good faith. The entire rationale for deletion was ‘Copyright infringement’.) Brianjd (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I see an "IA/A" after your name — I suggest you make use of it to get fixed what you find wrong about Commons. Those people whom you call patrollers are admins like you (the "A" bit) and there’s only so much regular users like me can do to battle their deletionist views in deletion request discussions without fear of being targeted for future hounding. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
no offence, but the capacity of my photography as either "professional" nor otherwise is not up for debate, nor do i really see the relevance. i am a commercial photographer who takes very serious measures to capture these rare, one of a kind photos. i have a broad portfolio with many unique, one of a kind works. perhaps Commons would have been best suited trying to work with me from an early stage and we could have found a compromise regarding low res files or crops or something. but that windows has long closed, and im afraid i have no wish for any of my unique and highly educational photos to be used after my treatment here - largely due to comments like that, Tuvalkin. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
All your capacities are up for the debate once you said that your account was compromised. Who us this we’re talking to again? The person who took the snail pics, or some troll who hacked the snail photographer’s account? One would expect a professional photographer to be wary of licensing and copyrights, not to mention of basic computer safety, and yet here we are. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
"The person who took the snail pics, or some troll who hacked the snail photographer’s account?"
no idea. seeing as you have no idea either, that means you can't uphold the license as valid as there are clear and significant doubts on authorship. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

thank you for your kind, reasonable and considered response. i understand your concerns, and even the hesitations of other users, but i have genuinely taken steps to encrypt my harddrive and will no longer be leaving my computer operating and unattended. this has been a highly stressful ordeal much more for me than anyone else involved, i can promise you that, and i want to avoid this more than anyone. i would like to remind everyone i have requested multiple times for the thread to be closed and for a quick resolution to solve everyone further hassle. i am not trying to cause these problems, the problems are finding me. thank you again for your comment. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
hey Jmabel, i see you're an administrator if that's correct? i'm sorry to bother you and this might be a bit presumptuous of me and if so feel free to disregard. but i was wondering perhaps if you would like to do me a great service and consider locking the deletion thread early as a one off exception. i was told i need an admin who hasn't participated so far and i notice that you haven't commented in the thread. i feel like consensus is already being met due to the excessively high activity (admittedly largely my fault but i never meant malice) and i don't think leaving this up for another week would serve much purpose in approaching clarity of the situation. this has been a highly stressful ordeal for me and would resolve my issues instantaneously, and i hope would provide some other users relief knowing that i wont be haranguing them anymore, even if that wasn't my intent.
for what it's worth, if there are any concerns around my posting, i am happy to accept this under conditions where if there is any form of repeat of this sort of issue i am subject to immediate and unquestionable indefinite block. i am happy to enter into this agreement completely voluntarily, provided the CC license is no longer upheld.
i hope this compromise is agreeable. if you would like to make any modifications or suggestions, please feel free. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@VoidseekerNZ: Admins have special powers as trusted users, but they don’t have special authority; they are bound by community consensus like other users and remain accountable to the community when they do intervene. Admins often comment without otherwise intervening. Even so, I’ll ping Jmabel for a response. Brianjd (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no way I'm going to be arbitrary and impose my own view, which so far appears to be in a minority. I would hope other people weigh in agreeing with me, but probably the key qualification to be a good administrator is to be able to distinguish your own opinion from the community consensus that authorizes an administrative action. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    I would agree, this could be a good reason for courtesy deletion. The easiest is probably nominate the file for deletion and explain the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I have skimmed over this thread and the deletion request (I have not read everything because it is so long). I also looked at VoidseekerNZ’s global contributions. As far as I can tell, this whole mess started with the events described below (all times are in UTC):

How this problem started

VoidseekerNZ uploaded the photo in question, then overwrote it (at 19 January 2023, 07:08:17) and replaced the information template with a speedy deletion tag with no reason given (at 19 January 2023, 07:09:46). These changes were reverted due to the lack of a reason.

Then VoidseekerNZ again replaced the information template with a speedy deletion tag, but this time gave a reason: because this is my photo and i own the copyright for it and i am informing you that i retract all creative commons attributions and assert full legal ownership over this photo. wikipedia is illegally hosting my IP right now as this photo is against my permission, hence why i requested deletion. This was not a great start, as CC licenses are non-revocable.

That wasn’t good enough for them, so they added a second speedy deletion tag. This time they were more specific, using the {{Copyvio}} tag with this reason: i am the legal owner of this image and wikipedia is currently breaching copyright if they do not remove it promptly. creative commons tags be damned this is my photo!. Of course, this did not help. Then they replaced the copyvio tag and the remainder of the file description with NO LICENCE - ILLEGAL.

Another user replaced the remaining speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion tag (at 19 January 2023, 08:33:03), explaining: CC licenses are considered to be non-revokable.. And VoidseekerNZ promptly replied: why is this still up? i have wikipedia has zero rights or license to host my images and i request, for the third time, that my image no longer be hosted against my wishes on your website. please promptly delete it and stop denying my requests! you are stealing my personal work. i have never given permission for my images to be hosted on your website and you are currently committing direct copyright violation! the image isn't even being used anywhere so stop being difficult. This did nothing to address the issue of CC licenses being non-revocable.

And on it went from there. Based on this toxic attitude by VoidseekerNZ, there was no reason to extend them any courtesy at all. Other users explained that this attitude is not helpful, and slowly VoidseekerNZ seems to taken a kinder attitude, at least towards some users. The person controlling VoidseekerNZ also explained that they were not attempting to revoke the CC license; rather, they were claiming that the CC license was not valid to begin with, as they were not in control of the account at the time the CC license was applied.

But there is an issue that doesn’t seem to have been addressed by VoidseekerNZ at all: actions taken by a person’s user account are attributed to that person. That’s not some weird Commons rule; it’s the whole point of user accounts. VoidseekerNZ seems to be downplaying this issue throughout the entire discussion, when it is actually the main issue (perhaps the only issue) worth discussing here.

Therefore, I find it very worrying that users are calling for a ‘courtesy’ deletion. Calls for deletion (due to uncertain provenance) and an indefinite block (due to either account compromise or terrible behaviour by the original uploader while trying to revoke their CC license) seem justified, but none of this should be described as a ‘courtesy’.

Also note that the file was legitimately in use at the Cebuano Wikipedia at the time it was nominated for deletion, as well as the English Wikipedia and Wikidata (see below), with no free replacement available. Such files are eligible for ‘courtesy’ deletion only in extraordinary circumstances, and it is not clear that those circumstances exist here. Brianjd (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The sequence of events were, the deletion discussion was openened at 08:33 UTC on 19 January. To the best of my knowledge, the file was not in use anywhere when I made my first comment at the Village pump at 10:08 UTC on 19 January.[26] User:Elizium23 made their first comment at the deletion page at 10:26 UTC on 19 January[27] and then added the file to Cebwiki at 10:29 UTC on 19 January.[28] The file was added to the Enwiki article at 12:27 UTC on 19 January.[29] User:Pigsonthewing added the image at Wikidata on 21 January,[30] which will have automatically added the image to the cebwiki infobox; this will appear in all versions of the page due to the automatic Wikidata link but this does not mean the file was present in the infobox prior to the 21 January edit. @Brianjd: Can you please strike that part of your comment (and your subsequent comments) as an incorrect interpretation of events? The last thing we want to do here is sow more confusion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
i concur that this was my recollection of events, i had no knowledge of the ceb wiki usage or any other usage until user Elizium got involved and i feel like i remember them either saying or implying it was them who made both uploads but i could be mistaken VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: I was not aware that Wikimedia projects seem to default to UTC, not local time; I had local preferences overriding that on only some projects. I have now set a global time zone preference, so hopefully this will not happen again. I have narrowly struck relevant portions of my comments; I maintain that the file was legitimately in use (even if wasn’t at the time of the deletion requests) and that this is relevant to this discussion. Brianjd (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
hi there, as i have stated in the main deletion thread those earlier comments were not an accurate reflection of events. i wasn't trying to revoke a license when i first delete the photo, i was trying to *correct* the license to what it was properly meant to say, as i had never given a license for this image. im not sure where to see it but one of the changes i made before deletion was deleting the CC license with the edit button and changing it to "no license - attributed in error" or something similar, i cant remember exactly. then when i was trying to delete the image i was not aware eveything i was doing and was typing was about to go public. the deletion request where i mentioned "taking back my license" was not a declaration i was meant to share, i thought i literally just typed some random nonsense in that box, pushed speedy delete, then the image would instantly disappear. so if you could just disregard those first statements attached to the deletion templates that would be great as they are not an accurate reflection of events.
you will see in the third comment you quoted that i realised what had happened and corrected my statement to say "please promptly delete it and stop denying my requests! you are stealing my personal work. i have never given permission for my images to be hosted on your website and you are currently committing direct copyright violation!"
this was to reflect that i had never given a CC license for this, which is the central issue here you have ignored entirely. i would request you re-examine the case in that light as this is quite vital and has been excluded from your summary. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
i want to also clarify that i was not in control of this account in 26th of december and do not know how these licenses were uploaded. this image has already been removed from all other sources due to copyright violation and wikimedia is the only remaining source that refuses to respect the copyright. i note that inaturalist were very prompt in removing said copyrighted license once alerted to fraudulent licenses. i humbly request an explanation why wikimedia is standing by a photo with no known author and dubious credentials that has been deleted by neutral 3rd party academic organisations for copyright violation.
https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/115638245?size=original VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
"Also note that the file was legitimately in use, with no free replacement available"
can you explain what this means? i dont quite understand. are you saying it was in use on an article? as this is quite incorrect and it was only added to the article well after the deletion request by another user. regardless, this is an unidentified species of snail and is useless to wikipedia in any case. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
For the record:
  • The image on iNaturalist was identified as Powelliphanta patrickensis by various people including the uploader account "void1", who also seems to go by "Void Seeker" and is therefore likely identical to VoidseekerNZ.
  • While one of those files was deleted, the deletion was caused by void1 after the deletion request over here had already started and various other images by Void Seeker remain as CC-BY-NC licensed on iNaturalist.
  • Regarding the question whether there are free replacements: Brett Sandford, the author of Powelliphanta patrickensis.jpg, has a few CC-BY licensed images on iNaturalist, which might serve as replacements.
TilmannR (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
"The image on iNaturalist was identified as Powelliphanta patrickensis by various people including the uploader account "void1""
as i have stated previously there are no valid CC licenses for this photo and any you have seen, on this site or otherwise, are misattributions. the photo in question has been removed from inaturalist for copyright violation.
"who also seems to go by "Void Seeker" and is therefore likely identical to VoidseekerNZ."
i'm not sure why people are continuing down this baseless and unsound line when nobody here has any understanding of the nature of these accounts or who has access to them. i have refused to answer these questions. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
"there are no valid CC licenses for this photo and any you have seen,"
There are two valid CC licences for this image, one here (still) and one (-nc-) that was in effect at iNaturalist. Both were assigned by accounts under your control. As CC licences, they are irrevocable.
Clearly you don't like this situation. But it is what it is.
You have claimed various explanations for this, but none are sufficiently credible to really change anything. Also you have edited in recent days in such a way as to alienate support from other editors. Civility rules here are such that your accusations of sundry misdeeds don't generate a reply, but they do change editors' opinion of you and your claims, and not in a positive way for your credibility.
There are two likely explanations for what has gone on here: either an honest mistake or non-appreciation of the freeness and irrevocability of licensing your content under an irrevocable free licence; or else your account (and your offline photo storage) is or was compromised. Whether by nefarious hackers, or by someone in your household (the "kid buying a tank on eBay" scenario). But from our viewpoint, it just doesn't matter. It was done by someone with access through your account. So the holder of your account remains responsible for the account's actions (even if it wasn't them) and those actions can be held to be enforceable (i.e. the licence is valid and irrevocable). As an aside, enforcing that is one of Common's most important principles: if licences were revocable, we just couldn't operate this project.
There was a 7 day window for cancellation of these and many editors here would have extended that here, given that it's still a short period. But your engagement with and abuse of the community since could have been calculated to alienate such goodwill (and that's what it does rely on, goodwill). So maybe even that won't happen now.
I can only hope that this issue and the many threads are closed ASAP, just to save the wasted time otherwise. As you claim your account has been compromised, an indef block should be inevitable. A simple request, "This was a mistake, can we please limit its effect" might have encouraged the community consensus that's needed to get it deleted. But abusing the community won't help with that. Nor will claiming that the licences don't exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
i never made a mistake. i never uploaded this photo. this whole experience is terribly unfair :( i am the one who needs help here not some troll or bad boy. i dont want a courtesy deletion because i dont trust people to just do the right thing and this whole experience shows exactly why. i dont want to ask and then hope that people will be nice because that is how i get ripped off like i have been many times before. there are lots of scammers around, not that im accusing you or wikimedia of being scammers and im not trying to say that. but i am very careful. i want my copyright to be repected and my photo deleted because the CC license does not exist and is illegal. thats all i want. :( VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
i have a question for you Andy, can you honestly guarantee me that if i hypothetically had made a courtesy request and politely asked for deletion that this file would have been deleted despite it being in use on other articles and a unique one of a kind example of this snail out of its shell? im highly skeptical and i don't trust that. and i don't see what benefit lying would serve anyway. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • "i never made a mistake." Yes, you did. We don't know what it was, but it was either to upload here and then regret it with hindsight, or it was to insufficiently secure your account.
We recognise the first one. That's why there's an explicit 7 day 'cooling off' period (although it's not made as clear as perhaps it needs to be). We can appreciate the second one too, although it does raise issues for the account afterwards (our policy is that compromised accounts get blocked, just to avoid future trouble).
I can't "guarantee" anything. I don't have that clairvoyant power, I don't have the authority here to claim that I do. But I do have some long experience here. Yes, things can move very slowly. Even when it's obvious from the outset how they will end up. But repeatedly denying the obvious and blaming everyone except yourself – it's not going to help.
Your best option now is to try and find an admin who will close this immediately. I would hope that at least one of those reading this might act. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @VoidseekerNZ: My comment was certainly not intended as a summary of the entire discussion; it was only intended as a summary of the initial events (first impressions matter, rightly or wrongly, and much of the discussion has vague references to earlier events). Still, I have added a note about your claim that the CC license was never valid.
The file was actually in use at the time of the deletion requests (by you and by the other user). See my additions above.
Your claim that the image is unidentified and useless does not seem to have been accepted by anyone else; in fact, another user offered evidence that shows the opposite. Brianjd (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
as the only one who knows the location where said photos are i am the only person who can make definite identification of this species. location data is extremely important for id of powelliphanta. i have never Id'd this species or shared my opions of it online. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The location is given on iNaturalist - apparently by you - as "Lat: -41.654668 Lon: 171.845222 Accuracy: 27.75km Geoprivacy: Open" Others have already noted that it was identified, also apparently by you, as "void1 suggested an ID [...] Mar '21 / Powelliphanta patrickensis . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
i assume those are obfuscated GPS coordinates i had attached to the file due to the high poaching likelihood of this species. note that i was not the one who uploaded that photo on that account either and it has been removed for copyright violation. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
No. iNaturalist has an option to obfuscate coordinates. In this case, they are shown - as I quoted above - as "open", not "obscured". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
there are ongoing discussions with inaturalist to automatically obfuscate all Powelliphanta data as they are a high poaching target. see comments by Zetela here. i would appreciate if you deleted those coords above nonetheless, as while not accurate, they still are not productive to be spread around i think.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/99854760 VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Coordinates which you yourself uploaded, and which are still available online, at [31]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
as i have stated on multiple occasions, i did not upload it. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
to save you time, this is the comment im referencing
"NW South Island is an amazing area to view snails. Good luck! May I recommend not providing precise co-ordinates on iNat for Powelliphanta spp. since they are protected and quite vulnerable to collection? I've asked iNat staff to obscure by default all Powelliphanta observations (as they do for geckos) but they do not seem to think it is worth doing. @predomalpha - perhaps that request coming from a curator might be considered?" VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Even though CC licenses aren't revocable and I'm finding it hard to believe the uploader's assertion that some unknown person actually decided it was worth their time and energy to hack the uploader's computer just to upload this particular image to Commons under a CC license, I don't think this whole mess (not only on Commons but also English Wikipedia) is worth spending any more time and energy on. The only way to be sure that the uploader's account is no longer compromised is for the uploader to have their identify verified by COM:VRT. For the uploader's reference, this would mean emailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and requesting that their identity be verified. VRT will respond via email and let the uploader know what they what they need to do to make that happen. Once the account has been verified, a VRT volunteer will add Template:Verified account to uploader's user page, the concerned file can be deleted and the uploader can disappear, never to be seen or heard from again if that's what they want to do. If someday they decide to come back and start using the account again, then almost certainly someone will notice and watch to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen again. Now, if the uploader doesn't want to have their identity verified by VRT, then the account should be blocked as a compromised account and the uploader should send a DMCA takedown notice to the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent as explained in en:Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing and let the WMF sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    Or just spend 30 seconds deleting the photo so the user goes away satisfied and the rest of the community doesn't have to waste anymore time on this Trade (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    im sorry but the last thing i want to to do is send wikimedia more sensitive data of mine! the entire problem here is i cant trust this website! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    " Now, if the uploader doesn't want to have their identity verified by VRT, then the account should be blocked as a compromised account"
    What difference does it make if i verify my account? this just seems punitive to me. this will do nothing to secure my account and won't prevent this action occurring in future. it doesn't prove anything about the license on december. veryifying my identity has nothing to do with whether or not this copyright is valid. if the copyright is invalid, then just delete the damn photo! you don't get to just apply and ignore copyright law as you see fit! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    im sorry but your suggestion feels tantamount to blackmail. "give us more sensitive info and we will respect your IP. otherwise we will deny your IP claim exists and keep it". how is that fair??? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    if you recognise a valid copyright issue then just delete the photo! my identity has nothing to do with whether the CC is license! you yourself just admitted wikimedia has serious doubt about the authorship of this photo so can everyone please stop being so needlessly difficult and obstinate and stop wikimedia from violating my copyright! this is frankly obscene and unacceptabel! i enver expected this sort of treatment from an org like wiki, that professes to be built on knowledge and openness and sharing and respect! no0t thievery and trickery and legal loopholes to steal others work! you have admitted now there are doubts about the license that you would enforce if you had my identity. so just get on with it please~! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • "My account was hacked, it wasn't me" (or whatever this person is claiming, honestly it's hard to follow) and keep repeating that again and again and again should not become a standard method to revoke licensing here. Said that, I would block the account (after all they declared they are not interested in contributing to Commons anymore), delete the file (being a bit flexible & extending the courtesy deletion period from a week to a month may be OK, after all it's still a pretty recent upload. But it may not be, too) and move on, ending this calamitous show. I would not mind much about the file being kept, though (as long as this time-wasting mess ends). Strakhov (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    just to be clear, my story has always been the same. i never uploaded this image. the CC license was never granted by me, the license owner. that is the only thing that should be relevant! if everyone is annoyed at this entire ordeal then perhaps you all should take a good long hard look at the stupid and over the top policies that mad this happen! madness VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    Account VoidseekerNZ claims to have «never uploaded this image.» However that is trivially untrue. Nothing else to see here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    i just want wikimedia to desist from the theft and stop blackmailing me with words like if i verify my itentity then they will respect my copyright. the two matters are not linked! just respect the damn copyright and delete my IP please! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    You throw around pejorative words like "theft" and "blackmail" without seeming to know what they mean. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    would a courtesy deletion still remove the fraudulent license? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    @VoidseekerNZ: A courtesy deletion is just like any other deletion. Your file and its licensing information would no longer be displayed on this website. Whether it would "remove the fraudulent license" is a legal question that I (not a lawyer) cannot give an authoritative answer to. I simply don't know. The only difference between a "courtesy" deletion and a "normal" deletion is that in a normal deletion is required by one of our policies, while a courtesy deletion is technically not required, but is executed anyways as a favor to the person requesting the deletion. TilmannR (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    okay, thank you. so in that scenario of a courtesy deletion, there would be no record of this photo, nor any previous CC licenses, on wikipedia or wikimedia? excluding the conversations we're having about it VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    Deleting images does not delete them from the website in the literal sense. It just mean that non-admins will no longer be able to view them. Trade (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    provided there is no further distribution from said source i guess that would be acceptable. i want it to be known however this still is not a courtesy deletion request and is a copy vio issue. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    A copyright violation issue, yes — and the uploader should be banned ASAP. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    I see "desist", "theft", "blackmail", "fraudulent license" — these are textbook examples of legal threats. Just block this troll and let the WMF lawyers deal with this kind of nonsense: That’s what it is for. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    i have not made any legal threats... that is a sheer misrepresentation of my statements VoidseekerNZ (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
This whole experience is wholly unfair and stacked against me
apologies if i formatted this wrong, ive never made a new section in one of these pages. but i want to have a chance to tell my side. this has been by far the most stressful and upsetting event ive ever had as a photographer. i know no one believes me, but please, just put all of that for aside and just hypothetically imagine a situation where what i said *was* true, and try put yourself in my shoes for a minute. this is a highly unique and landmark work and one that was never meant to be online in any capacity. i did not know it was online. i only discovered it was online by mistake, and have since been pointed out to other versions of this image i did not realsie are online. i am not a highly technically capable person and i have learning difficulties and struggle with technology. lots of technical things are hard for me to do, things like editing tags and working with licenses and anything like this are hard to follow. i just walk around and take photos of snails and other creatures because i find it soothing and relaxing and predictable. none of this is soothing or relaxing or predictable. my normal routine has been strongly upset by this whole procedure. i feel persecuted, i feel attacked, i feel bullied, i feel alone, i feel upset, and i just want this all to be over. i never uploaded this photo. i just want my copyright to be upheld. i dont want to fight with anyone. can someone please just help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoidseekerNZ (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@VoidseekerNZ: I assure you that the seven day duration of typical deletion requests is not us being unfair or difficult. It is a procedural requirement that we are not allowed ignore. All the volunteers taking their time to inform themselves about this issue and voting "delete" in the deletion request are helping you. The consensus seems to lean towards deleting the file, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. Please try to stay calm. TilmannR (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
im sorry but leaving the file up for a week as i have clearly explained is unacceptable! if consensus is leaning in my favour like you say then i think an expedient deletion of the file is in the best interests of everyone to promptly end this matter! i see little benefit in leaving these open for another 5 days. also i see some is requesting arbcom below so i hope they can read these statements and quickly sort the matter as i have never agreed my photos to be here whatsoever, whether on a temporary 7 day license nor otherwise! the default option should be to remove the photo now and reinstate it later once the copyright is cleared up as right now the license is under contentious and you can have no faith in it! please understand wheer im coming from its as has been pointed out to other uses this is subect to some amount of "streisand effet" and i would have been much better off just making this claim from another account in the first place or telling some other lie! but i do not wish to do you the disservice of lying so instead i am being punished for telling the truth. please help me find an expedient solution because i have no wish for my photo to be publicly visible at all! let alone in fulle resolution with no watermark for an entire WEEK! 😭😭😭 VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@VoidseekerNZ First about the ArbCom: What Matr1x-101 is saying is that it would be useful, if an ArbCom existed, but there is no ArbCom. A simple misunderstanding.
the default option should be to remove the photo now and reinstate it later: So-called "speedy deletion" is the default option in the specific cases listed on the page COM:Criteria for speedy deletion. But for regular deletion requests cases it is important for the image to remain available, because otherwise it would be impossible for the community to make informed decisions. What makes this case difficult is that A) the file has been uploaded for more than a week B) someone uploaded the image from your account. Both A) and B) are ultimately your responsibility as the owner of the account. And I hope you agree that just because you might have gained an advantage by telling a lie doesn't mean that you should gain that advantage. That is generally not a workable principle. Making multiple accounts is also a well-known phenomenon (called "sockpuppetry"), it is detectable and punished by an indefinite ban, so it's really not a recommendable option anyway. TilmannR (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
i dont think i have any other accounts but i couldnt honestly tell you but i dont remember making any. i think this is my only account to the best of my knowledge. sometimes i forget logins etc and have multiple accounts on websites but i dont think that is the case with wiki.
i did request a speedy deletion. i still want a speedy deletion. a week isn't acceptable :( i dont think it really is my responsibility as we still have no evidence of how the upload was done. im still yet to hear anything about this investigation into my account? are there any avenues i can request outside help if there is no arbcom? i tried a request to disputes resolution but it was closed ive requested mediation multiple times in the discussion thread i asked for advice on discord, no one will tell me how i can escalate this VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
also for all the people who so keenly want me blocked, for what it's worth, i also want to be able to leave the website. that requires my IP to be firmly back in my grasp. so if you want me to be blocked, please assist in finding a way to get my copyrighted works deleted, as the sooner they are gone the sooner i am gone too and everyone can find an acceptable resolution! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@VoidseekerNZ, regarding "how i can escalate this": Marchjuly mentioned above that you can [...] send a DMCA takedown notice to the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent as explained in en:Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing and let the WMF sort things out. That would certainly be an escalation in terms of legal implications. I'm not a lawyer and I've never interacted with the DMCA takedown process, so I know nothing about how fast, convenient or otherwise appropriate this approach might be. Sorry. TilmannR (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
i should not have to escalate to such drastic draconian measures. is this a site about honesty and integrity or about lawyers and legal arguments? i feel like this entire argument just goes against the spirit of wikipedia and the general good virtue that comes with sharing knowledge. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
every hour we sit here having this discussion how many more people see my photo illegally hosted by wikimedia? 10? 100? i dont know. i have no idea. how many people have already illegally downloaded this pirated full resolution image off these servers. i am terrified of where these are already going to turn up later. someone please take some sort of urgent action to protect what is very important to me this is not fair VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that this should be treated like a courtesy deletion; these photos are clearly replacable; they don't pose significant value, and the uploader has clearly expressed their intent.

On a seperate note, this is perfect evidence we need an ArbCom. An ArbCom should have taken the case, since the community clearly can't come to an appropriate course of action. A proposal is happening at COM:VPP. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 22:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@VoidseekerNZ: if you really think that this is a matter of Commons doing something illegal in terms of you copyright, you may want to look at wmf:DMCA policy. However, be aware that if you actually bring this to a level of legal action, issues like perjury, countersuits, etc. may arise. I personally think you don't have a legal leg to stand on, and that as User:Andy Dingley remarked above, you are basically in the position of asking for a courtesy deletion while berating and alienating people with the way you are discussing it. Again, I think you we should grant that courtesy in order to be done with this, but you have definitely made it harder, not easier, to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

So, are you planning to press the delete button or should we let this continue for another week? Trade (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thank you trade, you have been a consistent and succinct voice of common sense throughout this whole ordeal and i want it to be known it has not gone unnoticed VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for immediate indef block

This has gone on long enough. Accusations like "wikmedia stealing my work" (and many other similar) are too much. There is no useful purpose to VoidseekerNZ and their compromised account being able to edit here any longer.

It would also be useful if an admin could close the deletion request (either way, I no longer care). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

andy, i want it known that your forward and abrupt and abrasive matter is the main reason i got so upset in the first place and you are one of the users i keep referring to regarding mediation. i would appreciate it if you stayed out of this further as you are the one who got me so mad in the very first outset and if you had just talked to me like a person from the beginning all of this could likely have been avoided. im not a bad faith user, but if you refuse to consider any other options then i kinda get forced into that box whether i want to or not. if you treat peoples concerns as valid, they're usually more receptive and open to criticism in turn. see how that works? sorry for troubling you and i humbly request you tone down your langauge and have some more respect please. thats all i ask tank you VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
i also want it noted i have already been going to lengths to avoid discussion with this user and i was hoping they would drop it without my having to say somethin, this is not me jsut being petty. if you look through all their recent comments you will see i have been avoiding conversation with this user. thank you for understanding VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
"tone down your langauge"
I'm not the one accusing other editors of stealing. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
im not accusing editors of stealing. im accusing the Wikimedia Commons of stealing. which, i understand, was never their intent nor was it done with prior knowledge or malice. but regardless, that is my objective evaluation of the situation. and you are free to disagree. but that is just how i perceive it. i am not accusing anyone of anything, that's my calm and objective asssessment of the situation. i dont know why that is being perceived as an attack if i am perfectly honest, i genuinely don't understand this point. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The user in question would beyond doubt have abandoned the website the moment the picture was deleted. We are basically the ones keeping him here on Wikimedia Commons by dragging the deletion discussion out for no good reason despite the majority of users calling for the photo to be deleted. Trade (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
😭😭😭 thank you trade VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support indef ban. Their disruptive behaviour has gone long enough and any means of constructive discussion has failed at this point. At this point, I would expect a major reform in VoidseekerNZ's behaviour, but otherwise, I don't see any other interim solution. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    For what it's worth i have asked multiple times for advice on how to properly seek redress for these matters but i am blocked from both discord and teahouse and no one wants to give me advice. i'm trying to do things in the correct manner but no one will help me. apologies if this is not the correct way to request mediation but if someone COULD help me then i could stop disrupting this process as that is not my intent~! is anyone free to discuss the matter on discord or something so i no longer make mistakes here VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    You still have the option of sending a DMCA takedown request as i and others have explained earlier Trade (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    i dont think i am legally allowed to enter into something like that. im not allowed to sign forms VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    also can someone tell me why this was removed? i take it i did something wrong again? :\ i genuinely didnt think there was anything wrong with this and am confused....
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=727103921
    sorry for stacking up in this comment chain i dont know how to make a new topic. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    for what it's worth, i find it highly troubling that there is a user that is uploading dubious, unsourced info that is currently reaching consensus to be deleted to try provoke a reaction. i hope wikipedia looks in to this regardless of whatever happens to me as these sorts of nasty actions erode the trust of wikipedia at large. this issue really has nothing to do with me and if you are interested in upholding the good faith of wikipedia i hope you agree that these sorts of edits are not constructive, uploading misleading incorrect info to prove a point feels about as far from the 5 pillars as possible to me. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_102&oldid=812294662"