Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 107

Kursant504

This user kept using bad or absurd reason to nominate files for deletion. Previous discussion is on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_32#User:Kursant504, now they are active again on Commons:Deletion requests/File:President of Ukraine met with the Ukrainian military in Bakhmut and presented state awards. (52712338472).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maguba Syrtlanova awards (2022-03-01) 02.jpg. And this is another accusation without any evidence Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ziba Ganiyeva Colorized.jpg.

I've reported them several days ago, but no action has been taken. Considering their block history, this time ought to be a longer one.--Lemonaka (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop stalking all my edits - it's creepy. About DR foto of Ziba Ganiyeva: it literally contains a watermark of a copyright holder who does not permit commercial reuse of their work. It is a quintessential example of a copyright violation. Kursant504 (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The user does not hear and present reality to the territory, copyriting law and other. Banned for life on russian Wikipedia for paid editing in favor of russian propaganda. Arxivist (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Lemonaka, at least this deletion request has a perfect rationale, and it’s you, who makes another accusation without any evidence. --Komarof (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Komarof Oh, interesting. When I first reported them here, they haven't explained why they nominate this for deletion, FWIW, Special:Diff/790841379, after this report, they added the reason. How can I be a crystal ball for this?
Interesting, baseless accusation? How many Bad DR did this user come up with? In addition to UPE. Lemonaka (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Lemonaka, I just want to ask, you looked at foto really well? You really can't see the large Klimblim watermark and the clearly visible derivative work (the copyrighted photo of Syrtlanova) inside the photo of the Syrtlanova awards display? Also the fact that I hadn't provided a link to Klimblims copyright statement at first did not make the request bogus, you did not need a crystal ball to google Klimblim and arrive at her blog where her copyright statement is in plain view. I can't find a rational explanation I can think of to explain why you are making so many absurd accusations against me. Also as far as my other deletion requests go, go ahead and complain about my other recent deletion nominations like the nomination for deletion of the photo of Qoshqarbayev taken by Vladimir Grebnev (who died much less than 70 years ago). I would like to see you explain how that is a fake deletion nomination too considering the nature of the copyright violation is almost as obvious as the Ganiyeva photo. Kursant504 (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Gran Sonic

Gran Sonic (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) The user continues with copyvios after warnings. Taichi (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User:きもいアニメチー牛えのきだたもつは津波に流されてくたばれ

きもいアニメチー牛えのきだたもつは津波に流されてくたばれ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Upload screenshots of anime that clearly infringes copyright. The images are likely to be suspected of child pornography, because the protagonists of these anime images are women under the age of 18. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as VOA, files deleted. Yann (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Glebdenisov

Glebdenisov (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) A sockpuppet, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barseghyan1234321/Archive, ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Glebdenisov, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Glebdenisov. Komarof (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Files deleted and user blocked. Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User:The7bab

The7bab (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Dozens of blatant copyvios, uploaded after the multiple warnings, including the 'last' one. Komarof (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Nilov28, again

Nilov28 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Recent copyright violations after one week block a month ago. Komarof (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Добрый день, после первой блакоривки я сделал выводы и изучил информацию по правильной загрузке файлов. Именно по этому я использовал в загрузке свою работу ! так же данное фото было передано мною спортсмену изображенному на фото и я не знал что он выложит этот медиа файл на странице своих соц.сетей именно поэтому мною не было подано заявления на выпуск лицензии (VRT). Данный меди файл является моему собтвенной работой ! Просьба отнестись с пониманием. Я не стараюсь нарочно нарушить какие либо из правил. Моя первая блокировка произошела из за моей не опытности и не знания правил. Nilov28 (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Vandal AleeBarbaza

I've temp-blocked AleeBarbaza (talk · contribs) to stop its spree of vandalism. This account, which was created today, is per his edit-behaviour clearly an experienced sock-puppet, which has added speedy-tags to a number of not-own uploads, some of them featured or quality images. As rationale he either illegitimately used G7 [1][2], without being the image-uploader/author, or demeaning nonsense-phrases as "Get a life"[3] or "This sucks"[4]. In at least 1 case he wrote as edit-sumary "Generated Speedy Deletion Nomination by DestroyerBot 2.0"[5]. He even created the template {{User didnastywithalee}} for his userpage.
All this suggest it to be a vandalism-only account, whereby I propose to indef ban this account from Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Globally locked, also indeffed on mediawikiwiki and metawiki. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User Hostrooster

Hostrooster (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user This new user uploads images and logos of his own concepts, treating Commons as his personal advertisement gallery. All his uploads have been scheduled for deletion and he has been warned but could an administrator keep an eye on him in case he did not understand the rules. Pierre cb (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

User Setitik.hitam

Setitik.hitam (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Uploads promotional material and logos of unknown copyright status while claiming as his own. I marked them for deletion and an administrator should keep an eye for further such activity. Pierre cb (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. User is warned. I deleted all uploads as spam and/or copyvios. Taivo (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

User MASG91

MASG91 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user seems to be a suck puppet of Skulljujos (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, who was blocked on July 31st by Mdaniels5757 (talk · contribs) for continously uploading copyrighted photos after multiple notices and license laundering. The account for MASG91 was created a few days after the block, has only been used on Commons, uploads photos of the same people that Skulljujos did, and the images it has been uploading are being used by Skulljujos in eswiki minutes after being uploaded to Commons. For instance, this image was uploaded at 16:53[6] by MASG91, and it was used by Skulljujos in eswiki at 16:59[7].--Freddy eduardo (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Yashweb

Vandalism 191.126.43.154 11:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Warned. --A.Savin 11:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

User:92.6.134.65

Please revoke this IP's TPA as the user has been posting a threat (Redacted). Thanks. Internet Hero 123 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done I have also hidden the comment. Yann (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Vandal?

78.145.99.94 (talk · contribs)

IP 78.145.99.94 186.174.89.102 15:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Without doubt, now I checked all edits. 186.174.89.102 15:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Everything reverted. Yann (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Picture uploaded by sockpuppeteer being used for vandalism

File:655 34464 a1.jpg <-- this picture was uploaded by User:Twyyr668, a globally locked sockpuppeteering vandal, who used the picture for the purpose of vandalism (e.g., here). They've since created the sock en:User:I-was-stung-by-a-wasp, who again used that picture for vandalism (example). Can an admin please delete it? I'm not sure where else to ask. Nythar^T.C 05:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done: This has been previously already uploaded and deleted: File:Tbanarulltrappor.jpg by likewise globally locked User:Iliketrains 34. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Emblem of the Royal Norwegian Air Force Staff.svg

The file File:Emblem of the Royal Norwegian Air Force Staff.svg has been overwritten with a similar but clearly different graphic. I asked to split the version by inserting the {{split}} template, but User:Worldlydev (who overwrote the file) reverted my edit /index.php?title=File:Emblem_of_the_Royal_Norwegian_Air_Force_Staff.svg&action=history. Help me to solve this problem, please. Wieralee (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

No, we don't need the overwritten file. Did you read the comment I wrote when reverting?

In case you didn't:

"We don't need the overwritten file. This file along with many others are part of a project between me and User:Barfodt to create a gallery of Norwegian military coats of arms. See progress here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barfodt/sandbox#Royal_Norwegian_Air_Force"

We coordinate things internally between us, plus the older file is incorrect as it is missing the staff.

Thank you. Worldlydev (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Please respect the COM:OW guideline and upload the file under a different name. GPSLeo (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You can’t just split a military file that is protected file and you have no idea how hard that would be Dawpovvf (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Worldlydev: Who do you mean by "we"? The user Barfodt, who uploaded this file because he apparently decided that the file might be useful after all? Wieralee (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Wieralee: From Barfodt's talk page:

• "Think I have just about finished creating coats for all current air force divisons. Will upload them during the weekend. Just wanted to reach out to say I also made a coat of arms for the air force staff that diverges from yours. Is it ok if i upload it as a new version of your file? Worldlydev (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Looking forward to seeing them. You're welcome to upload a new version of the air force staff if you think it more representative. If yours is more heraldic, you could alternatively upload it as "coat of arms" since mine is titled "emblem". I've also done a few of the common armed forces coat of arms and most of the cyber defence. However, I haven't found any official English names for the cyber ones, so they have only directly translated names. I encourage you to fix any names if they turn out wrong. Barfodt (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)"

• As you can see I was given approval to overwrite the file if mine was more representative. Since the original file is missing the staff behind til Norwegian Air Force emblem, it is incorrect. Therefore I uploaded a new version, as communicated. Worldlydev (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This text is not about overwriting the existing file, but a request for uploading an alternative version under a different name => "coat of arms", not "emblem". Regardless, your action doesn't comply with the guidelines of COM:OR. Wieralee (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The original file wasn't an emblem, per page 16 of "Innføring i militær heraldikk", which can be read here: https://www.forsvaret.no/om-forsvaret/forsvarets-profil/heraldikk/Innf%C3%B8ring%20i%20milit%C3%A6r%20heraldikk.pdf/_/attachment/inline/d00bf6d5-0035-4118-9e80-f2a4690f211f:caf8ce7c5765e38eaac3b97a77129a544eee79df/Innf%C3%B8ring%20i%20milit%C3%A6r%20heraldikk.pdf

I was also encouraged to fix filenames. If you really think my change is so controversial, even though we have been working together on coats of arms, and have coordinated things in advance. Feel free to reach out to Barfodt to gage their opinion. Isn't meant to be controversial. I am simply trying to keep semi-control of the uniform design, quality and filenames at Category:SVG military coats of arms of Norway, and fixed an error by adding the staff behind the emblem (which by the way is the bird and not the whole design), while also harmonizing the design of the coats. Worldlydev (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Even in such a case you are required to upload the file under a new name. After this you could nominate the wrong one for deletion. GPSLeo (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Overwriting an image to make improvements is acceptable. If the emblem has been changed, however, the new version should be uploaded separately. We are an encyplopaedia, we should preserve old emblems alongside new ones. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The coat of arms hasn't changed. It was simply incorrect as it was missing the staff.

The emblem is the bird, which is the same in each version. Important to talk about the correct object. Worldlydev (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fry1989 and Worldlydev: Please see Commons:Overwriting existing files. This particular sort of "improvement" should only be made if the original uploaded consents. Otherwise it belongs under a different file name. There is no ambiguity about this there. - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

If the image was incomplete as is being claimed, that also would be a valid overwrite. I don't know if that is so, however. I was simply attempting to add clarification over when and when not to overwrite an image. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Vinicius Vieira V2

Vinicius Vieira V2 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) was once blocked for 1 week back in June for "Uploading unfree files after warnings". Turns out, that they keep uploading unfree files even after the block. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 21:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done BLocked for a month, copyvio deleted. Yann (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m just going to say you have to only upload files that are free and you can’t just upload one that doesn’t have the freedom copyright is the one poplar thing you need to stay away for the post that is not free which the copyright holder can do but it doesn’t take much to get blocked from all access to the site I have a lot more information on but it doesn’t really matter because you can’t just upload a file that has unfree content in it that is theft and you can’t do it on the same thing over and over and that you don’t know that files have a copy of it owner in it and that it can be seen by a person who has a lot more evidence of a file that’s the website owner who has a very good reason to see what the owner of the file is and then they can send a message to the person who has owned it Dawpovvf (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Le Boréalien

This user has been requesting deletion of photos they uploaded years ago, and didn't even wait a single day after Commons:Deletion requests/File:VM-00002.jpg was closed as kept per COM:INUSE to request deletion again. I think they need to be warned to stop requesting deletion of files in use, stop requesting deletion of files that were already kept as useful, and stop assuming that their "will" overrides the irrevocable CC license they agreed to when they uploaded photos. We need for people to stop wasting everybody's time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is about the coloration of the photos! As I edited the photos with an application on my mobile back in the days, they did turn out worse than expected. I glance these problems retrospectively now. There is no need to keep Wikimedia Commons functioning as a trash bin of everything. The valuation changes over time, and that's why I do not see a need to keep these photos. I have explained it many times.

So, I will be blocked as the photographer of the photos, pointing out the poor quality? I haven't wasted "everybody's" time, the only person that was replying to me was Ikan Kekek. I have no personal problems over here, but he/she didn't have true arguments about these certain photos. Surely, I would like to have the photos deleted, so the time wasting would end about them and the viewers. Budapest has so many other truly excellent photos by many. The photos of mine haven't even really made it to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects.

I am here to support the idea that authors of illustrations and photographers of photos and creators of images could have the right to ask for deletions. Sometimes there really are understandable reasons behind the requests. I apologise for my English skills, my native language comes from other roots. Boreaallane (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that you be blocked. You need to read COM:INUSE and stop asking for files that are in use to be deleted! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms., please, do understand my issue, the problem is not in the rules. The reality is beyond the words. In my case, the visual coloration and blurriness of these photos File:Doonau.jpg, File:The Danube river separating Pest from the Buda side.jpg and File:Tallinna siluett.jpg is far beyond good taste. Wikipedia/Wikimedia is free, so should be the right to be forgotten, be free! I ask you guys to delete these, the photos are not even represented in the articles on Wikipedia, just someone's additional private page on Wikimedia. That's it... Boreaallane (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Le Boréalien: when you uploaded these, you granted an irrevocable license. You can't come back years later and say, "I didn't really mean irrevocable" just because you don't like these anymore. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not about liking, you may also see the difference in coloration and blurriness, there is not even a tiny need to keep these. I had no idea about the 2 week rule nor I knew about the irrevocable license. Boreaallane (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Le Boréalien: "nor I knew about the irrevocable license" I don't know what tool you used to upload, so I don't know exactly what text was displayed to you, but a typical wording is (on Special:Upload), "note that these licences are irrevocable," (bolding in the original).

The grace period (actually one week, I don't know who told you two weeks) is not even really a "rule," it's that we try to allow a reasonable amount of time for someone to say "I made a mistake" so it can be fixed. Sorry to be harsh, but coming back years later is not a reasonable amount of time. You can nominate your irrevocably licensed picture to be deleted, just like anyone else can, but if the community consensus is to keep it, then your opinion that the image is useless doesn't win the day. Especially not if it is actually in use in Wikipedia articles. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Ikan Kekek told me that 2 weeks was a reasonable amount of time.
• Is there a point to turn Wikimedia Commons a trashland of images - illustrations and photographs?

Boreaallane (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if I said 2 weeks was the grace period. What matters is what Commons policy says. But you don't respect my time, anyway, nor anything I've said, so why be selective and try to lean on something I may have said in this case? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Those images look perfectly fine. We don’t delete images because the original uploader decides they aren’t to whatever arbitrary standard they have. Dronebogus (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

CC is a license that has a lot more power and you don’t have any control over what gets deleted from a cc license filed by a owner or operator of the file and thereby is allowed by the license holder to use any file such as an permission to use the file as an excuse form to obtain the file in any case you have no legal right to put in a claim for a license name cc copyright content allowed licenses to use Dawpovvf (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dawpovvf: "CC" isn't a license, it's an organization and a set of quite varied licenses, only some of which Commons accepts. The rest of this is so incoherent I can't even guess what you may have meant to say. If there is some other language you write better than English, you might consider using it. Jmabel ! talk 20:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

copyvios by User:SATURNO ALFA

SATURNO ALFA (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user After I checked three of his uploads I'm very sure that all of them are copyvios. Stepro (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Files already deleted, user warned. Yann (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

I was running into a conflict with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. I nominated for deletion File:Postkaart Hôtel de l'Espérance.jpg which was uploaded by another user because the claimed license was incorrect. On the picture side of that postcard you can see the statement "Phototypie Marco Marcovici, Bruxelles". Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) later on changed the author in the file description to Marco Marcovici (see [8]). I explained to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) on his talk page that the French word phototypie is about on old printing technique and gave a link to a source where you can read that Marcovici was using "... pictures from photographers all over Belgium ..." (see [9]). He replied with "OK, if you prefer: Author=Anonymous." Well, on the picture side of that postcard there is no indication who was the photographer but information about the photographer can also be printed on the reversed side (where one can fill in an address, put a stamp and a short message of the sender). So I was not convinced it was anonymous.

At Commons:WikiProject Postcards you can read at the 'Very old postcards' section about using the {{PD-old-assumed}} for over 120 years old postcards. There is nothing about assumed anonymous. He also put the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} template on the file description. I think the burden of proof that the name of the photographer was not disclosed on that postcard (both on the picture side and the reversed side) is on the person who was adding that template.

In reply to his remark "OK, if you prefer: Author=Anonymous." I made it clear that I don't prefer Author=Anonymous unless he can show some proof of that. On my question on his talk page "Did you see the reversed side of that postcard before you here changed the author to anonymous and added the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} template? " he deleted after about one hour (see [10]) the whole section without first answering my question and without archiving that section. Because he was unable/unwilling to answer my question and by doing so taking responsibility for the anonymous claim and adding the no author disclosure template I reverted his changes in the file description. In the edit summary I gave a diff link to him deleting the section on his talk page.

His reaction was to undo my revert and in the edit description there (see [11]) he asked me: "... so why are you reverting to the incorrect information?" I was certainly willing to answer that question, but where should I do that? Starting an edit war and use the edit summary for communicating with him did not seem logic to me. Undoing the deletion of the section on his talk page to reopen that discussion and give my answers there might not be appreciated. So I started a new section and asking him: "Then where, please explain to me, where do you expect me to answer that question?" Within 5 minutes he also deleted that section (see [12]) without any reply. And also this time the deleted section was not archived.

As I understand it, a user talk page is the best place to start/have some communication with another user on Commons like asking a question, give some advice, inform about something, show some appreciation etc. Of course it is not mandatory to answer all questions, especially if the question is not relevant or too personal. In this case it was about taking the responsibility for him adding e.g. a no author disclosure statement. Or to ask where to answer his question to me in an edit summary shortly after he deleted the relevant section on his talk page.

Maybe my perception about user talk pages on Commons is wrong. Maybe communication in a Q&A style using edit summaries is stimulated on Commons. If not, I hope some admin can try to convince Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) to take more responsibility for adding e.g. a no author disclosure template if some other user is asking a question about it. Or if he is asking a question in an edit summary to someone else, to allow a discussion on his talk page without almost immediately deleting a new section without replying to a relevant question. If he thinks a question is irrelevant or too personal or so, just explain that in your reply and leave that section on the talk page for at least a week or so. Then the other user doesn't need to dig in the history of that talk page to find out if there was a reply, and if so what was the reply, before the section was removed without archiving. - Robotje (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

That image is not 120 years old. There is an automobile in it that certainly does not date from 1903 or earlier. So at least one of your premises here is wrong. I agree that the author should be described as {{unknown}} or similar, not "anomymous," but it is not obvious to me on what basis we can keep the image. - Jmabel ! talk 14:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The hotel existed from c. 1906 to 1944 so the postcard of that hotel is less than 120 years old. The topic here however is how to deal with a user that makes copyright/license related claims and then refuses to take responsibility for that when asked for some proof. - Robotje (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment File:Postkaart Hôtel de l'Espérance.jpg is a postcard from around 1920, either from Marco Marcovici, who died in 1938, or an anonymous photographer. So I don't see any copyright issue here. Yann (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

By adding the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} template on the file description a text is shown and the English version of it says "The copyright of this image has expired in the European Union because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship (anonymous or pseudonymous), ..." The picture side of the postcard mentions the name of the publisher. Without knowing what is printed on the reversed side (where the address can be filled in, a stamp can be attached, etc.) you don't know if the photographer was mentioned there. So how can you claim there was no disclosure of the photographer if you never saw the reversed side of the postcard? Without that information you can not use the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} template. There is also a {{PD-old-assumed}} template, but that is for pictures that are over 120 years old. This postcard is not old enough for that. The burden of proof for adding the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} template is for the person who added that template. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is refusing to do so but also is undoing a revert of the edit where he added that template. Starting an edit war is not what I want to do. - Robotje (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Martinvl made sore research and posted the result, showing that these files are OK for Commons. That's the thing to do instead of complaining here. Yann (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• As I pointed out in the initial deletion argument, we already have several of this publisher's postcards uploaded, including a back. See: File:Bruxelles maisons corporations 1005194.jpg (uploaded in 2021). I think a single example is enough evidence, we do not need to speculate if this might be the one case where a photographer was named, if only we had the back of this postcard. There was no need to engage in a lengthy debate at the deletion discussion, and then again on my talk page, and then again here. All that could be said, and all the evidence needed to make a decision to delete or keep, was already presented at the deletion nomination. Not everyone wants to spend a Friday night in an endless repetitive debate. --RAN (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Harrassment by IP sock of User:R.o.t

User:2001:999:400:40EC:C0E4:BE8:21B6:F7CF is repeatedly posting the same material on my talk page after I have acknowledged and removed it, and posted to their talk page telling them that I don't want them posting to my talk page any further. Skyerise (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done 2001:999:400:40EC:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

5.173.103.63 and 5.173.116.176 and others

An IP addy is using the same cut and paste lengthy rationale: "This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. ... It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor." See: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Decauville_locomotives,_probably_N°_1566_and_N°1648.jpg and Special:Contributions/5.173.116.176. All against one uploader. The rationale has been proved false in multiple cases. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:La locomotive DFB de la tuilerie de Chagny en Sâone et Loire.jpg the same cut and paste says the date is wrong, but the date=unknown. At others the images came from an archive and were released under CC. I think this is an automated attack on one uploader: User_talk:NearEMPTiness. --RAN (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I blocked both IPs for 2 hours. I agree that these DRs are not helpful. However we need a date for these files, at least approximative (e.g. before World War I). Yann (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I closed the DRs when there is a date. Yann (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Harassment after replying to a deletion request

The user in question created this:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Autofellatio

After I replied to it, he decided to harass me by creating a totally unrelated deletion request, targeting only more of my work specifically. I request a ban of a least a couple weeks to get this user to calm down, with a six-month probation. Taric25 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Taric25: Would you be willing to provide a link to the specific deletion request(s) that you allege are harassing? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, here you go: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Taric25 Taric25 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there is valid reason for deletion. I don't see any hint that this qualifies as harassment. Kritzolina (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This user in fact insulted me first, as is plainly obvious at the first DR. I have at no point insulted or “harassed” this user; it’s only natural to look at a user’s contributions after nominating one to see if there are other low-quality uploads. Dronebogus (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I don’t want to be vindictive, and I personally hate boomeranging, but I think a w:wp:BOOMERANG is indeed in order here for personal attacks, making a frivolous block request, and generally doing exactly what they accuse me of. Probably just a warning or at most a 24-hour block for going way off the deep end in terms of overreacting. Dronebogus (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a very unfair report abuse of power by a person who should not be blocked they should be banned and held for harassment to a public platform that they don’t own and not have any legal rights for their actions on it I don’t think you should have any problem getting a complaint against the person taric25 it is just a spammer who wants to be the only one here Dawpovvf (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dawpovvf: yet again, so incoherent I cant tell what you mean to say. Who are you saying "should be banned"? Are you talking about taric25, or telling taric25 that one of the other people here "is just a spammer who wants to be the only one here"? - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This user, Dawpovvf, has been cruising between related pages adding this spambot-like gibberish. They should probably be blocked as clearly not here/wildly incompetent. Dronebogus (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a reasonable deletion request. It is not harassment. What might be bordering on incivility, though, is Taric25's statement "Get rid of this deletion request and do something useful with your life." Other statements, like "How dare you!?" could probably be phrased better. I'm not saying action is necessarily needed against Taric25 at this point, but there is no need for this report. Chamaemelum (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Taric25 is no longer an active user and has not continued their inappropriate behavior since the initial incident. This request should be closed without action. Dronebogus (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: Not sure how you can say User:Taric25 is no longer an active user. They last edited 3 days ago, and were never a hard-core "here every day" contributor. - Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, Taric25, "Get rid of this deletion request and do something useful with your life." is not appropriate conduct for this project. Consider this your last warning; further personal attacks will result in a block. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

User:181.43.0.231 and associated IP addresses

Have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Datu Sanggul.jpg. This must be the same IP user that is somehow obsessed about unemployed musicians and who thinks buskers are unemployed, rather than working. There's something wrong with them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Nico Delano

Nico Delano (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) set of recent copyvios after multiple warnings, including the 'last' one. Komarof (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Adamant1

Adamant1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) - this is about his contributions to the discussion on Churches and Dutch FOP, specifically his last replies to Romaine, which strike me as excessively hostile and condescending.

That is not a fact, but your opinion, an opinion not based on the local situation here in the Netherlands. - That you say it's "my opinion" that there aren't other examples of anything close to churches in form or function that are public places in the Netherlands, cool. Provide an example then. All you and the other people who have taken issue with what I've said has done is play devils advocate. Be my guest and actually back up you said with some evidence then. What similar places to churches are public? Ten bucks says you don't have an answer. The rest what you said is just Gish Galloping and shadow boxing about things no disagrees with. So I'm not going to waste my responding it. "What matters if a location is public or private." No really? Golly gosh, thanks for telling me and here I thought we were discussing something totally different "eye roll." Just change the guideline dude. There clearly isn't going to be an actual conversation about this. Maybe next time just say you don't care about other people's opinions instead wasting everyone's time acting like you do. I definitely have more import things do then read or respond to a many essay full of mindless, irrelevant talking points that have nothing to do with anything and no one disagrees with. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all been settled (see my comment above) but it's clear that this conversation isn't going anywhere because thee side who wants churches in the Netherlands to be covered by FoP could care less about having an actual discussion about it. The guideline is obviously going to be changed regardless, but I don't think anyone is going to object after the way I've been treated for disagreeing and your wall of text. So at least IMO there's zero point in continuing this. I certainly have better things to do then deal with it anymore then I already have. Even if I didn't though there's really nothing to say in response to comments like the one you wrote this. At least not outside of what I already did, which isn't going to change anyone's opinion who thinks churches should qualify for FoP. Clearly nothing will. So I'm not personally going to waste anymore of my time or energy trying to having a genuine discussion about it. -Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

He's had some iffy replies before ("So again for like the fifth time, what makes churches unique compared to the other places I mentioned that don't charge fees but are still private places and what evidence is there that they can't deny access based on private law grounds? And don't respond by telling me Arnoud Engelfriet is an expert or bring up opera houses. Just answer the questions. It's not that difficult.") but I think these are really crossing a line. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I probably could have been a little less heavy handed with the last reply. It's super frustrating when someone pings me to discuss something and everyone involved in the discussion just miss characterizes and dismisses what I say though. At least IMO it was extremely rude of you and other participants to just take the first opinion that came along because it was from an "expert", treat me like mine didn't because I'm not a copyright lawyer and then write walls of text about things that have nothing to do with conversation and no one disagrees with. I don't have an issue with consulting experts but this is a collaborative project and I was pinged to participate in the discussion. So it was super insulting to be treated like my opinion was worthless just because I'm not a well known copyright lawyer. IMO treating me that way was also antithetical to the goals of the project. That said, I should have just dropped it and not left the last couple of messages. I don't think your side acted that good faithed or understanding toward me either though. This complaint being one of multiple examples. Anyone can read through the discussing to find other ones. For instance Romaine's screedish wall of text where among other things they lectured me about how the point in the discussion was to figure out if churches where public places or not. Like I didn't already know that or needed to be reminded. Regardless, both sides could have acted better. But I don't think the behavior on my side justifies this complaint. Really, it's just needlessly retaliatory. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  From what I saw, people just disagreed with you. People engaged with you in good faith and addressed your points (even if you maybe feel they were not doing so in a sufficient manner), and your input specifically was even used in JopkeB's summary. People not taking your side doesn't mean they were "treating you like your opinion is worthless", it just means they don't agree with you. I don't think anyone in that discussion was treating you badly or unfairly and if you feel differently, that should have been dealt with through other channels than by lashing out in the way you did. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Romaine's convoluted wall of text where they told me that the point in the discussion was to figure out if churches were public or private wasn't just "people disagreeing with me." And most of the comments, including theirs, either outright ignored what I was saying or completely miss-construed my position. Also most of the time when I tried to make a point whoever responded to it did so by bringing up Arnoud Engelfriet's expertise instead of actually addressing what I was saying. Really, I don't know how you can say my opinion wasn't being dismissed or that I wasn't being treated differently when people where making comments like "Based on above interpretation of the law of the Netherlands by mr. Engelfriet, expert on the field of copyright on internet, images of art in ordinary churches can be kept." Also my comments where repeatedly dismissed as "opinions" but then at the same time JopkeB was saying "I do not think Arnoud Engelfriet's comment was speculation, as he wrote: "My position is", so it is his opinion. An opinion of an expert, which Ellywa and I value highly in this matter."

It's pretty clear that Arnoud Engelfriet's opinions were was taken as gospel and mine where being dismissed because I'm not a "expert copyright lawyer" or whatever. It's also pretty obvious that people wanted the discussion to end after he left his comment. You and the other participants where clearly insulted because I didn't just take his opinions at face value or allow the conversation to end after they commented. Regardless though, the last two messages had nothing to do with people taking my side. I only participated in the discussion because I was pinged, I could really care less about churches in the Netherlands, if they qualify for FoP, and I have absolutely zero skin in the issue what-so-ever. I only responded the way did because of how I was treated and the general attitude by you and others around the discussion. Really, I wouldn't have left the last two messages if people hadn't of acted like Arnoud Engelfriet's opinion was the only one that mattered or acted like I had no business questioning what he said. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: But sometimes, at some point, the right response is, "I really have no special expertise in this matter, and I've already stated my opinion. I'll probably be fine with whatever consensus is reached." I didn't particularly wade very far into this one myself because I have no expertise in the subtleties of Dutch copyright law. - Jmabel ! talk 18:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. But from what I read about the guy he's a patent attorney and there's nothing to indicate he's an expert in laws specifically related to FoP. Plus nothing he said was based on his expertise or legal knowledge to begin with. Comment was just a repeat of parts of the guideline and what other people had already said. Like that the legal standard is whether the public in principle has access. His expertise doesn't have anything to do with at that point. It's not like other people who weren't experts in the area didn't comment in the meantime either. Romaine can write a 50 line speculative screed and no one tells them it's just their opinion or to stay out of it even though aren't a expert patent attorney, but I can't ask why schools aren't public places or say I don't think what Arnoud Engelfriet said about worshipers matters because I don't have special expertise in the area? Come on. The only difference is that I disagreed that churches qualify for FoP.

I would have been fine deferring to Arnoud Engelfriet's opinion if there comment was actually informed by their expertise and based on some kind of legal precedent, but at that point your just deferring to whomever has the highest credentials in the conversation. Regardless of if what they are saying is actually based on anything or relevant to the conversation. I said the legal standard is whether the public in principle has access multiple times myself. Apparently if he says it's treated as gospel because "expert patent attorney" but I do I shouldn't have comment and stayed out of the conversation to begin with since I don't have special expertise in the area. OK. Why even have the discussion at that point? Even if what Arnoud Engelfriet said was informed by their expertise and didn't just rehash the guideline, what's the problem with people who aren't experts hashing out the finer details of the guideline anyway? Like I think I told Abzeronow, users tend to ignore single sentence comments in guidelines about expert opinion but will treat minor conservations where there's a consensus to do something a certain way as gospel. So I think it's important that "normal" users participate in conversations and their opinions are integrated into whatever changes are made to the guideline regardless of their credentials. Again though, it's not like plenty of other people who weren't experts weren't commenting though. I just disagreed that churches should qualify for FoP and they didn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

FoP is a subset of intellectual property law. It doesn't have specialists, it's too narrow for that. Engelfriet is an expert on Dutch IP law, and he is one of the lawyers Wikimedia Nederland consults on these matters. He frequently holds talks at Wikimania events in the Netherlands. He doesn't just deal with patents, though patents too are a subset of IP law.

And what Romaine wrote was not a screed, it was a detailed explanation of things you seemed to have trouble understanding. (In fact, in your last reply to her you kept saying that you couldn't make sense of what she was saying, despite the whole thing being broken up in paragraphs that each tackled their own section). The reason her reply was so long was because she had to cover a lot of topics, which is what you demanded her and others do. ("Just answer the questions. It's not that difficult.")

And lastly yes, this is a collaborative process, but that goes both ways. You were not acting in a collaborative manner, you were acting like someone who thinks his opinion should matter more than anyone else's. You had your opinion from the outset and held the fact that nobody could change your mind as evidence of its correctness. But that's not how that's supposed to work. And being stubborn is one thing, but lashing out at people when a conversation doesn't go the way you want is another. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, ReneeWrites. Whatever you say. All I have to work with is the information I have available to me and according to the heading on his website he's a "European patent attorney." Also he recently wrote an article discussing the legality of unlocking the iPhone. You'd have to agree patents are different then copyrights and that the legality of unlocking iPhone's has nothing to do with freedom of panorama. Regardless, it's not like he brought his "expertise" into the conversation anyway, which you seem to be ignoring. Someone's qualifications are totally irrelevant if there comment is a copy paste of the guideline though. But it just goes to show that's all people in the conversation cared about.

As to your opinion about Romaine's comment, we will have to agree to disagree. Just because a message is broken down into sections doesn't mean it can't be or isn't a screed. Nor where there a "lot of points" to what I say was saying. I think in the message that Romaine replied to with a 17 line response I made 1 point and asked them a question. That's not "lots of points" and it didn't need a 17 line response either. Nor did I want one. But hey, their response was broken down into sub sections so....Anyway, the rest of your comment isn't even worth responding to. Except I will say the claim that I wasn't acting in a collaborative manner is laughable considering your side was the one's who wanted the conversation to end 1 day in after only 3 comments "because expert" and then repeatedly derided me for continuing it. What did I do though? Asked people to clarify things multiple times and said the guideline should integrate everyone's points and be based consensus. So uncollaborative of me. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: can you point at, say, three times on Commons that you have admitted you were wrong about something, or actually apologized to someone? And, no, "whatever you say" followed by a wall of text continuing to state your case doesn't count. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really because usually I just don't respond and think the person for their edit. Either that or I say I don't necessarily disagree and leave it at that. Otherwise I just get criticized for trying to have the last word or some other nonsense. Although I have retracted plenty of DRs where I made mistakes. I don't think it would be productive or useful if I was leaving random messages everywhere going off about how wrong I am in relation to random issues though. Most of the time I just don't participate to begin with if it's something I don't know anything about.

I will point out though that I said twice at the beginning of this conversation that I shouldn't have left the last two message or at least been less heavy handed. I have zero problem defending myself if someone is going to attack me like ReneeWrites is doing in the meantime, but does that mean I couldn't have responded better originally? No. Of course not and I never claimed it did. I just don't think how ReneeWrites is treating me about it or this complaint are justified. It gets super tiring dealing with people month after month who's first line of defense at the slightest sign of conflict is filing an ANU. That said, I probably would have apologized from the onset if she wrote me a message on my talk page about it, but I'm not going to be super regretful to someone who is clearly in it just to be retaliatory. Sorry. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)\

Two minute search.

1. "I didn't notice it was being used on their user page. My bad. If someone wants to procedurally close this be my guest."
2. "Your right. My bad."
3. "an administrator can just close this as keep. My bad."
4. "I must have missed the VRT permission on that file. My bad."
5. "it might be Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. If so, this can be retracted."
6. "My bad. I clicked Show More and didn't see it. This can be retracted."
7. "This can be retracted now that there's evidence the image is freely licensed."

And since you seemed to have either missed or ignored them my first message "I probably could have been a little less heavy handed with the last reply" and "I should have just dropped it and not left the last couple of messages."

--Adamant1 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Thanks, that's a fair number of examples. - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion request incomplete

Hi, I did a mass-deletion request for this user but the Deletion Request Subpage couldn't be created by VFC and also not manually, due to undesirable characters. Thanks in advance for a fix, --Enyavar (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done I manually created the page. Yann (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Zamand Karim

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

Uploading derivative works after a final warning for copyright violations. Also making a lot of strange deletion requests asking for some of their uploads to be removed because they had uploaded them "by mistake", but it's unclear what they mean by that.

If they're realising that they uploaded an image they didn't have the rights to, this isn't being communicated: this may be the case with something like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kurdish State Map.jpg - uploaded in 2020, deletion request raised in 2023 saying they had uploaded it "by mistake", file kept because it was in use... but it seems to be an uncredited crop of a 2015 Reddit post. Belbury (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that File:Kurdish_State_Map.jpg should be deleted because I used and uploaded it incorrectly. Not the file File:Hasan_Zirak_Wojak.png that I created and published myself, just by imitating, which every other user does Zamand Karim (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

User:ICanNominate

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

Vexatious nomination of random VRT verified files for deletion 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 23:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong suggestion that this is a sock of an aggrieved uploader, and is worth a full check for sockpuppetry.🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 23:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  This diff confirms sockpuppetry (0.95 probability) 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 23:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's not sockpuppetry to go from IP to user. ICanNominate (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I learned that's OK to do from an admin. ICanNominate (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Indef'ed as a VOA for now, unable to find the master account, they seem to have used IPs only, CU may help. -- CptViraj (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Angeloferreira81

Keeps uploading copyvios. Already warned. Basically destroying a single page on ptwiki, as their uploads will certainly get deleted anytime soon. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done User indefed, copyvios deleted.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

DarkWorld305

• DarkWorld305 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), 16 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), two years ago. As a precedent, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page". As The Vital Exchange, DarkWorld305 made this edit 09:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC), omitting transclusion, the subpage, and notice to the page creator, and in violation of COM:CATRED. I warned them in this edit 10:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC), surviving as User talk:DarkWorld305#Warning. After changing username, they did it again in this edit 01:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Be that as it may, I see no reason to keep a 5-year-old empty category that could easily be recreated if needed, and can't really get myself to worry that someone may not have been informed of its impending deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Jmabel: I was waiting for the outcome of this section (to preserve non-Admin access to the edit in question) before tagging the cat for deletion under COM:CSD#C2.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Timler3789

Timler3789 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Copyright violations--Trade (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Luciana118

Luciana118 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) all uploads are probably copyright violations. -- aka 12:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. User is warned, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Chasekanaly

Chasekanaly (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) — continues to tag every upload they do as "Own Work" after warnings; might not be aware of their talk pages (also tried on en-wiki) but either way most of these uploads are clear copyvio. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 13:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Joluxx1

Repeated history of uploading copyright violations which have all been deleted through deletion requests. Has again uploaded more copyright violations earlier today. PizzaKing13 (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Usually I do not want to block a user, who is not warned, but considering really big number of copyvios, I made an exception and blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

9bihi and Bihi9

• 9bihi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Suspected related users

• Bihi9 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Rationale, discussion and results

Reason: Their usernames share a same pattern and both of them have edits on File:Najah souss agadir 2023.png. Besides, Bihi9 uploaded File:Association Najah Souss Agadir.png while 9bihi adjusted "Najah Souss" to "Association Najah Souss Agadir" and included File:Najah souss agadir 2023.png on en:Najah Souss: see en:Special:Diff/1172688608. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

These appear to pass the duck test per Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/9bihi.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Deni Spaho

This appears to be another sock of User:Kirill Telegin. It has been uploading various historical revisions of images, using the same naming pattern as the files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by Kirill Telegin. I suspect the user may be a youth or child, and do not know how to handle this situation any further. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Obvious sock, blocked. Yann (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User Michelle Dahlmanns

Michelle Dahlmanns (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user This new user uploads a series of drawings that seems to promote her website (HD@DH.nrw). Could an administrator have a look. Pierre cb (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Not seeing any advertising or promotion. The drawings look useful, assuming that they are free Gbawden (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Unlikely. How do you mark hundreds of images as missing permission? Trade (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: VFC can do this with the "No permission" Action.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I must agree with Gbawden. We can rename files. If you think, that some file has no educational value, then you can nominate them for regular (not speedy) deletion, but one by one, not all together. Taivo (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I only listed the project name (HD@DH.nrw) because I created the graphics in the project and therefore they also belong to the project. It should not be an advertisement but an assignment. Michelle Dahlmanns (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

These drawings seem to be useful as clipart for reuse, especially when considered that these are (true) SVGs — suitable for unlimited resizing. (Most such clipart is raster.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Hornstrandir1 excessive and disruptive categorization

Hornstrandir1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has a habitual behavior of creating myriads of redundant categories which are massive overcategorization, along with miscategorizing images and categories (egCategory:Mecoptera fossils in the overcat Category:Paleobiota (insects) of the Tranquille Formation that do not qualify for the new categories. This is a habitual issue that is shown by the number of category for deletion notices and the amount of clean up work needed for geology pages such as Category:Allenby Formation, Category:Coldwater Beds, and Category:Klondike Mountain Formation. This expands to any area the user works as shown by the Numerous comments, requests to stop, and Categories for discussion on their talk page. They have already had a prior 3-day block by @A.Savin: . The amount of work needed to clean up after Them is exhausting and they clearly seem to fit the concept of Not Here.--Kevmin § 16:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is a long time since I was categorizing last any paleobiota etc. Depending on your comment, it would seem that most of my work is not helpful for Wikipedia projects, but on the other hand, most of my categories were/are connected to Wikidata items, so this cannot fit really. And many other workers did say thank you for my work.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Also half of the deletion requests are about one single series of old pictures about Iceland from 2002 that I uploaded but which just seem to work as thumbnails. Hornstrandir1 (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s not about the cats you created, it’s about how are you using them to categorize. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of this complaint, please note that "overcategorization" is not merely an emphatic derogatory superlative of "categorization", but it rather terms a specific concept covered in a Commons guideline (COM:OVERCAT); it should not be used just to deplore or otherwise characterize categorization felt to be excessive: Indeed a given file may suffer from overcategorization while belonging to only two categories (e.g.: Category:Cats and Category:Black cats), while another file may have 30 or 40 categories with none of them being a case of COM:OVERCAT (examples: most photos of trams, yay!). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Use ARMAGHSOUDI

ARMAGHSOUDI (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploads selfies and random website photos without copyright status. All should be deleted and the user should blocked since it is not the first time and was already warned. Pierre cb (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Wutsje for 3 months Gbawden (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

DelawareMatt

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

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

User Manojkvanjara

Manojkvanjara (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploads selfies and use his user page in Commons for self-promotion, even after warning. Should be blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. I deleted last remaining uploads as copyvios and userpage as self-promotion. Taivo (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Lalchhanhima zote hmar aibawk

Lalchhanhima zote hmar aibawk is an obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Block as sockpuppet trying to avoid block of main account. Jonteemil (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Taivo: How about their uploads? Main account's uploads were all deleted as copyvios and I recognize many of them. Jonteemil (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I recognized 2 files as re-uploads and deleted them speedily, also I nominated 1 file for regular deletion. You are free to nominate the rest for deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Gilangsanjaya13

Gilangsanjaya13 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Copyright violations--Trade (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Riad Salih

I had nominated one this users images for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Article Journal L'Algérois.jpg where voted keep under the belief that All old Colonial newspapers are public domain. Which led to us having a little conversation about it over an hour and multiple comments. They then proceeded to delete the original message and wrote that left out what we were discussing in preceding conversation, which makes it seem like I was responded to something they didn't say. So I reverted the edit and asked them to add an addendum to the comment or write a new one at the bottom of the DR instead of erasing the original message. They were unwilling to do it though and proceeded to revert me. I'm not sure if it's against the rules, but it's at least extremely bad faithed and inconsiderate of other participants to completely change the meaning of a message after it's already received multiple responses. Plus it just makes the conversation that much harder to follow. So can an administrator please revert their edit and tell them not to do it again? Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

He started a massive operation of nominations for about 22 pictures or more (old Algerian images) I couldn't check all of them, but in my case, which involves almost 20 images. I mentioned the source as the internet, which was fine for me as I didn't want to include commercial links from platforms like eBay or old forums or Facebook groups. I explained to him on his talk page that a note would be appreciated, but his tone started to be aggressive which honestly, I didn't like it. I'm not used to other contributors here telling me it's end of the story, period, and using very aggressive tones. He keeps repeating himself despite me agreeing with him multiple times.

I wasn't the first to notice this, apparently, he didn't appreciate my attempt to explain. Poudou99 also tried to explain the concern to him before me. However, he assumed that even if he had noticed me, I wouldn't have made any changes. I don't know what makes him assume that, Which is clearly false. I'm open for discussion, and you can see my contributions. I try to fix old train stations' licenses and dates almost every day.

By the way, I would like to express my gratitude and respect to Richard Arthur Norton (1958-) for helping in finding the sources and adding them, as well as providing his opinion. You can find some of our discussions on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abdelkader Draris.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abdelhafid Ihaddaden.png, and all other files, including Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gare de Mécheria - CPA1.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enveloppe premier jour d'émission - Gorges d'El Kantara - 1977.jpg

Since then, he has been trying to reply to every comment and try to block things and doesn't agree with anything I say no matter what. turning the discussion into a kind of forum and replying to every comment just to oppose.

I can edit the page because there is no rule that obliges me not to, just as he can edit his comments since the original message is kept as "All old Algerian newspapers during the colonial period are available in PD." so my edit does not change anything. He is free to oppose Gallica, while a template already exists and has been used for years. I started a new talk to explain to him to stop reverting and to clarify that my edit does not change anything. However, he continues to oppose whatever I say Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Article Journal L'Algérois.jpg

Therefore, I kindly request an admin to consider all these matters and judge me. If I have made any problematic comportment against him, I am ready to accept the consequences.

Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Just an FYI, but I said "end of the story, period" after Riad Salih refused to end the conversation after I asked him to multiple times. Regardless, notice that their comment has nothing to do with what I reported them for. Also, I never said you couldn't "edit the page." What I have a problem with is that you completely erased the message that I originally responded to and that the preceding discussion was about. It's fine to edit a comment, it's not OK to completely replace a message with a new one hours into the conversation and when there's been multiple replies to it. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You used an aggressive tone and always assume that I don't understand and won't change anything, even if you leave a note. Anyway, I will let the admin judge. Please read the conversation and see that I do agree with him. I simply explained the case, that's all. English isn't my native language, so sometimes I may use longer paragraphs to explain myself, especially when nominating 20 images at a time, which can be time-consuming. The way he is talking comes across as aggressive to me, not just because of the words he uses, but also the tone. Maybe he is used to using slang, but where I come from, we don't talk to people like that, especially when the conversation was polite and I was in agreement. He seemed intent on repeating himself, even though I wasn't disagreeing. For the last edit, the admin can compare my first and last comments and see that the context is the same. Alternatively, you could have added my original comment, as I mentioned it's fine to edit the page in my edit note. Regards to all, and again, if my behavior was problematic, I'm ready to accept sanctions. Otherwise, thanks for all your great work in maintaining the platform. Riad Salih (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not asking for sanctions. I just want the edit to be reverted by an administrator so the discussion doesn't seem disjointed or lack important context. Which I think is reasonable. I wouldn't have filed this to begin with though if Riad Salih had of been willing to just add their comment to the bottom of the DR instead of doing it by erasing one that had already been replied to multiple times. Everything else is clearly a distraction because they don't want to just admit it was a mistake. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't a distraction , but rather a context. You keep replying to Richard Arthur Norton (1958-) with the same comment, "I'd appreciate if you were more clear that you changed the license and added a description instead of repeatedly acting like I nominated an image for deletion that had a valid license and description on it to begin with. Thanks," criticizing everyone's comments. If I am wrong, I will accept sanctions, but for my edit, which you are repeating it three times here, the context remains the same and doesn't change anything in your comments, and told you can add it yourself in the page. You cannot be aware of all the public domain rules worldwide which is fine, so please stop opposing without proper understanding. Anyway, that's all I have to say. I will leave the decisions to the admins here." Riad Salih (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey I said thanks. What was it you said on my talk page, that you weren't being rude because you started comments with 'Hi' and ended with 'Regards'? But if I say thinks at the end of a message I'm criticizing people. OK. Again, just more deflection from why I reported you. This isn't about random comments I've made to other people or my knowledge of public domain rules. So stop trying to side track the complaint and let an administrator deal with it like I asked. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

No one said you're criticizing people, and the admins can read our conversations and judge for themselves. Riad Salih (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. You literally said I was "criticizing everyone's comments" in your last message. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I choose my words carefully; I said criticizing people's comments, not criticizing people; it's not the same. This is my last reply since it's already a forum-like discussion. Riad Salih (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Lalchhanhima zote hmar picture

Lalchhanhima zote hmar picture is yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Block as sockpuppet trying to avoid block of main account. Jonteemil (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Indefinitely blocked, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Mahlimi khiangte

Mahlimi khiangte seems to be yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Block as sockpuppet trying to avoid block of main account. Jonteemil (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Juancho Alcalá

Juancho Alcalá (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has continued uploading images with copyvio after the warnings. It has also been re-uploading previously deleted images. --Ovruni (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him for a week and mass deleted recent uploads. Taivo (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

User AR VLD

AR VLD (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploads are overcategorized, ost of them unrelated. All his uploads shopuld be trimmed for categories by an administrator or a bot. Pierre cb (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Pierre cb: Or by any other user. This is not an admin task. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Kacamata-paunocu

Kacamata-paunocu (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) is likely another sock of Thiago Juliaci. Plus, this is an Inappropriate username and an attack account, designed to attack me, "pau no cu" means "pain in the ass" in Brazilian Portuguese. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 23:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kacamata: indef-blocked for the inappropriate username. Please specify if anything else here needs Admin followup. - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thank you very much, for your prompt action. I also nominated their two uploads for deletion. If you could give it a look, I would be grateful. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

User BlackStar1991

BlackStar1991 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user even after numerous warnings this user continues to uploads photos from Ukrainian website https://www.president.gov.ua/news/na-aleyi-smilivosti-v-kiyevi-vidkrito-imennu-tablichku-mette-85417 which specifically prohibit commercial use of their material, thus not a copyright free source. All his images from such sources should be deleted and the user blocked for a while. Pierre cb (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. What's the problem with the image viewer? Why don't you want to block the user "PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY Official website" or user "President Of Ukraine" ?

Example1

Example2

Examle 3

They take images from the same site, but for some reason you have no complaints about them ? BlackStar1991 (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The license is valid for images uploaded to the presidency website before October 2022. The image linked by Pierre, however, is dated 2023 and as a result it can't be hosted here. I concur with their request for action. I would like to note, however, that despite contradictory description on Flickr, they've released some pictures as "public domain" and they can be uploaded here. Bedivere (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

David C. S. again

David C. S. (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user again uploading files with dubious license and origin, in special this file was deleted in July via COM:DR but he again uploaded with a different name, but I saw the irregularity. Despite the administrative actions, David is willing to the sabotage and ignore the messages he receives from patrollers and administrators. He's already a problematic user with previous sanctions. In addition, David has publicly decided to help with the blocked user Skulljujos to continue his dubious uploads. Taichi (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Debo acotar que ni siquiera es la misma imagen. Además de que la versión actual cumple con toda regla. Léase COM:TOO Andean Community.[13]. Por otra parte, Taichi muestra que me encuentro en contacto con Skulljujos, y no lo niego; no obstante, no hay ningún archivo que él me haya solicitado subir. Mi trabajo en Wikimedia Commons ha sido siempre autónomo, además de la presunción, dime ¿qué archivo he subido que sea por petición de Skulljujos? Colaboro con Skulljujos únicamente en Wikipedia en español, puesto que ambos somos ecuatorianos y somos los editores más activos en política nacional ¿es eso un delito?. -- David C. S. 02:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The file was deleted by the administrator Red-tailed hawk, should you have appealed to the administrator before reuploading the image against the administrative decision. For review purposes by Commons administrators, I will reply here in English and not in Spanish. Taichi (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support administrative action: David C. S. was already warned that repeated copyright violations could result in a block last year ([14]), and said uploads have continued. Not only that, but he has re-uploaded deleted files, as stated by the original poster. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I just noticed, and it's worth pointing out, that David was already blocked in 2011 precisely for uploading unfree files, meaning that he's definitely not a stranger to copyright policy in Commons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Right. The user received a final warning for uploading copyvios 18:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC). They were blocked for uploading them 08:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC) (log). They uploaded copyvio File:Represión policial, Paro Nacional 2022.png 16:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC), and others before and after that. See also unactioned Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 99#User:David C. S. and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 33#David C. S..   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Support administrative action. The user keeps reuploading the logo of Partido Socialista Ecuatoriano (a torch held by a fist using two colors (black and white) on a red background) despite the decision of AFBorchert in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Partido Socialista Ecuatoriano.png, after a block and many warnings. Such reuploads qualify for COM:CSD#G4.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Bumping this so it doesn't get archived, will probably take a look soon (but someone else should feel free to look into/action this instead!). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Still deciding whether other action is appropriate, but I'm revoking autopatrol per the concerns above. David may re-apply (or others may apply on their behalf) on COM:RFR to have the right returned at any time. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done blocked 6mo. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User Therecanbeonlyone111

Therecanbeonlyone111 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user the recent uploads of this users seems to be from a single obscure Kisak's Cinnamon Hill Farm collection of unknown copyright status and used in no articles. Furthermore, the categories seems unrelated. Could an administrator check the pertinence of those uploads? Pierre cb (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the "no permission" tags, as it is quite likely that the photos were all taken by one person and there is no reason to believe that person is not the uploader. However, it may be reasonable to start a DR on some of them for being unusably low quality and thus out of scope. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

NUF2007

NUF2007 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has continued uploading images with copyvio after the warnings.--Krorokeroro (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. One month block, all contributions deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

1.33.138.9

1.33.138.9 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Filling frivolous DR--Trade (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: we show no contributions from that user, deleted or otherwise. - Jmabel ! talk 03:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Requesting partial upload ban for Alzinous

Alzinous (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has a pattern of taking copyrighted photos, running them through artistic filters, and then uploading them as own work. After processing a number of his works that were tagged CSD-F1, I went in and filed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alzinous, where Alzinous's comments indicated a fundamental lack of understanding of COM:DW. reppop (talk · contribs) then arrived and pointed out that all of this has been explained to Alzinous before. At this point, continuing to allow Alzinous to upload files is a liability; they either are incapable of understanding our policies or refuse to do so.

Because he uploads these images in spurts, and his other uploads (photos) seem to be fine (assuming that they are "ludoviko"), I'm not convinced that a short block would actually achieve anything. Ideally, I think the solution is an indefinite ban from uploading images taken by other people, that they've then digitally manipulated, with any violation of that ban triggering an indefinite block. That said, I'm not opposed to skipping the upload ban and going straight to a long block. They've been given lots and lots and lots of warnings already. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to express my concern regarding the notices of possible copyright infringement that I have received. On several occasions I have responded to such notices, but it appears that my arguments are not valid. Unfortunately, however, I have rarely received a response from the team. Many times I have had the feeling that my images were being removed without any opportunity for reply or defence. I have also offered my cooperation in resolving any possible problems, however, my attempts have fallen on deaf ears. I am therefore surprised that the only response is the proposed blocking.

For my part, I have chosen to refrain from uploading any more drawings for some time now and have no intention of resuming this practice. I hope that this message will be taken as a sincere gesture of good faith and that the blocking will not materialise. Alzinous (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Alzinous: then will you accept a topic ban on uploading derivative works? - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: In my previous message, I clearly expressed my commitment to refrain from uploading any more drawings that are derived from copyrighted photographs as a gesture of good faith. Thanks. Alzinous (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I take it that is a "yes", and we have an agreement here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thank you. Alzinous (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

RblxFunkyGamer

I originally gave this message on Pppery's talk page, who said I could bring this here. I'm a little concerned about RblxFunkyGamer (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Their contributions appear to be in good faith, but they don't seem to understand how to properly license their work (i.e. what belongs here) or what the scope of Wikimedia Commons is. Some of their files seem to pertain to en:WP:BFDI, a non-notable web series that has attracted tons of disruption on Wikipedia and which mostly lies outside the scope of Commons. Some of their replies to deletion requests and other licensing matters on their talk page seem to show a lack of understanding, though I could be misinterpreting him.

See this.

Could someone please deal properly with this user? 118.148.83.75 21:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I closed multiple DR-s and created one more DR. Taivo (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

After that, they were probably upset and vandalized two deletion requests I saw. It seems they aren't contributing here. - The Harvett Vault | he/him | user | talk - 21:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC); edited: 21:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism to User:Túrelio's talk page by IP editor

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, but it appears that Túrelio's talk page is being repeatedly vandalized by a random IP editor, 158.62.82.19 (talk · contribs). Can an administrator block the address? Adamant1 (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Yann blocked the IP for a week. Taivo (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a week. I will let Túrelio protect his talk page if he thinks it is needed. Yann (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

a thread about talk page archiving seems to have devolved into a place for people to just attack me specifically

See Commons:Village pump#Fæ's talk page. What started off as a technical discussion about notices being archived somehow turned in to people trying to re-hash the events that led to a user voluntarily leaving the project, blaming me for that, and now seemingly accusing me of doxxing and attempting to do real-world harm to people by abusing the checkuser tool, which, you may note, I do not even have on this project and use extremely rarely on en.wp. I certainly have never CU'd anyone I was in a dispute with so I could tell people where they live and they can go to their house and "make them disappear" but it seems I am being accused of exactly that and I'd appreciate it if an admin or just anyone with some sense could step in and close this down, and maybe strike out these absurd, baseless accusations. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I closed that thread, which got much too far beyond its initial purpose. Yann (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we should leave it with this. If you want we could reopen the 2021 case, but I think that is not in your interest. GPSLeo (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned this issue was closed back then and I remian unsure what the point of dredging it back up now was supposed to be, but I am also not worried about it as the accusations are without merit. Thanks to Yann for closing the thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Someoneinsomeplace

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

This is obviously not a new user. First edit is recreating Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photoshop-screenshot.JPG after 2 previous "Kept". Yann (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like someone created a sockpuppet to start a deletion war against software screenshots. This is not a helpful way to participate in this project. -- Chaddy (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Fintechequities

Fintechequities (talk · contribs), clearly not here to build, copyvio and spams. Lemonaka (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Давид Джалагония

User:Давид Джалагония exclusively uploads stolen tickle fetish art and has seemingly never made a legitimate contribution. Please block this user. Dronebogus (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Wrong GPS for my files - not able to upload corrected files

Im adding manually GPS location to my photos from my phone and I made mistake, I use my on code written in Python that finds proper location based on timestamp of a photo. I tested the wrong photo when I was checking if the GPS is correct (on that photo I was there for more than an hour and my photos have 1 hour shift).

The problem is that I can't upload new file with changed EXIF data, the upload is yelling at me that the file didn't change. Is there something I can do to upload modified files with correct GPS location? The photos are part of Wiki Love Monuments in Poland and there are 8 photos. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Jcubic: I believe you are on the wrong page; this is a page for reporting inappropriate user behavior other than vandalism.
• &, sorry, I don't have an answer to your question. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Jmabel: so admins can't overwrite this behavior somehow? Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Incorrect data is not that problematic. You can just change the data in the location template. GPSLeo (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Solman9

Solman9 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user I strongly suggest a permanent block for this user. During two years of activity he did nothing productive, he repeatedly uploads copyrighted material and vandalizes various categories, and it's not possible to discuss those issues since his English is awful. He already got warned several times, by me and Jeff G, then usually stops and goes away, but always come back and continues with the same practice. Everything he uploaded until now are CR violations, including the newest material. It should be deleted asap. --Orijentolog (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: I concur. Thanks for posting about them here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 08:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 1 month. It appears that they're trying to be constructive and are just bad at it, so I'm fine giving them one last chance. Feel free to come back here if they resume problematic uploads upon their return. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, Orijentolog, you are required to notify users that are the subject of AN/U threads using the subst: template at the top of the page. I have done so for you in this case. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

NeverDoING

If you are a user in good standing, please log in, and start again. Otherwise, go away. Yann (talk) 12:04, 16 September 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.

---

Hello. I marked as empty several categories opened and abandoned by this user. I could see that he is one of two or three "problematic" category openers, whose categories are all the time being discussed and deleted or deleted speedily. Why lose so much time? Simply tell these people not to open new categories or that they will be blocked. Is there any statistical data to prove what I said? My observation is quite sound though. 186.174.249.153 16:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @NeverDoING. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Own your own grievances

May I just say: I'm getting heartily sick of people who are obviously experienced Commons users who come here anonymously, while logged out, to complain about other users' behavior. Have a grievance against someone? Have the nerve to make the accusation in your own name (and also take the responsibility to ping or otherwise notify the person you are accusing, which as a clearly experienced user here you should know to do). You are asking admins -- other volunteers -- to take action against someone while you hide from them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

While we are at the subject anyways

• 186.174.143.153 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)
• 186.174.249.153 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)

Could someone please get this Commons user to use his main account when calling for others to be "ousted" from the site on his behalf?--Trade (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

+1. Yann (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Jmabel, Yann: I have BOLDly blocked both IP addresses for abuse of multiple accounts, as using an IP address to shield one's actual account from accountability is literally the first example of sockpuppetry on the EnWiki en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry page, which Commons:Sockpuppetry forwards to. Any other admin should feel free to revert the blocks without prior consultation if they feel this is incorrect. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Is this CU worthy? Trade (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• CU won't touch this per Checkuser is not for fishing. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yann (talk) 21:39, 15 September 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.

Marvtomodrtski

Marvtomodrtski (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Sockpuppet of Takiva (talk · contribs). Leonel Sohns 09:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Golden

Is this edit summary aligned with Commons:Civility? HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this? The user above engaged in an edit war (3 reverts within 24 hours [15], [16], [17]) to maintain an inaccurate version of a file. They reverted my minor correction, which was intended to align the file more closely with its claimed source, as merely my "preference", implying that my change was personal bias. — Golden ^talk 15:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not right to behave supercilious by overwriting a file created collaboratively under auspices of Commons:Graphic Lab, specially after Commons:Overwriting existing files is mentioned as the reason for revert. One could say who has an edit war mentality here: the user who is acting accordingly when an existing file is overwritten twice, or the user who has a record of insisting that others are wrong. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

COM:OVERWRITE does not apply to minor improvements, which is what my edit was. If we're digging up past edits, it's worth noting that there have been instances where you've claimed that properly sourced maps are "inaccurate" without providing any justification. You've even created a unique category for these maps and advised others against using them. — Golden ^talk 16:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

My take: Golden's edit summary at least borders on incivility; Heminkurdistan's is perfectly civil and if Golden can't see that the problem is on Golden's side; only two of the reversions are of the same thing, so this is not 3RR, although it looks like you are both edit warring; the belief that you are right does not mean you are not edit warring, I'm sure you each believe you are right; as for this being a "minor improvement," I don't see Golden's typography change as particularly better or worse, but the border change, even if small, is not a "minor change" in the relevant sense. If there is a disagreement about where a border should be drawn, that calls for two mutually linked versions of the file; any citeable sources for either or both would be welcome. Frankly, my own guess is that a small border difference for an unrecognized entity in a period of combat is probably not something that can be precisely determined either way, but perhaps there were some specific trenches, battles, posts, etc. that actually established a line to this degree of precision and I wouldn't know about it. Split the file into two versions under different filenames (whoever's map was the earlier one at this name gets to keep this name, I pointedly didn't look through to determine which that is), and other than that unless one of you wants to ask for disciplinary action that would apply to both of you, I suggest you let the matter drop. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I stated in my last edit summary on that page that I wouldn't be editing it any further. I didn't want to waste any more time on this dispute than I already had. Yet, here we are. Thanks for taking the time to review this, Jmabel. — Golden ^talk 17:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has positive experiences with both Golden & HeminKurdistan, I must say here I don't see issue in either Golden's edit or summary. Golden's summarizes are sometimes indeed energic (reminds me of myself), but far from impolite. HeminKurdistan is a great editor and big gentleman, but he should understand that we mountainous people from the Balkans and Caucasus have slightly different mood of communication. :) I'm not aware of overwriting policies so I won't comment it. Regards to all. --Orijentolog (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Paul J. King

Paul J. King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This editor has uploaded several images under blatantly false claims that they are CC-zero. I've nominated the images for speedy deletion, but could an admin please also block them for being a copyright violation only account? Thank you Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Paul was not warned, so I warned him instead. Taivo (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Persepolis88

Graham87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Hi, I'm trying to set up a two pages, for two books I've written that have both been published by respected publishers and have been reviewed, discussed, in the media etc. But am unable to login to my account due to a block on my IP, maybe? trying to get in touch with the responsible administrator Graham87, but because I can't log in to wikipedia, can't contact them. Want to understand the problem and try to sort it out if possible.Persepolis** (talk)

@Persepolis88: this account only has two edits on this wiki, and none on any other WMF wiki. I take it that a different account was blocked.

On your user page here, you say "I'm here to add two books I've written to Wikipedia." If what you mean is that you intend to write on the English-language Wikipedia about books you have authored, that is a clear violation of the English-language Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest (and further elaboration in en:WP:Autobiography). If you attempted to do that in the past on some other account, that would explain your getting blocked. And there is no way around that: you should not be writing in en-wiki about yourself.

Also: this page is intended as a place to report behavioral problems by Commons users. Presumably, you are not saying that User:Graham87 blocking you on en-wiki is somehow a "behavioral problem" by him here. Normally, the only proper way to appeal a block on en-wiki is to use your user talk page there (for the relevant account), unless access to that has also been blocked, in which case see en:Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. I strongly suggest that if you want to pursue this, you stick to those channels instead of creating a sockpuppet account and trying to take matters up on a different wiki, both of which only create more reasons for you to be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 06:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Persepolis88: Indeed, I entirely agree with the above message. Another situation I can think of is that you forgot the password on your previous account and can't retrieve it due to an IP block I've done ... if so you're still in completely the wrong place. Or it could just be a standard IP block I've done that has prevented you from creating an enwiki account. It would help if I knew the exact IP address/account name you've tried to use on enwiki. Whatever's going on, you should absolutely not try to write any pages about anything you're involved with, per the above links. If these things are truly notable, someone else will write about them eventually. Graham87 (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Photo_memories_1868

Photo_memories_1868 (talk · contribs) uploads lots of copyvio photos, need a check for their contributions. Lemonaka (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

(Lemonaka edited the comment above on September 8. whym (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC))

Tbh, it's not obvious that these are copyvios. All the linked examples of versions of the images available elsewhere on the Internet leads to lower resolution and/or inferior quality versions of the images. I would rather have tagged them with needing VRT verification. TommyG (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This File:Takaoka koutaro 1.jpg, File:Takaoka koutaro 2.jpg, File:Baron Kuninaga Tsumori.jpg, File:itagakitaisukesensei_kenshohi.jpg, File:itagakitaisukesensei_kenshohi_ura.jpg, File:itagakitaisuke_sensei_dozo_yuraihi.jpg, is Copyright free images　板垣退助先生顕彰会. Photo memories 1868 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Photo memories 1868: then why did you claim to hold the copyright and offer them under a free license? - Jmabel ! talk 03:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it is the same person as the copyright holder.Photo memories 1868 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Photo memories 1868: That makes no sense. Who is the same person as the copyright holder? You specified yourself as the author and granted a license, now you are saying they are "copyright free" (which is not possible if the author is alive, which obviously you are). - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: すいません。英語では言っておられる意味が分からないので、日本語でお答えします。1件目「File:Takaoka koutaro 1.jpg」は「著作権侵害理由：https://www.instagram.com/hyuga_takachiho/ 」となっていますが、その写真の撮影者は私「Photo memories 1868」です。私は著作権をフリー(Public domain)にしています。その事を「https://www.instagram.com/hyuga_takachiho/ 」に明記しました。ご確認ください。2件目「File:Takaoka koutaro 2.jpg」は「著作権侵害理由：[18]」　であるとされました。これも私の撮影した写真です。その事を立証するために「[19]」　に私が撮影者であることを明記しました。なおかつ、私はこの画像の著作権を自らフリーにしました。私が撮影者であり著作権を手離したことは「板垣退助先生顕彰会」のページに明記しました。ご確認ください。3件目、「File:Itagakitaisuke sensei dozo yuraihi.jpg」は「著作権侵害理由：[20]」　とされました。これも私が撮影したものですので「[21]」　のページに私「Photo memories 1868」が撮影者であることを明記しました。私が撮影者であり著作権を手離し、(Public domain)にしたことは「板垣退助先生顕彰会」　のページに同様に明記しました。4件目「File:Itagakitaisukesensei kenshohi.jpg」は、「https://senseki-kikou.net/?p=31876」　のページの画像の著作権を侵害したと記載されました。「https://senseki-kikou.net/?p=31876」　の画像は、私がupした写真とは異なるもので、私が撮影しupした写真は「板垣退助先生顕彰会」　のページにあるものです。当日、私は別の角度からも複数枚撮影しており、必要であればそれをご指定のmail先へ証拠としてお送りします。他の画像も同様です。以上よろしくお願いします。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Could someone with good Japanese please take over here? The user seems to be saying (both in English and in Japanese) that they took these pictures but that there is no copyright, which doesn't make a lot of sense, and the claim that there is no copyright contradicts the fact that they offered a license that they can offer only if they are the copyright-holder. My Japanese is minimal, and I'm not going to be able to work this through. Pinging @Howcheng, Jianhui67, Miya, Yasu - 21:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yasu日本語の理解出来る人お願いします。私(photos taken by me)が撮影者(copyright-holder)です(own work)。ですから、私の権限(My license are doing)で(Public domain)にして、公開(uploads)してます。どうか「板垣退助先生顕彰会」　のリンク先を確認して下さい。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonakaさん、ここで英語の話せる人に応援を頼んでいます。I'm looking for people who can speak English and Japanese.Photo memories 1868 (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

日本語のネイティブスピーカーです。事態を説明するので少しお待ち下さい。
I am a native Japanese speaker. Please wait a moment while I explain the situation. Misato Kano (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka@TommyG@Jmabel@Photo memories 1868
ja:
起こっていることについて説明します。
Photo memories 1868は、これらの写真は彼自身が撮ったものであると主張しています。
また、日本では「著作者が亡くなり著作権が期限切れになる」だけでなく、「著作者が著作権を行使しないことを明示する」とこも「著作権フリー」と呼ばれる場合があります。(狭義の「パブリックドメイン」とは異なる)

en:
I am a native Japanese user and I will try to explain what is happening.
Photo memories 1868 claims that these photos were taken by himself.

In Japan, not only "the author dies and the copyright expires" but also "the author does not exercise the copyright" is sometimes called "copyright free". (Different from "public domain" in the narrow sense of the term.) Misato Kano (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Photo memories 1868 ちなみに現在ファイルに付与されているCC BY-SAは、Commonsで言うところのPublic Domainとは異なります。「パブリックドメインと主張しているのに(著作権者の権利を主張する)CC BY-SAをつけているのは矛盾している」と言われているわけです。
本来の意味でのPublic domainに置きたい場合はライセンスをCC0などに変えたほうがいいです。

The file is currently marked CC BY-SA, which is not what he intended Public Domain to be. If you really want to make it Public Domain, we recommend that you publish it as CC0. Misato Kano (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Misato Kanoさま、ありがとうございます。私が「パブリックドメイン」というのは著作権フリーが翻訳で伝わってなかったようで、回りまわってたどり着いた英語です。要するに私の著作権行使を放棄して自由に使ってもらいたいのです。（ File:Baron Kuninaga Tsumori.jpg は、1920年作製ですのでパブリックドメインになると思います）著作権を侵害されていると言われている側のページ http://itagakitaisuke.link/2021/07/16/itagaki-103kaiki/ 、https://www.instagram.com/hyuga_takachiho/ に私が撮影者であることを明記し、なおかつ、http://itagakitaisuke.link/anniversary_slug/20230101-2/　に皆様が自由使ってもらって良い旨を宣言してます。@Lemonaka@TommyG@Jmabelさま、この後、私がどう対処すれば、画像が復帰するのか教えてください。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Misato Kano: can you please explain to the user that their claim to be the "author" of File:Baron Kuninaga Tsumori.jpg is pretty clearly wrong? And maybe work out who should be credited (or perhaps Unknown author)? Also, what are we to make of the claim that File:Itagakitaisuke sensei dozo yuraihi.jpg, a picture of a monument depicts Itagaki Taisuke (Q456380)? And are we sure that the monument is, itself, not subject to copyright? (Similar questions on some others, I imagine you will see the issues for yourself but there is a lot to be sorted out here.) - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Photo memories 1868 以下のことについて確認したいそうです。

• File:Baron_Kuninaga_Tsumori.jpgの"作者"というのは間違っていると思う
  • (訳注: 板垣退助先生顕彰会は現代において管理をしているだけで、板垣退助先生顕彰会が写真を撮影したわけではないだろうという理解です)
  • この写真を撮ったのは誰なのか、あるいは不明なのかをはっきりさせてほしい
  • (訳注2: これらの他にも、この写真の権利を現在板垣退助先生顕彰会が保有している証明などが必要かもしれません)
• File:Itagakitaisuke sensei dozo yuraihi.jpgが板垣退助を描いているというwikidataの主張はどう考えればよいか
• (訳注: おそらく漢字が読めないため「由来が書いてある」という旨を理解できていないようです。銅像建立の由来が書いてあるという旨で返答していいでしょうか？)
  • 石碑自体が著作権の対象でない(=石碑そのものがパブリックドメイン)という認識で正しいか
  • (文章自体に著作権はないのかを問われていると思います)

Misato Kano (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

これらはあくまで一例で、似たような質問がいくつかあるので権利周りを再度確認してほしいとも言われています。
必要があれば翻訳は承るので教えてください。 Misato Kano (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yasu, Misato Kano, and Jmabel: This is a very complicated case. First of all, Photo memories 1868 should explained to VRT that they are the really copyright holders, since some of their photos were found on other place on the Internet. Second, license should be changed to CC0 or something instead of CC-BY-SA. In addition, I really have little knowledge about Japanese law regarding copyrights, which are quite different from US ones.

Google:
これは非常に複雑なケースです。 まず第一に、Photo Memory 1868 は、自分たちの写真の一部がインターネット上の別の場所で見つかったため、実際の著作権者は自分たちであることを VRT に説明する必要があります。 次に、ライセンスを CC-BY-SA ではなく CC0 などに変更する必要があります。 また、私は日本の著作権法については全く知識がありません。米国の著作権法とは大きく異なります。 Lemonaka (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

To @Photo memories 1868 We are no longer requesting block or nuke your contributions, please be at ease. We are now in the regular checking against copyright and license.

@写真の思い出 1868 へ 私たちは今後、あなたの投稿のブロックや削除をリクエストしておりません。ご安心ください。 現在、著作権とライセンスを定期的にチェックしています。 Lemonaka (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka@Jmabel@Misato Kano@TommyG@Yasu皆様ありがとうございます。順番にご説明します。

①津守國榮男爵(Tsumori Kuninaga, 1882-1940)「 File:Baron_Kuninaga_Tsumori.jpg 」の画像については、他と異なるケースになると思いますので、少々分けて考えて下さい。これは写真ではなく「絵」です。1919年にはこの肖像画が存在しました。(※おそらく1903年2月3日-1926年9月16日までの津守が住吉大社の宮司に在任中に描かれたと思われる) 100年以上前のことになるので、作者は不明です。(100年前の日本では、現在の概念と異なり、画家は金銭の対価として絵を描き、公開・非公開の権利は、絵の所蔵者に委ねられていました) 現在、一般社団法人板垣退助先生顕彰会(Itagaki Taisuke Honoring Association)の所蔵です。それを写真に撮ってupしたのが私です。所蔵している証拠が必要ならば提出します。(どの様な方法で、どうすれば良いか教えて下さい) ② File:Itagakitaisuke sensei dozo yuraihi.jpg は、 1923年に板垣退助の銅像が高知城に建立された時に、板垣退助(Itagaki Taisuke, 1837-1919)の功績を讃え銅像を建立した経緯が、漢文で記載されてます。文章を書いたのは西園寺公望(Saionji Kinmochi, 1849-1940)で、石碑を建てたのは「板垣伯銅像記念碑建設同志会」です。この会は、1945年解散してますが、そのメンバーたちが、財団法人板垣会を作り、この会が現在の「板垣退助先生顕彰会」の起源になってます。なので、この石碑は「itagaki taisuke」に関連するものとなります。石碑は野外の誰でも見れる場所にあり、西園寺も死亡して83年になります。③特に「 File:Tomb of itagaki masatsura.jpg 」に関しては、何故削除対象になっているのか理解できません。これは、私が2023年8月17日、東京へ行って撮影し、初めてwikiにupしたもので、類似の画像は絶対にインターネット上に見つけることは出来ないはずです。もし、あれば花を見て下さい。これは私が品川区で購入した花をお墓に供えたので、このお墓にこの同じお花が供えられている画像は他に無いはずです。しかも、この画像は元々、横構図で撮影されたものを、両端の不要な部分をトリミングして縦構図になってます。ですから、切り取る前の両端の写っている横構図の写真も証拠として所有してます。mailアドレスを教えて頂ければ、証拠としてお送りしますので、鑑定して頂いても構いません。④それ以外の写真に関しても、確実に私が撮影したものばかりです。その証拠にwikipediaにupする前に、背景をトリミングする前の画像や、撮影時に若干違う角度から撮影したバージョンも所有してますし、解像度を軽くする前のバージョンも私の手元にありますので、必要であれば証拠として提出します。⑤著作権のカテゴリーに間違いがあれば訂正します。正しい分類を教えて下さい。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

About File:Baron_Kuninaga_Tsumori.jpg

1. This is a portrait picture, not a photograph.
2. This portrait existed in 1919; the artist is unknown, as it is over 100 years old.

Translation Note

• 日本の著作権法では、無名(発表された当時から著作者表示がなかった場合)の場合は公表後70年で著作権が失効[22]、著作権者不明(発表された当時は著作者表示があったはずだが年月の流れで誰だかわからなくなった)の場合は裁定を受け相応の金額を文化庁に支払う必要がある[23]ようです。後者の場合パブリックドメインに置くことができないためどちらに該当するか確認が必要です。
• "著作権"と"所有権"は異なるので、現在板垣退助先生顕彰会が所蔵しているとしても著作権を板垣退助先生顕彰会が持っているわけではありません。
• Under Japanese copyright law, copyright expires 70 years after publication if the work is anonymous (no indication of authorship from the time of publication). If the copyright holder is unknown (the copyright holder should have been indicated at the time of publication, but over the years it has become unclear who the copyright holder is), you must pay the appropriate amount of money to the Agency for Cultural Affairs after receiving a ruling. In the latter case, it cannot be placed in the public domain, so it is necessary to confirm which one it falls under.
• Since "copyright" and "ownership" are different, it does not mean that the Itagaki Taisuke Sensei Memorial Association owns the copyright even if the collection is currently held by the Association.

About File:Itagakitaisuke sensei dozo yuraihi.jpg

1. When a bronze statue of Itagaki Taisuke (1837-1919) was erected at Kochi Castle in 1923, the history of the erection of the statue in honor of Itagaki Taisuke is described in Chinese text.
2. The text was wrote by Saionji Kinmochi (1849-1940), and the monument was erected by the "Itagaki Hakaru Monument Construction Committee".

Translation Note

• 著作者が判明している場合死後70年で著作権は失効するため、石碑の文章に関しては既にパブリックドメインとなっています。
• 日本においては、石碑そのものは「公開の美術」と同じ扱いとされているため、その写真は自由に使うことができます[24]。
• The copyright expires 70 years after the death of the known author, so the text on the monument is already in the public domain.
• In Japan, the stone monuments themselves are treated as "public art" and their photographs may be used freely.

Other pictures
As for the rest of the photos, I am certain that I took all of them. I also have a version of the image before I cropped the background before uploading it to wikipedia, as well as a version taken from a slightly different angle at the time of shooting, and I have a version before I lightened the resolution, which I can submit as evidence if necessary.

Translation Note
撮影者が彼自身であることは、初出とされるWebサイトに彼自身の名前とライセンスが書かれていることから証明できていると思います。
残された問題は、撮られた作品の著作権について処理しているかという点です。
著作権の失効していない作品は、写真を撮って公開すると問題があります。撮られた作品の著作権が失効していることを確認する必要があります。

That the photographer is himself is proven by the fact that his name and license is mentioned on the Web site where it is said to have first appeared[25] (Commons:Volunteer Response Team#When contacting VRT is unnecessary).
The remaining problem is whether the copyrights of the works taken are being handled.
If you take a picture of a work whose copyright has not expired and publish it, there is a problem. You must make sure that the copyright of the work photographed has expired. Misato Kano (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Misato Kanoさま、ありがとうございます。

File:Baron_Kuninaga_Tsumori.jpg の肖像画に関しては、何処にも(裏面など)にも著作者の表記はありません。しかし、この画像が著作権侵害に該当する(おそれがある)と、皆様が判断されるならば、この画像は削除なさって下さい。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonakaさま、あなたは「File:Itagakitaisukesensei kenshohi.jpg 」の画像について「 https://senseki-kikou.net/?p=31876 」からの盗用であると指摘され、同上の画像を削除されましたが、これは明らかな間違い（冤罪）です。「 File:Itagakitaisukesensei kenshohi.jpg 」の画像は、私が2023年8月17日13:57(日本時間)に東京品川で撮影したものです。wikiにアップロードする前のトリミング(切抜き)する前の画像を、Itagaki Taisuke Honoring Associationの公式ページ(Official site)に証拠として掲載しました。「 http://itagakitaisuke.link/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/itagakitaisukesensei_kenshohi_kirinukimae.jpg 」こちらをご確認ください。(※画像の右下部分、日のあたり方が違います)Photo memories 1868 (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick correction: artworks installed in public places in Japan are not accepted on Commons as such artworks cannot be used commercially as per the Article 46 of the Japanese Copyright Act. See COM:FOP Japan for details. The stele in question here, though, is deemed not subject to copyright and thus doesn't fall on this case IMO.

一点のみ訂正させてください。公開の場所に設置されている美術作品は、著作権法第 46 条の規定により商用利用ができないため、コモンズでは受け入れができません。詳しくは COM:FOP Japan をご一読ください。ただし、本件の石碑は著作権の対象とならないとみられるため、これには該当しないと考えられます。Yasu (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Uploader's intention to publish the files under a CC license can be confirmed by their website, but my concern is that the website has additional terms of use: “when (the photographs are) needed for newspapers, television programmes, magazines, research books, websites, encyclopedias and such” (新聞・TV・雑誌・研究書籍・webサイト・百科事典(Encyclopedia, Wikipedia)などに必要とする場合), “when needed to create flyers for seminars/study meetings held by our president or other personnel” (弊会理事長などが行う講演会・勉強会などのチラシ作製などに必要とする場合など) and “usage that does not comply the intended purpose may lead to punishments” (利用目的を逸脱してご使用された場合は、罰則に処せられる場合があります). These ToU apparently are not compatible with CC licenses, so I suppose they would have to amend (or completely remove) these ToU in order to make the files acceptable on Commons, otherwise the files should remain deleted. Yasu (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Photo memories 1868: 著作権を放棄ないし CC BY-SA のライセンスで公開のお考えであることは、Photo memories 1868 さんが管理していらっしゃるというサイト上で確認できるのですが、少々気になる点として、当該サイト上の「新聞・TV・雑誌・研究書籍・webサイト・百科事典(Encyclopedia, Wikipedia)などに必要とする場合」「弊会理事長などが行う講演会・勉強会などのチラシ作製などに必要とする場合など」という記述に加え、ページ下の「利用目的を逸脱してご使用された場合は、罰則に処せられる場合があります」という一文があります。これを見るに、Photo memories 1868 さんとしてはある程度限られた目的で利用してもらうことを想定されていて、その目的から外れた使い方はしてほしくないというお考えなのではないかと想像します。しかしながら、コモンズで公開できるファイルは、誰でも、どんな目的にでも自由に利用できるものである必要がありますので、特定の目的に限って利用を認める（それ以外の目的で利用するのは認めない）ということはできません。したがって、コモンズで公開するためには、サイト上で CC ライセンスであると記載するだけでなく、上記の文言についてもご再考いただく必要があると思います。また逆に、Photo memories 1868 さんが想定されていない目的で利用されるのは避けたいというご意向でしたら、コモンズでの公開はお取り下げになるという選択肢もあります（なおご参考までに、CC ライセンスは後から撤回することが認められていませんので、たとえ「意に沿わない使われ方をしたからコモンズでの公開を止めたい（削除してほしい）」ということになっても対応はできかねます）。いずれにしても、利用目的を限定したうえで公開するというのはコモンズの方針上不可能なため、利用目的を限定せずにコモンズで公開するか、あるいはコモンズでは一切公開しないこととするか、いずれかをお選びいただくことになります。よくご検討になったうえでご判断ください。もし前者を選択していただけるのであれば、引き続きみなさんがお力添えしてくださることと思います。Yasu (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies that I can't follow most of that, but a question: on the photographs, is the uploader the photographer or not? If the uploader is the photographer and is offering a license here, it ultimately doesn't matter that they offered a more limited license elsewhere. However, they may need to go through COM:VRT to validate that they are the photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@JmabelI am a photographer. 今回議論されているのは、（「File:Baron Kuninaga Tsumori.jpg」の画像以外は）私が撮影した写真です。「 through COM:VRT」の言っている意味が分かりません。詳しく教えてください。※「許諾文書」というものであれば、私の代理人（弊会代表理事）より、permissions-ja@wikimedia.org へmailで、お送りしているようです。これと同じことでしょうか。ただ処理までに、11日間ぐらい日数を要するようです。案件番号が必要であればこちらに記載します。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yasuさま、ご指摘ありがとうございます。2023年9月10日11:00（日本時間）、Itagaki Taisuke Honoring Association Official siteを更新し、写真の利用条件の注釈を削除しました。どなたでもご自由にご利用できる旨を記載しました。（松井庄五郎の石碑に関しては除外しました）。まだ不備があれば教えて下さい。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel The uploader is the photographer, they are going through VRT process.
@Photo memories 1868 Sysops will undelete the photographs after checking from VRT passed and after consensus in this discussion. I've read http://itagakitaisuke.link/anniversary_slug/20230101-2/ , this page confirmed that you are the origin author of the works. Sorry for my previous behaviour. 誠に大変申し訳ございません！ Lemonaka (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka@Jmabel@Misato Kano@TommyG@Whym@Yasuさま、誤解が解けて良かったです。著作権について詳しく、解説して下さった皆様、私の日本語を翻訳して下さった皆様、ありがとうございます。画像が復帰し、皆様と共に、より良いwikipediaとして寄与できることを願っています。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The uploader claims to be the photographer, and as far as I see, the claim seems to be legit; they have images identical to the files here on their website, and eventually modified their ToU to comply with CC licence. They also say they have sent permission to VRT in the name of the association's president. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Yasu: great, and I'm glad you came to help sort this out. I'm sure you can see why I couldn't. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Photo memories 1868: コモンズでの利用を許諾する旨をメールでお送りいただいたとのこと、承知しました。今回メールをお送りになった先が VRT と呼ばれるチームで、本件のようにインターネット上にある画像などのファイルをコモンズに転載する場合、権利者が確かに転載を許可していることの証憑として権利者の方から送信していただくメールを精査する役割を担っています。精査の結果、権利者の許可があり、ライセンスなどの条件も整っていることを VRT が確認できれば、そのファイルは問題なくコモンズで利用できるようになります。この手順を踏んでいなかったために削除されたファイルも、VRT の確認を経た後であれば復帰することができます。逆に言いますと、万が一お送りいただいたメールの内容に不備があるなどの理由で許可の確認が取れない場合、ファイルの復帰は認められませんのでご理解ください。また、私自身は VRT の者ではないため、お送りいただいたメールを読むことはできません。したがって、もし VRT が許可を確認できなかった場合でも、私からその理由をお伝えしたり、メールのこの部分を修正すればよいなどといった助言を差し上げたりできる立場にはないことも、合わせてご承知いただきたく思います。Yasu (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yasuさま、わかりやすいご説明ありがとうございます。謹んでVRTによる判断を待ちたいと思います。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think a VRT confirmation here is unnecessary, or at least the lack of it shouldn't block this conversation. The publicly available evidence seems sufficient for us to move on. whym (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Whymさま、VRTは私の件には無関心なのでしょうか？画像は削除されたまま、何の進展も反応もありません。私の主張を補強する証拠を、次々と提出するべきでしょうか？日本語で書いているから後回しにされているのでしょうか？著作権の表示の方法が間違っていたならば、wikimediaの方式に合わせて変更しますので、教えて下さい。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Photo memories 1868 Please have a read on Commons:Undeletion requests, Yann (talk · contribs) has taken steps to recover your photo, but seemed they only undeleted one, you may ask them for help. Lemonaka (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka@Jmabel@Misato Kano@TommyG@Whym@Yasuさま、どの写真のことを言ってますか？

1) File:Takaoka koutaro 1.jpgに関しては、

"unless they are used for malicious purposes such as defaming the imaged person or any person or group related to the image)."の部分が駄目だとのことですが、その条文は既に削除しました。ですので、これを理由に許否するのは間違ってます。

2) File:Takaoka koutaro 2.jpg に関しては、Copyright (C) 2017 板垣退助先生顕彰会 Corporation. All Rights Reserved"は、ホームページに関してのことであり、この画像に関してのことではありません。お願い。このことを翻訳して伝えて下さい。

3)　File:itagakitaisukesensei_kenshohi.jpg　に関しては、「角度が違う」と言うことを認めて「賛成」となっているので、画像が復帰するのでしょうか？私の認識は間違ってますか？

4)「審議は終了しました」となっていますが、これでは欠席裁判ではないですか？VRTは、ここでの議論を参照せずに、勝手に判断するのでしょうか？再審議の申請方法を教えて下さい。

5)Commons:Undeletion requestsに直接、私が書き込んでも構いませんか？どうしたら誤解を解くことが出来て、画像が復帰できるのか教えて下さい。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Photo memories 1868
日本語を読み書きできるVRTメンバーはとても数が少ないため、返信には11日以上かかるとされています、気長にお待ち下さい。
また本件はそもそもVRTへの連絡が必要ない場合に該当するので、通常の削除復帰手順を踏めば大丈夫です。

また、Lemonakaさんのメッセージを翻訳すると次のとおりです:
> Commons:Undeletion requestsを確認してください。Yannさんがあなたの写真を復帰するための手順を踏んでいますが、まだ1件しか復帰されていないようです。復帰の判断の材料を提示してあげてください。

なのでFile:Itagakitaisuke sensei dozo yuraihi.jpgについて

「審議は終了しました」となっていますが、これでは欠席裁判ではないですか？

Photo memoriesさんが復帰依頼をし、他の利用者が削除の理由を確認して削除すべきでなかったことを確認し、最後に管理者が復帰の判断をしています。欠席裁判でもなんでもありません。

VRTは、ここでの議論を参照せずに、勝手に判断するのでしょうか？

今回の判断をしたのはVRTではありません。また依頼どおりに復帰されているため再審議する必要がありません。
削除・復帰の判断は(復帰依頼を1ファイルずつ出しているので)1ファイルずつ行われます。

その他

Commons:Undeletion requestsに直接、私が書き込んでも構いませんか？

問題ないです。ここは利用者の行動について議論する場であって個別のファイルについては削除復帰依頼のほうで行うべきです。ひとまず翻訳して伝えるところまではやっておきますね。 Misato Kano (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Misato Kanoさま、ありがとうございます。昨夜は中々眠れず不安な夜を過ごしましたが、今朝、起きたら画像が総て復帰されておりました。本当に感謝です。@Lemonaka@Jmabel@Misato Kano@TommyG@Whym@Yasuさま、私のために誠をつくして下さり本当にありがとうどざいます。Thank you very much!Photo memories 1868 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka@Misato Kanoさま、現在削除されていない写真に関しては「このファイルに関するメールがVRTS に届いています。VRTSアカウントを持つユーザーは こちら で読むことができます。 VRTSキューにメールが届いており処理待ちの状態です。 この問題の進行状況については、このテンプレートをこのページに添付したユーザー(Krdbot)もしくはVRTSアカウントを持つその他のユーザーにお問い合わせになるか、VRT掲示板でお聞きください。もし有効な許諾がVRT代理人による最初の応答から30日以内に与えられなかったら、このファイルは削除されます。許諾を理由とした追加の削除依頼を提出しないでください(VRTS has received an email regarding this file. Users with VRTS accounts can read her here. An email has arrived in the VRTS queue and is waiting to be processed. Please contact the user who attached this template to this page (Krdbot), any other user with a VRTS account, or ask on the VRT message board for updates on the progress of this issue. If valid permission is not granted within 30 days of the first response by the VRT agent, this file will be deleted. Please do not submit additional removal requests based on permissions.)」と書かれたタグがついたままになっています。私は何かアクションを起こさねばなりませんか？「VRT代理人による最初の応答」の文言が、許諾書を送った弊会代表理事を差すのか、それを踏まえてさらに、何か別の有効な証言・申請が必要となるのか、表現が曖昧でよく分かりません。Lemonaka氏は、「@写真の思い出 1868 へ 私たちは今後、あなたの投稿のブロックや削除をリクエストしておりません。ご安心ください。 現在、著作権とライセンスを定期的にチェックしています。 Lemonaka (トーク) 06:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)」と記載されておりますので、それを信じて何もしなくても大丈夫でしょうか？「今後」と書かれているので「それ以前」の写真は別であると解釈するべきでしょうか？それとも、「今後の審議において過去にアップしたものも総て」と理解すべきでしょうか？Photo memories 1868 (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Photo memories 1868 Here are two kinds of sending permission if you are the authors of the photos,

1. VRT process if the site doesn't have clear permission
2. If the site which your photos are on has clear permission or notification about how to use your work, you don't have to go through VRT process.

Lemonaka (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonakaさま、 Thank you！他の写真はwikimediaにしかアップロードしていないので、他のサイトに同一写真はないため、大丈夫ということですね。ありがとうございます。念の為、http://itagakitaisuke.link/anniversary_slug/20230101-2/ にも許諾書の同文を掲載しておきます。Photo memories 1868 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Lalchhanhima aibawk photographer

Lalchhanhima aibawk photographer is an obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Block as sockpuppet trying to avoid block of main account. Jonteemil (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user indefinitely. I have already seen and deleted these files. Taivo (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

まるっちだいすけ

まるっちだいすけ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has continued uploading images with copyvio after the warnings.--Krorokeroro (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

M.sharaki

• User: M.sharaki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading and reuploading of oos personal file advertizing his own image, even after deletion via DR. Vandalism.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. All uploads are deleted. Block is not yet needed, because (s)he has no edits after you warned him/her. Taivo (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Taivo: The first warning was on their user talk page 11:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Right, but last upload was on 21 August 2023. A short term block now wouldn't serve any purpose. Yann (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Photographer;Chhanchhana Zote Hmar picture

Photographer;Chhanchhana Zote Hmar picture is an obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Block as sockpuppet trying to avoid block of main account. Jonteemil (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

User:LenninSS

LenninSS (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploads low quality images or photos from unknown source claiming to be the author. He has been warned before but continues. All uploads should be deleted and the user blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

H.Lalchhanhima zote

H.Lalchhanhima zote is an obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Block as sockpuppet trying to avoid block of main account. Jonteemil (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Indefinitely blocked, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

User:IAmNotABananaaa

IAmNotABananaaa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user keeps doing rapid reverts of flag files that more often than not result in no changes being made, most recently in File:Flag of Eswatini.svg. Most country flags file histories are a mess because of such behaviour and some have been protected as a result. Possibly a reincarnation of a user who did almost nothing but these edits for like a year ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30], all accounts whom I told to stop doing that) – their user page initially said "I have created an (different) account, and I promise, I will NOT abuse multiple accounts, ok?" which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't start with the same disruptive edits; I would be surprised if there were more than one person with such dedication to doing this. TFerenczy (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked them all indefinitely and created a sockpuppet category. Taivo (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Taivo: Perhaps File:Flag of Eswatini.svg should be semi-protected for a while as well? Jonteemil (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done semi-protected for 6 months. - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Lalpuipuii zote

Lalpuipuii zote is an obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Block as sockpuppet trying to avoid block of main account. Jonteemil (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Alwataralwatar30

Alwataralwatar30 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Hundreds of uploads, none of them are apparently own works, but copyright violations. A big mess to look though. Help needed. Yann (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Why are you going through them one by one? If none of them are own works, nuke them all. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Right. Yann (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

User Nosa23

Nosa23 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user claims to be official photographer of the government and uploads photos of politicians as his own work. Since there is no META data on these photos, I doubt that it is true and some have been deleted already for no copyright status. Could an administrator reviews his uploads to determined which are legitimate and delete the others. Pierre cb (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You're misleading, None of my files have been deleted from wikimedia. All images I upload are proven works of mine and I hold exclusive rights over them. Nosa23 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not misleading; only one of your image has GDLF proof (META data or VRT ticket) and some have been deleted (link above). Pierre cb (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Sefxczvcsd

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

Alias Wrg6jcstbwtcu (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
Alias Jung Jin-Hyuk (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

is back again, performing non-sense reverts on CoA images and uploading useless files…

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 9:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Suleyman07531

Suleyman07531 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) keeps on uploading useless parliament diagrams. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Indef., third batch deleted, clearly NOTHERE. Yann (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Do I report long term privacy violations here?

Nothing needs to be done, as per Tuválkin and Antandrus. Yann (talk) 09:08, 23 September 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.

---

It is on user's talk page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.67.203.219 (talk • contribs)

• Possibly, but you'll have to give more information for anyone to know what you're talking about. Please be specific. (If there is a serious problem you want to mention that you don't want to say somewhere where it could be read publicly, you can submit complaint via COM:VRT.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• May be something needs to be revdel'd on User talk:Tuvalkin/Archive 9. @Tuvalkin: What do you think? Yann (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• No. But maybe the Chicago Police Department should catch this weirdo for the 12th time and this time make sure that, when he’s out, he’s cured. @Antandrus: He’s at it again, it seems. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• No, nothing needs to be done. This Foundation-banned pest uses his own name all the time, usually when claiming to be someone else. He just wastes our time. It does remind me I should add this to his LTA page as a typical behavior. Antandrus (talk) 21:06, 22 September 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.

Copyright violation and fake license

non of these files are uploader own work all take from google image

example https://www.ilna.ir/tags/%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86_%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%B9%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86%D8%AF

please delete all upolads

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Rabin, W.98

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

I see myself belonging to the liberal employees, here on commons, as well as privately. Everyone should live as he/she wants. But there are limits. User: Rabin, W.98 now brings me to one of these limits. There are two possibilities:

1. The user uploads his pictures, which are hardly different from the strange fetish (should he have, he should live out, but why do we have to see that too?) on commons, because he either wants to live out his exhictionist streak or sees commons as a free provider of web space. Maybe both. Either way, the pictures are clearly out of scope and qualitatively bad, so a request for deletion is already also running. With variant 1, it "only" would be a abuse of commons, to which a medical recommendation also comes, that I think is extremely questionable, if not misleading wrong.

2. - and that is the much worse variant: These pictures are not the pictures that show a fetishist when living out his fetish, but a pedocriminal that pursue its abnormal "hobby". Because then this would really be an underage boy who is exposed to the uploader and is clearly abused. Despite the pseudo-medical reference text, this is a pure faecal orgia with a focus on genitals and excretions. Even if the person depicted would be of legal age and would only pretend that he was a minor, that would not change the factual starting point.

The only thing that came from this user account so far were these uploads. I really can't see that something sensible is coming here and recommend at least sine blocking of the user account. Possibly also a checkuser and an advertisement from the authorities of the determined country because of the suspicion of child abuse. Marcus Cyron (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked pending opinions. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

StomboyCarGeek

• User: StomboyCarGeek (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued creation of incomplete deletion requests after warning for doing so in these edits.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Theemergencymedic

Theemergencymedic (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is uploading numerous photos from Scott Randy Gerber of Gerber Investment Group. That seems a promotional user to me and I warned him. He claims all photos are from him but the META data seems from a scanner. It seems to me that they should all be deleted and an administrator should keep an eye on this user. Pierre cb (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Yes, right. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Theemergencymedic. Yann (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

User:181.43.0.59

User contributions, and note Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caricature drawing of Mohammed.jpg. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days. Mostly nonsense requests, closed or reverted. Yann (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

User:FernandoSropedi

FernandoSropedi (talk · contribs) is a sock of globally locked LTA Lucamoreira (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) as per CU block in the pt.WP. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 03:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user indefinitely and deleted the only upload speedily. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Tehonk

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

Maybe there is something I don't understand about either this user and his behaviour or about Commons traditions. It started with something completely routine: I have checked SD proposals and ran into File:Dinçer Kosovalı.jpg and Category:Dinçer Kosovalı proposed for SD according to F10. However, I have found out that this guy has some media coverage, like [31] or [32], and we have two other files about him (now added to the category); I cannot judge for sure if he is notable or not after all but he does not meet CSD. So I removed SD proposal and went on and in a while came back to Category:Personal files for speedy deletion and found that same Dinçer Kosovalı there again: it occurred to me that this user Tehonk just reverted my edits. Obviously I went to his Talk page to discuss it and recommended to propose the items for regular deletion. Instead he reverted my edits again and placed the same files for SD for the third time and after that removed our discussion from his Talk page with the description of the edit you are just disruption. I reverted and added further explanations and warning. This guy cleaned his Talk page again. I blocked him for 24 hours for edit warring. He went back and cleaned everything again explaining in the comment that he can do whatever he wants with his Talk page. It is, honestly, the first time I meet this kind of conflict behaviour here in Commons; in my local wiki a user with this communicative style most probably would be banned pretty soon. But maybe here it is not the case? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Usually if you disagree with an SD and the file is not an obvious keep either, the right thing to do is to turn it into a DR yourself. Also, really, in a case like this with a user in generally good standing, it is best that the involved admin is not the one to do the block. - Jmabel ! talk 22:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I should have realized that this user is of "general good standing" from what? And why should I propose for regular deletion files that might be in scope? See, Commons keeps any files that are in use in other Wikimedia projects. These files were in use on Wikidata. And the person in question seems to conform with Wikidata criteria of notability, see Wikidata:Notability Art. 2: they only demand reliable and informative publications about a person. What is the point then to discuss it here at Commons? And do you see removing the files from Wikidata item before proposing them for speedy deletion as the correct way of solving the problem? And, last but not least, my question was if it is treated as normal here at Commons to clean up one's Talk page minutes after being asked about something or warned by the admin? Because in my local wiki we think this is a sort of non-collaborative, destructive behaviour and the users persisting in this behaviour are being blocked. Andrei Romanenko (talk)

It was not in use in other Wikimedia projects, you added it to Wikidata after your edit war over something you have no knowledge of. And no it does not conform with Wikidata criteria of notability as well, the reason for requesting the deletion of the category here was to prepare for its deletion from wikidata, both the files and the wikidata entry would have been deleted by now if it were not for your pointless disruption, any other admin would not create this disruption here. Your first message was not a warning, you told me something, I did not want to deal with it anymore so I closed the topic and let it go, I can archive or delete messages when I want to close a topic, you can't restore them and you can't decide for someone else what they want to keep or not and you can't keep rollbacking on someone else's userspace like that. And your second message was not a "valid" warning, I can delete invalid warnings as well. The point is, I wanted to let it go and not bother with it anymore, but you do not stop for some reason, you were not satisfied with the block here and started to hound and stalk me on other projects, the block expired, I did not pursue your inappropriate use of power, misuse of rollback button or disruption or anything else, I let it go but then you opened this thread here, I don't know how to get rid of you. Tehonk (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither of you is going to like what I have to say here, but each time Andrei Romanenko has added something here, I find myself wondering why he is an admin and find myself in sympathy with Tehonk, but then Tehonk replies and his tone removes all of that sympathy. I'm going to address myself mainly to Andrei here, because it is more important that an admin understand how to do things right than a random user.

"I should have realized that this user is of "general good standing" from what?" From that being the default, and from the fact that no one before you had ever blocked him. Another 15 seconds, if you had doubts, would have shown you a reasonably active user. (FWIW, though, Tehonk is not doing himself any favors by repeatedly blanking things on his talk page, which means someone would have to spend a lot of time to work out whether he has a history of warnings, and they might quite legitimately not bother.) "why should I propose for regular deletion files that might be in scope?" Because someone who is pretty clearly not a vandal thought they qualified for speedy deletion, and you are disputing that. Nothing special here about being an admin. Like any other user, that's the normal way to dispute a request for a speedy deletion. Basically, you report that the other person nominated it for speedy deletion, that you disagree, and let the discussion go from there. "do you see removing the files from Wikidata item before proposing them for speedy deletion as the correct way of solving the problem?" of course not. As I said, the correct way to settle the dispute when one person thinks something should be deleted and the other does not is a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Because someone who is pretty clearly not a vandal thought they qualified for speedy deletion, and you are disputing that. This category is for files proposed for SD according to criterion F10. This criterion reads: Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions. The image in question does not meet this criterion: it is not a selfie, it is not a personal image of a user - it is a picture of some person who might be notable (according to Commons/Wikidata/Turkish Wikipedia criteria) or not. Commons:Deletion policy says (speaking to administrators): Before deleting images in speedy deletion, make sure that the user has placed it there in accordance with these deletion guidelines. If not, please modify the template, moving it off of this page. I have found that placing SD template on that image was not in accordance with deletion guidelines and thus removed this template; I did it exactly the way deletion policy has it. Deletion policy has also another possibility: If anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, please convert to a regular deletion request. Here anyone stands for any user who challenges speedy deletion of the file and the administrator is the one who has to convert SD to RD upon this challenge. Deletion policy does not instruct admins to convert SD to RD if they personally oppose SD that was not challenged by anybody else; this is (undocumented) possibility for obscure cases but definitely not a demand. People make mistakes, people can have not completely clear ideas about the difference between speedy deletion and regular deletion, not all the files proposed for SD should be deleted. It might be a subject for discussion, that is what talk pages are for. By general good standing I understand a user's willingness to discuss and cooperate rather than willingness to revert edits and remove discussions. However, I can understand your strictly formal idea that a user of general good standing is the one who have never been blocked before. Thank you for attracting my attention to this different possible approach. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thanks for your comment and apologies for my tone, you can imagine the frustration of being inappropriately blocked like this, and then the distress of being stalked and harassed cross-wiki by an admin, and then when you think it's finally over, being reported like this. That would have caused me to write in a more frustrated tone, combined with the fact that English is not my native language, so I can choose non-ideal words without realizing it. Like I said, I wanted to let it go and not deal with it anymore, so I cleaned up my talk page, I like to keep my talk pages clean and I don't like to keep stale or closed discussions that I no longer intend to pursue. Tehonk (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Андрей Романенко: you are correct that you were within your rights to just remove the SD tag if you thought it was an open-and-shut case. However, given that you didn't leave an edit summary, how was anyone to know why you removed it? - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I really don't understand what your problem is. Can I not get rid of you? I added SD tags and then you reverted them without providing any reasons, I then asked "reason?", you started to misuse rollback button, that is called abuse of powers in every project, you messaged me, then I did not want to deal with it or you anymore and wanted to let it go so I cleaned up my talk page, I can do that because it's my talk page, I can archive or clean up my talk page whenever I want to do that, I also did not revert your edits and "placed the same files for SD" after your message, I did that before seeing your message, to ask for a reason for mindless rollbacks but there was an edit conflict there so I saw your message after I had already done that, after seeing your message I did not want to deal with such disruptive behavior anymore so I tried to let it go, I was not going to put SD tags anymore after I saw your message, I only wanted to let it go, but no, you are not letting it go. Then you started to rollback on my talk page and you have no right to do that, you posted a so-called warning saying "You have no right to clean your Talk page" when in fact YOU are the one who has no right and who cannot keep using rollback button on my talk page if I want to close a topic or clean my talk page. That is abuse of privileges, that is disruptive, that is harassment, meddling with someone else's user space and talk page like that is harassment. Then you blocked me for "edit warring" because I cleaned up my own user space, if you check the edit warring policies you will see that edits on someone's own user space is an exemption to that, because it's my own user space. On the other hand it's not an exemption for you, because it's not your user space. You blocked me because I cleaned my user space 3 times when I had the right to do so and you rollbacked on my talk page 4 times when you had no right to do so. So you are the one who edit warred on someone else's talk page with 4 rollbacks when I only cleaned it 3 times when you blocked me. That is abuse of power.

Then you started to cross-wiki stalk and harass me, which is very inappropriate and perhaps something I should report to Trust and Safety team of foundation if you continue to do that. I simply can't get rid of you, you are hounding me on another project and posting libelous or defamatory comment like accusing me of "abusing bulk request procedure" or saying "scrutinize all the items within this request" for my request etc. Dude, I do these kind of requests all the time and never had any problem with any admin (and everything I report gets deleted because they are accurate), procedure says use bulk request for "same reason", and I did these requests for "same reason", so no I'm not abusing any procedure, you are making up a non-existent rule and saying something like "if items had been created by different people it's abusing the procedure" just to throw mud at me on another project (plus even that's not accurate, they were mostly created by the same person, you are just not seeing it, there were also a few sockpuppet cases there in relation with these reports), you are just posting to throw mud at me without having knowledge of the issues and without even properly checking things. Please stop hounding and harassing me on different projects, and please just let it go. Tehonk (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

«Maybe there is something I don't understand about either this user and his behaviour or about Commons traditions.» And thus speaks a project administrator?! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

User COLTashrif1499

COLTashrif1499 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user most of the uploads of this new user are from news websites, university, military copyrighted sources. I have marked some of them as {{Copyvio}} and warned the user. Could an administrator have a look to the other uplods for copyvio. Pierre cb (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. All copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: I restored this section, which was removed by COLTashrif1499 in this edit.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

User warned. Yann (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: : COLTashrif1499 should be blocked for a longer time since he vandalized this page after the end of his previous blockage. Pierre cb (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Some not so obvious movements

I saw a few new category movements today:

• Category:Association football kit body => Category:Football Association kit body (42 760 files)
• Category:Association football kit shorts => Category:Football Asociation kit shorts (32 389 files)
• Category:Association football kit sleeves => Category:Football Association kit sleeves (90 240 files)
• Category:Association football kit socks => Category:Football Assosciation kit socks (21 280 files)

They seem to be a bit ill-considered... but my English is not so good to cath the subtleties (plurals/capital letters/typos). Could onyone of the administrators pay some attention to these categories and standardize the names, please? Thanks in advance. Wieralee (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

These are absolutely wrong moves. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jajadelacouleuvrine: what were you intending here? Why did you think this was a good idea? - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I warned this user (certainly French language speaker). Yann (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

[Continuity note] I reverted these after I saw Wieralee's initial post, and before Jmabel and Yann's comments. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:A.Savin

There's been several discussions on the Village Pump in the past where the consensus seemed to be that it's not worth creating "by year" categories for stamps where stamps for the country, year, and decade are copyrighted and therefore there isn't enough images to populated said categories to begin with. Doing so also makes it just that much harder to track COPYVIO. this user was also recently blocked for creating said categories after receiving multiple warnings not to. So I've been cleaning up categories for stamps where we don't have enough images to sustain "by year" categories for them because stamps for the years and decades in question are copyrighted.

To that end I recently up-merged a few images in Category:2023 stamps of Germany and nominated the category for deletion since German stamps from 2023 are copyrighted. The category was subsequently deleted by User:Túrelio. But A.Savin had him undeleted it and then reverted me because I was supposedly "blindly" moving the images. He then continued reverting me even after I explained the situation to him on his talk page and refused to revert himself. Which wasn't a constructive way to handle things since the edits where clearly made based on prior consensus and part of larger project I've been working on to improve categories for stamps. So I'd appreciate it if an administrator restored my edits, re-deleted the category, and admonished him for edit waring. Adamant1 (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from User:A.Savin before doing anything here, but I believe Adamant1 is right about getting rid of these categories. - Jmabel ! talk 14:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the current consensus on by date categories is, that they are mostly useless but if someone creates them we do not delete them. GPSLeo (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Firstly, I think that it should be resolved through COM:CFD whether we want to have per-year categories for the stamps or not. Without a specific consensus at COM:CFD telling the opposite, per-year categories should be fine as we usually just delete empty categories but keep even categories with just one or two images in it. In the case of stamps, we can expect eventually more stamps to be in the public domain which then populate these categories. Adamant1 claims a “prior consensus” but does not link to any such assumed consensus. Adamant1 was also unable to link to such a consensus on A.Savin's talk page. Secondly, I do not think that addressing someone on their talk page as “dude” to be appropriate. Thirdly, Adamant1 was also edit-warring in [33] and [34]. And finally, the cited block was for creating categories for copyvios, not for creating less populated categories with valid contents. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Adamant1 was also unable to link to such a consensus on A.Savin's talk page. I linked to the users page where they were warned by an administrator and then block by another one for creating categories for stamp where we only had a few images for that year due to them being copyrighted. There has also been several discussions, one recently, where people agreed that it's probably not worth creating "by year" categories in cases which only allow for a few images to be put in the categories and ones for most of the decade will remain red linked. Although immediately neither was a formal CfD, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a consensus. Especially in the case of the user who was blocked for creating categories for years where the images were copyrighted.

I don't necessarily have a problem with doing one, but it's not something I think there should be a hard and fast rule about. Nor should there be one. It really depends on the situation and how many images for the year, decade, and subject there are. In the case of stamps it's pretty clear that creating a bunch of "by year" categories for years and decades where's only one or two images just causes problems and makes things harder to maintain though. And I say that as someone who's spent at least couple of years organizing said images. I don't think I should to do a CfD to reaffirm something that's already been discussed and clearly isn't functional a way to categorize the images just because one random user who doesn't have experience in the area has an issue with what I'm doing. Plus it would just be miss-leading to start a CfD to determine if there should be categorize with just one or two images in it when in general when that's not really the issue to begin with. As to "dude" I live grew up in California and that's how we talk sometimes. We also say "whatever" a lot. Neither one is an insult, or at least I don't mean them to be. Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Again, you haven't provided any links to discussions or a consensus. If you claim a consensus and you want to have that consensus respected, then you need to refer to it such that others can see for themselves. And COM:CFD is the standard location for achieving a consensus in category-related matters. We will not decide at this board whether such stamp categories with few images are desirable or not. Secondly, you can happily use “dude” among your friends but if you use this term within a complaint or conflict this does not appear very respectful due to its very informal character. Some people like me are elderly and surely do not want to be addressed as “dude”. And in my time in NY state, nobody ever used that term to me or my colleagues. Please be always aware that this is an international project where you haven't met most of the people here in real life. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll link to and qoute from one of the discussions when I get back to my computer, but come on AFBorchert. Are you seriously going to act like 3 people, including 2 admins, telling someone not to do something and then them being blocked for continuing to do it isn't a consensus not to do that thing? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

As outlined in the rationale for the block, the main reason were copyvios. And your attitude that you are the to-be-trusted guy and others are “random user[s]” that you assume to have not the “experience in the area” is not going to be helpful. In my opinion, we wouldn't have this discussion here at COM:AN/U if you would honestly try to resolve this conflict in a respectful and friendly approach. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's hard to take anyone seriously who thinks I'm being unfriendly when their evidence is that I said "dude." No answer to my question about if 3 people saying not to do something is a consensus or not though huh? Go figure. Regardless, both Yann and I told the user not to create or recreate categories for years where the content is non-free. I specifically said "stop creating and/or recreating year categories for countries and years where the stamps are copyright" and then they were blocked for doing exactly that. Just because The Squirrel Conspiracy didn't recreate my or Yann's warnings exactly word for word doesn't mean the user wasn't blocked for creating "by year" categories where the content is non-free. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO year categories for stamp are useful, as stamp catalogs sort them that way. At least when there are more than a few stamps each year. Yann (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: I don't think anyone would disagree when we have 4 or more stamps per year that we can show, but for a lot of countries we may have only a couple in any recent decade. Category:Stamps of the United Kingdom by year for recent years is pretty absurd: a lot of one-image categories that can only make it more difficult to find things unless we allow overcatting (which looks like exactly what has happened here). - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Just an FYI, but sometimes I'm fine with there being categories for stamps that only contain 1 or 2 images depending on the circumstances. And I probably wouldn't have had an issue with it in this case if A.Savin had of asked me to put the images in a "by year" specifically for postage stamps instead of just leaving them in the main category, but he didn't and I was moving images of German postage stamps over to "postage stamp" categories anyway. So I didn't think there would be an issue with it. That said, I probably would have been fine with just moving the stamps over to "Category:2023 postage stamps of Germany" if A.Savin had said that's what he wanted instead of handling it how he did. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The criteria is not only the actual number of files in a category, but the potential. If there is a potential to have soon many files in a category, we should have it. If stamps of that country are in the public domain for that year, we should have that category, even if we only have one right now. Yann (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: "If stamps of that country are in the public domain for that year…" Absolutely. I'm talking about countries where it is rare for a postage stamp to be PD at time of issue. - Jmabel ! talk 14:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Question: Is this the right place to discuss the usefulness of these categories? Lukas Beck (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is in relation to if the edits should be reverted and A.Savin warned for edit waring or not. That's not to say I have a problem with there being a more general discussion about when or if its appropriate to create categories that contain 1 or 2 images of particular works (especially for years where they are copyrighted) at some point outside of stamps. There was already a discussion about it recently though that didn't go anywhere though except for most people agreeing that it depends on the particular circumstances and preferences of people who edit in the area. So at least IMO its a different issue. Although I would have been fine discussing it with A.Savin if they had of been willing to instead of just edit warning and then telling me to report them to ANU for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

1) I created the Category:2023 stamps of Germany back in July, because: a) I had uploaded two (freely licensed) pictures relevant for that category, and b) there were already (and still are) similar categories such as 2022 stamps of Germany, 2020 stamps of Germany and others (though I have to admit that I didn't look at those content and don't know if all the pictures are OK for Commons; it might be that some of those cats should be emptied because of copyright issues and then deleted as empty).

2) So as long as the category contains two pictures relevant for it, the category should not be deleted, unless there is consensus to delete on CfD; we have no such policy (yet) regarding properly formatted categories just because of few content.

3) What Adamant1 tried is to empty the Category:2023 stamps of Germany. a) Why only this one, and not also for 2022, 2019, 2020 etc.pp.? b) What shall be the reason not to nominate all the tree on CfD first and wait for consensus, except impatience? And c) Adamant tried to empty the category like this, by creating Category:Postage stamps of Germany that is clearly a duplicate of Category:Stamps of Germany; meanwhile I've fixed it, but Adamant isn't newbie and should actually know that we really don't encourage duplicated categories.

4) The one who is editwarring is Adamant1, and they did it against two other users (me and Túrelio). May it be coincidence that they already were blocked for editwarring last year?

5) I obviously didn't say they are "moving blindly" the categories, but in case Adamant1 is referring to this German-language comment at Turelio, the correct translation is "who is Adamant1 to be blindly relying on their edits" (meaning that an admin should not be blindly relying on someone's SD requests but also take a second look before performing the deletion). So, it's probably not a good idea to blindly rely on Google Translator, either.

6) On the contrary, Adamant1 accused me of trolling here and here, and also here not to be adult. Can anyone tell me why?

Thanks. --A.Savin 19:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Why only this one, and not also for 2022, 2019, 2020 etc.pp.? I've told you multiple times that I'm in the middle of moving images of postage stamps in "stamp" categories to ones specifically for "postage stamps", which the edits were a part of. There's no policy that says someone has to move thousands of files in hundreds of different categories at exactly the same time or have their edits reverted. Regardless, it's ridiculous to treat this like it was totally random or that I wasn't going to deal with the other categories when I've told you repeatedly that I'm in the process of moving images in the other "by year" categories.

meaning that an admin should not be blindly relying on someone's SD requests but also take a second look before performing the deletion You should have just said that if it's what you meant instead of "who is Adamant1 to be blindly." Google translate or not there's no reason you have said "Who is Adamant1 to" if you were just talking about Turelio deleting the category without looking into it beforehand.

The one who is edit warring is Adamant1, and they did it against two other users Just an FYI, but I wasn't aware of the discussion on Túrelio's talk page when I reverted him and I honestly thought he just removed the template by mistake. That's not edit waring. Whereas, I told you multiple times on your talk page that there was a prior consensus not to create "by year" categories for stamps if they are non-free for the year and that I was moving the images part of a larger project. Both of which you ignored while continuing to revert me instead of discussing it, which is clearly edit waring. You also reverted me using the Rollback tool and Commons:Rollback clearly says it shouldn't be used for edit warring or content disputes.

Adamant1 accused me of trolling At least I removed the comment after you took issue with it. Whereas, your just back peddling on the "blindly editing" comment instead of admitting you shouldn't have said it. Regardless, civility is a two way street and it's extremely insulting to act like someone who's put multiple years and hours of thought into something is just "blindly" editing Commons. Same goes for your unwellness to discuss things or consider my perspective. Both of which just come off like you originally faked concern about me moving the images in order to undermine what I was doing. Otherwise, I don't see why you wouldn't have just discussed it with me on my talk page or something instead of ignoring my messages and edit waring me. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Now he's edit waring me on Category:Postage stamps of Germany because he thinks I should have to move all the images of German postage stamps at once or can't move any of them. I told him it can't be done in one go to avoid accidently images of Cinderella stamps in the wrong categories, but apparently he doesn't care. Can someone please tell him to stop edit waring me so I can continue moving the images? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Please stop right now further messing around with these categories and edit-warring yourself ([35], [36]). Open first COM:CFD cases and wait for their outcome. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Two things about this that I'm sure your aware of since I already said them on A.Savin's talk page. 1. There was already a discussion about Category:Stamps a while back where it was determined the category was ambiguous and should probably be turned into disambiguation page. While I'm not going to go that far with it, I am moving images of postage stamps into more descriptive categories so they aren't mixed in with one of things like ink stamps or cinderella stamps 2. Even if that conversation hadn't of taking place Commons:Categories says "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." Ink stamps, cinderella stamps, postage stamps, and images of several other types of objects that are currently in Category:Stamps are clearly different subjects and the name "stamps" is clearly ambiguous. So moving images of postage stamps into more descriptive categories has already been discussed and is perfectly in line with the guidelines anyway even if it hadn't been.

Really, there's nothing to discuss here. There hasn't from the beginning except you and A.Savin are unwilling to accept or acknowledge that moving images of postage stamps to specific "postage stamp" categories is a non-issue that shouldn't have become one to begin with. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself, but I'm not starting a CfD so I can ask for permission to do something that has already discussed multiple times and follows the guidelines about how to name categories. CfD don't exist just so people like you and A.Savin can get in the way of or undermine perfectly valid edits that there's a consensus to make. Sorry. The fact is that A.Savin shouldn't have edit wared me and he should be reverted so I can continue what I was doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Were is the stamp category naming scheme defined and written down? GPSLeo (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It is quite simple. If a content-related matter is contentious then we do not edit-war but accept the status quo until we get a consensus for another approach. In case of categories this is done through COM:CFD. Please do not continue at Commons your battleground attitude that got you topic-banned at en:wp. There is no special shortcut here for users named Adamant1. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Tell that to A.Savin since he's the one who edit wared me and is trying to get his why using shortcuts by doing it. There were already categories specifically for postage stamps before I got involved and I participated in both the discussion about Category:Stamps that I referenced and the one where the guideline was changed to reflect that categories shouldn't be ambiguous or for multiple subjects. I've also been working on this for at least a year without any issue. So in no way am I using shortcuts or treating this like a battleground. Bringing up my editing history on Wikipedia is really beyond the fray though and just shows you have no actual argument. You can deflect from the facts by making this personal but Commons:Categories is a policy and it, as well as the status quo and prior discussions, clearly support that moving images of postage stamps to clearer categories is the correct thing to do. To the degree that it's a contentious issue though is only because you and A.Savin are making it into one. That said, I'm more then willing to entertain other ideas about how to follow the policy and past discussions without creating "postage stamp" categories in the process if anyone has an alternative. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Now he's hounding my edits to categories related to postal history. Can someone please deal with his harrasing nonsense please? I should be able to edit categories related to stamps without him harassing me in the process. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  How would then an unpartisan admin evaluate this, this, and this? Obviously it's time to block Adamant1 for counter-productive editwarring where the edits are not even formally correct. --A.Savin 18:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

How is it not correct to put Category:Postal history in Category:Philately when the later is literally "the study of stamps and postal history and other related items"? The Wikipedia article for philately even says "Philately is the study of postage stamps and postal history. Not to mention things like Category:Stamp tongs have absolutely nothing to do with "the study of postal systems and how they operate." So it's just nonsensical to put images of them in the same parent category as images that do. Your clearly just using the whole thing as a way relate against me for the original disagreement and ANU complaint. BTW, there was also a discussion for Category:Philately a while ago where it was determined that things should be re-organized to make the meaning of the category clearer. So once again your edit waring me against prior discussions and consensus. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Adamant1: your remark here has nothing to do with the 3 edits that A.Savin linked. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Postal history is not just about philately, but also for example about historical postal vehicles, post offices, post topics in arts, literature/cinema etc.pp., these all are things that have few or nothing to do with philately, really so difficult to understand? --A.Savin 18:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree. At the end of the day neither category is the perfect parent to the other. But at least putting Category:Postal history in Category:Philately follows the definitions for Philately on Wikidata and Wikipedia. You could probably just as easily argue they should be completely separate from each other though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

So, if we take the English WP en:Philately, yes indeed its first sentence is: "Philately (/fɪˈlætəli/; fih-LAT-ə-lee) is the study of postage stamps and postal history". Now, how is to conclude from this sentence that the Commons category "Postal history" should be a subcat of category "Philately"? I don't understand... --A.Savin 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Maybe it's a language issue here, but look at this way. One aspect of philately is the study of postal history. Philately itself isn't "postal history" though. So it doesn't make sense to have Category:Philately as the child of Category:History. Or to use an analogy, one aspect of the science of paleontology is the study of fossils. Which is why Category:Fossils is in Category:Paleontology, not the other way around. And that's despite the fact that the definition for paleontology is "scientific study of the past of life on Earth through fossils." Regardless, it would be ridiculous to make Category:Paleontology a sub-subcategory of Category:Fossils just because it involves studying fossils since that's really only one aspect of the science. Sure, it's the main one, but it's not the only one by any means. At least not as far as Commons and how we categorize things is concerned. The same goes here with philately and postal history. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Again we are moving around in circle (your usual approach in discussions, sadly). I already said "Philately->Postal history" is inappropriate because this would imply that postal history was part of philately completely or to a big extent, which isn't the case. Incorrect comparison to paleontology, as this science has a much clearer hierarchical connection with fossils rather than postal history with philately. If you like it really very simple, paleontology would make no sense if there were no fossils, while postal history by all means still would make sense if there were no philately. --A.Savin 14:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's why I said neither is the 100% perfect parent category of the other. Although it just makes more sense to have "postal history" as a subcat of philately since the latter is the study of multiple things, including postal history. Whereas, postal history obviously isn't the study of philately. Although I'm willing to split the difference and just have them not be connected to begin with since it really doesn't matter either way. Or we could just get rid of "postal history" altogether per Jmabel's suggestion in the CfD. I don't really have a preference one or another, but there seems to be a consensus in the CfD that Category:Postal history should be for images of stamps and the like. Whereas Category:Philately should contain images of tools related to the study of stamps. Which having Category:Philately as a subcategory pf Category:Postal history doesn't allow for. Plus, doing it that way is just nonsensical anyway for reasons I'm not going to bother repeating. So there's really only two options here. We can either have be completely separate and use see also links, or just axe Category:Postal history. Which one of those options sounds better to you? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• @A.Savin: As a presumably non-partisan admin, I'd view Adamant1 as probably right on the substance of the matter, but wrong as to process. Repeatedly reverting rather than discussing is the wrong way to do things even when you are right on the substance. I wouldn't say you approach of doing pretty much the same thing is somehow better, though. - Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Jmabel: So, you would consider it appropriate on the substance of the matter, would Adamant1 go to Category:Buildings in the United States and remove Category:Structures in the United States from it? Am I right? --A.Savin 19:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @A.Savin: not at all. I didn't say anything of the sort. Please don't pick a fight. I don't think that most Albanian postage stamps are "symbols" of Albania, in either sense of that ambiguously named and ambiguously used category. Stamps do not symbolize a country in the way that a flag, coat of arms, etc., might, nor (if we take "of" in a broader sense) are they particularly "symbols", any more than a stock certificate is a "symbol". (Right now, by the way, that category is a real hodgepodge of the two meanings: things that symbolize Albania and symbols that happen to be from Albania; I would have expected it to be used only for the former.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't quite get your argumentation... So, you wouldn't find such a removal OK for the U.S., but find the same OK for Alabania? --A.Savin 19:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
      • @A.Savin: It is hard for me to believe you are arguing in good faith here, but I'll do my damnedest.
      • I used Albania for an example because we started out this section talking about categories for Albania. I have no idea why you brought the U.S. into the picture at all, since which country makes no difference. Buildings are structures. Philately as such is certainly not a symbol, and I'd say that stamps aren't particularly symbols. - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
        • OK, so if it's not clear as example, then with other words; you find it alright to have the Category:Philately by country as the only parent category for Category:Philately of Albania? By the way, I don't understand what should "arguing in good/bad faith" mean -- because for me it's either like I'm arguing with you (and surely doing it in good faith according to COM:AGF, because I'm a good-faith user and not a vandal account, you know? -- and vandal accounts usually do not argue, instead they just do their bad things), or ignoring your comments completely due to their limited usefulness at this point. It turns out like I better should do the second from now on, because, any collegial help I surely cannot expect from you -- as there wasn't any some years ago, when there was the problem with the "K." user, who did similar disruption with categories. Thanks --A.Savin 20:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
          • @A.Savin: No, actually, I agree absolutely that if that category is to be kept, then it needs to somehow be a descendant of [[:Category:Albania]. But restoring a wrong parent category seems an odd way to do that. Category:Culture of Albania, where you ultimately put it, is a much better choice. But that wasn't among the edits you were asking a non-partisan admin to weigh in on. (Personally, I doubt the use of having a Category:Philately of Albania at all, unless we have images of philatelists, stamp collections, stamp collecting equipment, or something else of the sort from that country.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Further, even if stamps might be seen as symbols, philately is certainly not a symbol, it is an activity. - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

And I didn't say anything about them in the original comment that he's responding to either. Nor do I really care about them. Although it is worth saying with Category:Philately of Albania I removed Category:Symbols of Albania because "Philately" isn't a symbol and none of the other "Philately by country" categories are in categories for symbols. So I don't see what the issue with my edit was or why he reverted it. The same goes for the other edits that he mentioned. As a side to that I left a message on his talk page about the latest reverts, but he didn't respond. So I'm not exactly sure what "process" should have been followed except for reverting him since he's clearly in the wrong and won't discuss things. It's not like this ANU complaint has dealt with the issue or anything. What other avenue is there to deal with it besides those ones? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm so tired... The really last attempt from me to explain: COM:Categories are hierarchical, and any category related to say Albania should be sorted in at least one maternal category related to Albania. That said, you are not allowed to remove them completely, period. Without this hierarchical structure, we can obviously delete all categories from Commons as completely useless stuff. --A.Savin 19:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

And I was planning on adding a category related to Albania but once again you didn't give me a chance to. It's ridiculous to criticize me for not doing something that you wouldn't even let me finish doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you mean that I didn't give you "a chance to [add a category related to Albania]"? Did I full-protect the category, or block you, or what? --A.Savin 19:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

After you reverted me twice I could have added another related to Albania, but if I removed the one you re-added by reverting me in the process you could have just claimed I was edit waring or something. So there was really no point. I'm not going to more descriptive category to something if I can't remove the less descriptive one because someone will just cry foul about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn't want to start an editwar by adding an alternative category, but at the same time wanted to start an editwar by reverting me? Or how should I understand this? --A.Savin 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Reverting someone doesn't necessarily lead to an edit war if the person being doesn't turn it into one. In this case I was trying to assume good faith that you'd give me a chance to add the appropriate category instead of continuing your behavior from the original dispute if I reverted you. In hindsight giving you the benefit of the doubt that you'd led me finish what I was doing instead of continuing things was clearly miss-placed though. Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I agree with AFBorchert and Jmabel that CfD is definitely the forum that is proper for dealing with postal categories, and that Adamant1 should wait for the CfD discussion is closed before doing any more moves relating to categories of postal matters. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I was actually about to close the CfD for philately related matters when A.Savin continued the edit war. It's obviously impossible to close a CfD if I have to waste time here defending myself for edits that are perfectly fine to begin with just because A.Savin wants to continue things. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to the CfD in question (which I haven't seen) and please hold it open long enough to give me a chance to comment? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/06/Category:Philately. I'd actually appreciate other comments since it's been open for more then a year and unfortunately only one person besides myself ever participated in it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

R.W. Dove

R.W. Dove (talk · contribs) clearly not here to build, self-spamming or UAA violations. Lemonaka (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. Uploads are deleted. I nominated also his userpage for English Wikipedia for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

我是一隻北極熊

我是一隻北極熊 (talk · contribs) uploaded several copyvios, please check them one by one or nuke their contribution. Lemonaka (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)