Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:35, 10 March 2021

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Note

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

File:Πατριάρχης Δημήτριος.jpg

Good day. This file was created based on another Wikimedia file. In the photo editor, I likened the features of Patriarch Bartholomew, depicted in the original, to the features of Patriarch Demetrius. No other file is used here. I am neither the author nor the author of the original file, so I cannot respond to the template. What do you advise as an administrator? It use this File: Varfholomey (2019-01-05) 25 (cropped).jpg The close situation with this file Demetrios I of Constantinople.jpg, that was uploaded to the Wikimedia by me — Preceding unsigned comment added by RC-1841 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RC-1841: to request restoration of File:Πατριάρχης Δημήτριος.jpg, please use the COM:Undeletion requests. This page is intended to report problematic users or admins, and not a correct venue to request restoration of deleted files. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RC-1841: since you need advice from admins, I think the best venue is COM:Village pump. Again, this is intended for filing reports on problematic users, not for requesting media assistance and/or media restorations (which is reserved to COM:Undeletion requests). Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ymblanter

Violation of renaming policy [1]. Threatening by blocking after showing that the renaming was illegal because the used name is acceptable for Belarusian language. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that the user did not care to notify me about this thread). Indeed, w:be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі says Русіфікацыя (w:en:Russification) is the same as маскаліза́цыя (moskalization, from w:en:Moskal, which is an offensive ethnic slur). However, be-tarask is a project usurped by a group of ultra-nationalists, who are in particular notorious for trying to push the Belarusian Latin alphabeth everywhere in Wikiverse. The Belarusian Wikipedia, which is a healthy project, contains this article as well, w:be:Русіфікацыя Беларусі, but does not mention any moskalization. May I please also note that this element in the name of the file is completely unneeded, and was only added to make the title sound offensive. If I saw this on the English Wikipedia, where I am administrator, this would likely result, after a discussion, in a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The filename is in Belarusian, not in English. So the provided reference to English language conventions where «moskal» is offensive name isn't related to the case. For example, Russian word ru:Жид (Zhyd, Žyd) is offensive slur but at the same time similar Polish :pl:Żydzi/Żyd is the only recognized name for English en:Jews. I also believe that insulting of another language project is totally unacceptable for a Commons administrator. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should also notice that Belarusian "maskal" and derivative terms are widely used in Belarusian (not russificated) dictionaries. They are still used in Belarusian reliable scientific sources, which is shown in w:be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі. So the attempts of User:Ymblanter to restrict the usage of this term here are totally against the policies and can be considered as usurpation of this project by Russian ultra-nationalists. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope, there are reasonable administrators who understand the simple true that English Wikipedia has nothing to do with internal questions of other languages. Belarusian name "maskal" and derivatives are widely used (scan)] as the only possible alternative for concepts related to Russification in the Belarusian-Russian dictionary of Dr. en:Jan Stankievič (NY). The access to this dictionary is provided by the en:Library of Congress [2]. The derivative of the word "maskal" is also claimed (scan) as the first alternative to the English word "Russian" in the textbook Fundamental Belarusian, published with assistance of the Canadian Federal Government. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Checked this out and neither user looks particularly good here. Kazimier Lachnovič blasted Ymblanter with an emotional demand over a seriously minor renaming issue. Ymblanter threatened to use his admin powers to block in a dispute in which he is involved. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I am allowed to use an analogy which is closer to English speakers, let me try. A user uploads a file with the name "Barack Obama is the first nigger (African American) president.jpg". I rename the file into "Barack Obama is the first African American president.jpg". The user shows up at my talk page and argues that "nigger" is a Papuan version of English is fully synonymous to an African American. As a proof, the user shows that indeed in the Papuan English alt spelling Wikipedia there is an article on African American which starts as "African Americans, also known as Niggers, are ...", cited to three offline books, two books written in the 19th century, the script of the movie "Pulp Fiction", and a couple of article written by known KKK members. There is also the Papuan English common spelling Wikipedia, which has the same article but does not use the word. The user says that they "demand" to move the article back, and that the word nigger in the Papuan English is not offensive, it is normal usage. I refuse, and, having in the past dealt with the user, warn them again unilaterally moving this back. The user goes to the VPU. Here we are.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NB! Ymblanter, please read this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Equality). The issue you rise that some books are unavailable in the web is ludicrous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources). Have you tried to go out in a bibliotheca? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources; If the book you are looking for is in a language other than English, you might find it helpful to look at the equivalent pages on other Wikipedias, linked below – they are more likely to have sources appropriate for that language.) Write a book himself/herself to become cited as a pundit. Until other books/researches written by pundits are made, the old ones are those to refer to. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 178.120.57.51 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy given by the opponent is ridiculous, totally irrelevant and can be regarded as an insult and provocation. It looks like the user with admin powers is still trying to insult one of the local Wikipedia communities — the Belarusian Wikipedia. First of all, Belarusian language is not a version of English. So English has nothing to do with the assessment of Belarusian words. And there are still no proofs (no references to reliable sources related to the Belarusian language) that the removed word is "offensive slur". Moreover, I've provided references to contemporary (published less than 50 years ago, not in the 19th century) totally reliable sources associated with the US and Canadian governments that deny the claim of "offensive slur". In the mentioned article w:be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі the references are provided to the modern publications (both from 2009) of Dr. Prof. Nina Barščeŭskaja (en:University of Warsaw) and Dr. Prof. Lidzija Savik (en:Belarusian State University of Culture and Arts). Is it OK to compare them with "known KKK members"? Is such an insult and provocation comparable to "emotional demand", which makes me (without admin powers) don't "look particularly good"? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask other admins, is the comparison of the Belarusian language with the Pidgin version of another language (by the way according to the Russian Nazis, Belarusian is the Pidgin version of Russian) an acceptable format of discussion? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may substitute it for Scottish if you wish. This is not the central point of my argument. I am actually surpriszed that we are having this discussion at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you suggest to replace in your analogy Papuan with Scottish? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it somehow helps you, yes, please. I actually do not consider any languages being inferior to others.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe that English speakers should impose the English language conventions (e.g. meaning of the word "nigger") to Scottish filenames containing Scottish words which look similar to "nigger"? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let us see what English speakers have to say. It is pretty clear to me that you perfectly know that the name of the file would look offensive to every Russian speaker, and on purpose defend this name because you want it to be offensive to every Russian speaker. If this were not your intention, you would have apologized for oversight and certainly not demand to move the file back.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are totally wrong about my intentions. Like I said before "Маскалізацыя" (that is accepted by Belarusian Wikipedia community, which you've already compared with KKK members) is a more traditional and precise Belarusian name for Russification. That's the only reason why I use this word along with the more common for russified version of Belarusian language word "Русіфікацыя". I should also notice that only a really sick mind can conclude, that a word in one language should be banned here just because it looks offensive for some users who speak another language. With such sick logic the Spanish word "negro" (black) should be banned just because it has the same origins with "nigger". I've already provided the example with Russian ru:Жид and Polish pl:Żyd, that actually have the same origin but the first one is an offensive ethnic slur and the second one is a totally legal name. And there is no evidence that the Belarusian word "маскалізацыя" shouldn't be used in Belarusian language filenames. It's not offensive in Belarusian language. Your attempts to restrict usage of Belarusian language (in our case not russificated version of Belarusian language) here just because it can offence Russian speakers is a clear manifestation of Russian chauvinism. Wikimedia Commons is multilingual project and media files can be uploaded with names in any language in any script + Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view. So based on this guidelines I'm going to revert your illegal edits based on offensive statement about Belarusian language and Belarusian Wikipedia by any legal means. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope after this revert, an administrator will uphold the general Wikimedia policies, prohibiting ethnic slurs. Which means, well, a block of an indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In our case, a fictional so called "ethnic slur", because you didn't provide any evidence that your statements are true for the Belarusian language (not English or Russian). Insulting Belarusian Wikipedia and Belarusian scientists (comparing them with KKK) has nothing in common with such evidence. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You consistently ignore my argument that the Belarusian Wikipedia actually is not using this ethnic slur. What is using this ethnic slur is the Belarusian Taraskevitsa Wikipedia, which is run by a clique of ultra-nationalists. We still remember very well how you guys canvassed people trying to impose your own version of Belarusian riomanisation on the English Wikipedia - and failed miserably.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, you must and you will answer for the repeated accusations of the Belarusian Wikipedia community of "ultra-nationalism" (without any evidence of this). Second, Belarusian (Taraškievica) is one of recognized Wikipedia communities, so like I said according to the current guideline media files can be uploaded with names in any language in any script including Belarusian (Taraškievica). Third, the absence of the name in the Wikipedia doesn't mean that this name is not used in Belarusian language and it definitely has nothing to do with the requested evidence of belonging to an ethnic slur. Fourth, the romanization problem is totally unrelated to this discussion and just for the record the majority of mentioned users were from "healthy" (like you said) other Belarusian Wikipedia. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kazimier Lachnovič why are you so emotional about this? It's an image name. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not emotional about image name and file description. These edits are against the Commons:File naming and Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. To maintain order here, they should be reverted or the guidelines changed. But I'm not sure if this is the only problem now, because I'm really concerned about repeated insult of the Belarusian Wikipedia (calling "clique of ultra-nationalists" and comparing with KKK members) by the particular administrator of multilingual project. I don't understand why I have to tolerate such behavior. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case of possible archiving the request without any reaction (like it has already happened before with a quite similar case here and here) I've opened a discussion on the Village pump (it looks like I had to mention this discussion here). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this correctly this is a dispute on the name of an object in different dialects of one language. In such a case the original name by the uploader should always be kept. I also do not move Category:Berliner to Category:Pfannkuchen. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be more like Category:Scheissdreck (Berliner), which I have moved to category Category:Berliner.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Ymblanter really hates the capital of Russia Moscow (Belarusian "Maskva") from which Belarusian "maskal" and "maskalizacyja" are originated. That's the only possible reason to compare this city to wiktionary:en:Scheißdreck. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

having the same origin doesn't mean the same definition and I agree that it sounds offensive in Russian language. As Commons is an international project I would find a better neutral name: why not use it in English? rubin16 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official policy, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages. This also applies to any other language, including Russian. And as I pointed out earlier, the offensive connotation of w:en:Zhyd in some languages doesn't give any excuse to rename Polish filenames and file descriptions that include Żyd (or Żydzi, Żydowski) to English. As it has been shown here, there is no sound evidence, that Belarusian "maskalizacyja" is offensive (Note that Commons’ neutral point of view differs significantly from that of English Wikipedia. A file like “File:Taiwanese Tiaoyutai islands map.png” would be acceptable on Commons, even though it is not neutrally titled (see here). This does not mean that all non-neutrally worded titles are acceptable, however. An image of a person with the name “File:1BIGGest_nOSE_everS33n.JPG” would not enjoy the same protection.) --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazimier Lachnovič: One thing: The mentioned user has global rollbacker flag, should their this flag be affected due to above problems? Revoke or not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: In my opinion there is no need to revoke the global rollbacker flag. At least until the facts of its abuse appear. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazimier Lachnovič: To be preceise, in Polish Żyd of course means "a Jew", Żydzi means "a nation or group of Jews". Although there is also żyd (written with a small letter) which first of all means "a follower of judaism" but also means "someone mean/cheap". The second meaning is pejorative, it is rarely used and is rather considered old fashioned. See https://sjp.pwn.pl/szukaj/%C5%BCyd.html. Attention must be paid to the first letter – in Polish a Żyd not necessarily must be a żyd (A Jew not necessarily must be a follower of judaism or a cheap person). --jdx ^Re: 10:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdx: Thank you for the clarification. Each language has its own features, some of which can only be known (and fully understandable) by native speakers. That is why I consistently follow the opinion that in case of ambiguous situations concerning some linguistic issues, the practice of corresponding local Wikipedia community should be considered first. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copy from Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/02#Systematic disregard by administrators of rule violations (is Wikimedia not a multilingual project anymore?) some examples of use in reliable sources (dictionaries and mass media in Belarusian) of the name "maskal" (w:en:Russians) and the derivative scientific terms "maskalizacyja" / "abmaskaleńnie" / "abmaskalvańnie" (w:en:Russification) and "maskalizm" (w:en:Russianism) without any ethnic slur connotation:

Publication of Dr. Prof. Nina Barščeŭskaja (w:en:University of Warsaw) (2009, w:en:Polskie Radio) (text with "maskalizacyja")
Publication of Dr. Prof. Nina Barščeŭskaja (w:en:University of Warsaw) (2010, w:en:Polskie Radio) (text with "maskalizm")
Publication of Dr. Prof. Nina Barščeŭskaja (w:en:University of Warsaw) (2007, w:en:Polskie Radio) (text with "maskal")
Publication of Dr. Prof. Lidzija Savik (w:en:Belarusian State University of Culture and Arts) (w:en:Narodnaja Volya (newspaper) Nr. 17—18, 3.02.2009. P. 6) (pdf with "maskalizacyja")
Introduction to the dictionary by linguist w:be-tarask:Юрась Пацюпа (2008) ("maskalizm" as accepted abbreviation).
Etymological dictionary of Belarusian (Volume 6, 1993, p. 245—246) by the w:en:National Academy of Sciences of Belarus ("maskal" without any mention of slur)
Belarusian-Russian dictionary of Dr. w:en:Jan Stankievič (Vilnia, 1921, p. 5) ("abmaskaleńnie" as Russification)
Belarusian-Russian dictionary of Dr. w:en:Jan Stankievič (NY, 1989) provided by the w:en:Library of Congress [3] (a scan with "maskalić", "abmaskalić", "abmaskaleny", "abmaskaleńnie", "maskal")
Belarusian-Russian dictionary by w:be-tarask:Сьцяпан Некрашэвіч (Minsk, 1925), the founder of the w:en:National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (236. "maskalizm", 237. "maskal", 238. "maskalka")
Russian-Belarusian dictionary (scientific terminology of literary work) by w:en:Yanka Kupala, the greatest Belarusian-language writer of the 20th century (5. "maskalizm")
Publication of Dr. w:be-tarask:Вячаслаў Ракіцкі (2001, w:en:Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) (text with "maskal")
Publication of writer and journalist w:be-tarask:Сяржук Сокалаў-Воюш (2013, w:en:Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) (text with "maskal")
Publication of linguist w:be-tarask:Юрась Пацюпа (2009, w:en:Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) (text with "maskalizm")
Publication of linguist w:be-tarask:Юрась Пацюпа (2009, w:en:Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) (text with "maskalizm")
Publication of Dr. w:pl:Siarhiej Szydłouski (2000, w:en:Nasha Niva) (text with "maskalizm")
Publication of w:en:Ales Bialiatski awarded by w:en:Right Livelihood Award (2002, w:en:Nasha Niva) (text with "abmaskaleńnie")
Publication in the oldest Belarusian newspaper w:en:Nasha Niva (1998) text with "abmaskalvańnie" + statement, that "maskal" is the historical name of Russians in Belarusian language, without any insult to them)
Publication of Dr. Prof. w:be-tarask:Леанід Лыч (w:en:National Academy of Sciences of Belarus) (2011, pdf with "abmaskalvańnie")
Publication in popular science and literary journal w:be-tarask:ARCHE Пачатак (2013) (text with "maskalizacyja")
Publication in popular science and literary journal w:be-tarask:ARCHE Пачатак (2013) (text with "maskalizm")
Publication of journalist w:be-tarask:Глеб Лабадзенка (2012, w:be-tarask:ARCHE Пачатак) (text with "abmaskalvańnie")
Russian-Belarusian dictionary by w:be-tarask:Сьцяпан Некрашэвіч (Minsk, 1928, republished in 2014), the biggest and the most fundamental Belarusian dictionary before w:en:Russification (gives "maskal" as Belarusian translation of "Russian", "abmaskalvać" — "to russificate", "abmaskalvańnie" — "Russification")
Explanatory dictionary of w:en:Nasha Niva (2007, Volume 2, p. 522) by the w:en:National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (according to the dictionary, Belarusian "maskal" means Russian without any negative connotation)
Electronic spelling dictionary by modern editorial office of w:en:Nasha Niva (2001, zip) ("maskalizm", a scientific term w:en:Russianism).
Belarusian-Russian dictionary by lexicographer w:be-tarask:Мікалай Касьпяровіч (Viciebsk, 1925, p. 31) ("maskalism" as Russianism)

--Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Kazimier Lachnovič. There are lots of pundits' we shall rely on works brought up. There are sources from back then, like Yanka Kupala, to modern publications in historic journals like ARCHE Пачатак. For admins like Ymblanter, it would be useful to visit these pages (assuming good faith and without taking advantage of an admin status (which can be revoked for its abuse) and refresh what type of language are gonna be used.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Use_of_gender_neutral_language

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Language_policy

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_naming

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/De-adminship

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Assume_good_faith

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Ownership_of_pages_and_files

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 178.120.57.51 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the remarks of the IP constitute clear harassment addressed to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is now becoming more and more obvious that there are no administrators who actually carry about the guidelines (maybe apart from the ones concerned copyright). Just in case if someone realizes the shame of this situation, I give my last argument as addition to the earlier provided list of using the censored here Belarusian words. According to the publication of Dr. w:be:Уладзімір Уладзіміравіч Агіевіч (w:en:National Academy of Sciences of Belarus) a Belarusian term "maskalizacyja" (censored in here just because some Russian admins doesn't like it, that is very close to w:en:Nazism) is even more correct than an alternative "rusifikacyja" for w:en:Russification (Albaruthenica. Nr. 13, 2000, p. 72, which are the proceedings of the scientific center related to the Belarusian Ministry of education). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May be if you are right and everybody else here is consistently wrong, you should look in the mirror rather than to resort to personal attacks. I have already mentioned a few times that I am not Russian, I am Dutch. And accusations of me in nazizm is something you should get a block for. I am unfortunately can not do it myself, but normally users accusing others in nazism have no place on the Wikimedia projects, and my role as administrator is to make sure these users get removed asap.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see a big difference, but it's not a problem for me to reformulate. The admin with the native Russian who just admitted to being involved in deliberate discrimination of the Belarusian language. + was previously seen in spread of pro-Russian propaganda (e.g. Russian is still the mothertongue of 95% of the population of Belarus [4]). And I have all rights to compare obvious aggressive linguistic chauvinism with similar type of discriminations including Nazism, especially during the rise of modern Russian Nazism. And you are the one who should has been blocked for calling the whole local Wikipedia community a a clique of ultra-nationalists and comparing with the the terrorists. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MesinKetik

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

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

I believe MesinKetik is used to bypass the indef block of Achmadmaulanaibr. Look at the file histories. The only purpose of MesinKetik is to transfer the files. For example https://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berkas:A._A._Suhardi.jpg&action=history https://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berkas:Rooseno_soerjohadikusumo_PYO.jpg&action=history .--Iphoneuser88 (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will this be ignored?--Iphoneuser88 (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wowiskwpoopi

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

This person has been persistently edit-warring on multiple images for close to 3 months now. They've been warned repeatedly to stop their disruptive behavior, but they haven't. They were edit-warring again as recently as yesterday. I think that an indefinite block is in order until this person can demonstrate that they have the proper temperament and maturity to edit here. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to L&D's comment, here's a few exhibits of him committing these acts,

Exhibit A: Hurricane Marco

Exhibit B: Hurricane Isaias — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.59.134 (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Flasty Jam (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked the user for a week due to edit warring after warnings. Taivo (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image and article problem

Can someone please have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dan Trotta at the Gale Anne Hurd Masterclass (6829984489).jpg? The article on Wikipedia was deleted by User:HJ Mitchell as an attack page; the user says that the creator wrote up the article (and uploaded/fabricated that picture) after they had an online argument. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked Imissdisco for a week due to intimidation/harassment and deleted the file as out of scope. Taivo (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taivo, I'm not sure how to bring those two in agreement. Please reconsider, and y'all may be interested in this thread on en-wiki. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So Geo Swan is indefinitely blocked in en.wiki (the block can be appealed). This is their problem. I can see, that in Commons Imissdisco used the f-word and created 8 deletion requests for the same file. In the DR he said: "you do want to offend. You feed off these pathetic arguments. Sad little lives, really. Enjoy, trolls." – assuming bad faith is not a proper way for conversation. In my opinion the block is reasonable. Of course, if somebody else will unblock him, then I will not protest, but I stand behind my decision. Taivo (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: While I agree with your block of Geo Swan on English Wikipedia, I also agree with Taivo's block of Imissdisco here on Commons. I am inclined to unblock Imissdisco, however, for unblock request to be granted, COM:BP requires an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue -- neither are on offer in Imissdisco's unblock request. The unblock request has not been declined or processed. If Imissdisco responds to my questions and demonstrates that they have an understanding of the issue and provides a credible commitment to discontinue, then we can proceed with granting the request to be unblocked. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nat, thank you. I saw this after I responded to your post on their talk page. I'm not sure if the user has any desire to get unblocked because I doubt they have a desire to ever return here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judgefloro's seemingly ad hominem inputs in DRs

Recently, Judgefloro (talk · contribs) seems to make ad hominem response in various FOP-related DR's, such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City San Lazaro.

While there is now pending bill in the Congress seeking to amend the copyright law (and add an FOP provision), IPOPHL-BCRR (Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines-Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights) said in the February 10, 2020 freedom of panorama dialogue on Zoom that the current status (freedom of panorama is not provided in the copyright law) remains and a need of permission/authorization of license from the copyright holders (e.g. architects / sculptors) is still required if releasing these images under free licensing.

That's why in the DR's (including several I started), I always request him to contact the copyright holders and do the process as outlined in COM:OTRS. However, his responses: ad hominem inputs. He even ignored COM:EVIDENCE, saying that COM:EVIDENCE applies to architects, sculptors, etc.. (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Tarlac). I can see no indication that he will contact the architects, sculptors, etc..

I don't know if ANU is a right venue for this, and I am already used to his attacks, but for this time he made a problematic comment ("a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believe, I never filed any Undeletions, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the DOJ, the IPO and Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE", example Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Contemporary sculpture Jorge B. Vargas Museum and Filipiniana Research Center). This despite IPOPHL-BCRR's comment at the online dialogue that copyright laws are statutory rights, and provisions like FOP cannot be made into existence by just legal studies, interpretations, etc.. (contray to what Judgefloro claims). Such provisions must be indicated and defined. And to sum up, photographers must obtain free license from the architects, sculptors, etc.., while the bill to amend the copyright is still pending at Congress. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should give him a notice and to remind him that while no FOP status still apply, authorization for a free licensing from the copyright holders (the architects/sculptors/their heirs) is still required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply with Comprehensive History of the Case

Thanks for the message; I prepared a Legal Discussion here - The accusation has no legal or factual basis respectfully submitted to the Commons Community very sincerely yours Judgefloro (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My response

Note @Judgefloro: has replied at User talk:Judgefloro#Introduction, using copy-paste methods from various archives of talk pages and other discussions. It reminds me of elcobbola's response to me at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-10#File:MRT-2 Betty Go-Belmonte Station Exterior 1.jpg (2nd UNDEL attempt), in which they remarked that "...you buy that, and think nothing of what the double !voting betrays about the genuineness of their opinion, I have a bridge to sell you...". But I do not want to sway my response to their inputs. To counter his major inputs:

His leading bases, the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020), is irrelevant for Wikimedia Commons. It is for real life cases and proceedings outside Commons. He seems to treat all deletion requests as similar to court cases and Wikimedia Commons as a court, but that's not the case: deletion requests are not like court cases. Numerous Burj Khalifa and Louvre Pyramid pictures were deleted without the need of "intervention from the countries' courts". This Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases is not relevant to Commons.
He seems to counter COM:EVIDENCE policy through this 2020 revised rules of procedure. (Quote: "For instance, the 2020 IPR Rules now require the complaint and the answer thereto to include the evidence in support thereof.") But, this doesn't apply to Commons as, like I said, deletion requests are not like court hearings. He also uses this revised rules and procedure to counter Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, by claiming that the architects and sculptors need to submit proof.
His claim that all artists must register first their works in order to obtain copyright is invalidated by IPOPHL's page on copyright itself. I might copy-paste the relevant paragraphs here: "Copyright laws grant authors, artists and other creators automatic protection for their literary and artistic creations, grom the moment they create it. Recordation or deposit of your works isn’t necessary but authors and artists may opt to execute an affidavit of ownership with the National Library or the IPOPHL for the issuance of recordation and deposit. This proves that despite the new rules and procedures, the regular rules apply, because if the Philippines abandoned this and reverted to mandatory registration, we would have breached the Berne Convention and most of WIPO treaties.
He continues to ignore the rule on government-commissioned works, claiming "local government property like National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-à-vis RA 3019 Graft Law...". According to section 178.4 of the copyright law, "In the case of a work commissioned by a person other than an employer of the author and who pays for it and the work is made in pursuance of the commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall have ownership of the work, but the copyright thereto shall remain with the creator, unless there is a written stipulation to the contrary." COM:EVIDENCE applies for proof of written stipulation. It's true that government works are in public domain, but that doesn't extend to works of architecture, sculptures, and other FOP-reliant objects. IPOPHL itself cited People Power Monument as an example of a Philippine artistic work that is protected by copyright during the 2020 commemoration of the 1986 EDSA Revolution. People Power Monument is owned by the state and the public, but Eduardo Castrillo's heirs still hold the copyright. The Local Government Code has no power to waives all sculptors' and architects' copyrights over their works to the municipalities. Physical ownership is not equivalent to copyright. Payment of fees to the municipalities by artists or creators doesn't remove their copyright too.
"4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions" - the so-called 4-years prescription has long been countered by a reply by Clindberg when I asked him at (User talk:Clindberg/archives 10#About Judgefloro's claim of "extinctive prescription" for RA 8293).
On church properties ("Reply, Rejoinder: Roman Catholic Churches, statues and accessories are outside the scope of the prohibitions of Philippine Copyright Laws by virtue of Settle Jurisprudence and Case laws of Canon Law and International Law") - countered by Aymatth2 at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Freedom of panorama for religious works and properties. The canon laws are only relevant for churches' uses of copyrighted works for any purposes, but that doesn't remove the artists' copyright with respect to uses by other people not working or serving in the church.
Lastly, he countered IPOPHL-BCRR's explanation by putting ad hominem inputs against IPOPHL people (e.g. at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Emilio Aguinaldo Monument in Malolos, Bulacan), saying that "if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office...". This is another form of ad hominem input, and a possible online threat against IPOPHL people.

To end, the inputs of IPOPHL-BCRR in the Feb. 10, 2021 Zoom dialogue is clear: freedom of panorama is not currently provided in the copyright law. Copyright laws are statutory rights, and such things cannot be made by legal interpretations, opinions, studies, etc. alone. That's why the bill amending the copyright is now pending in the Congress (but that will still pass through Senate and the President, and the Implementing Rules and Regulations for the future Philippine FOP will be formulated, perhaps taking a year more or less, considering the prioritization of the legislature on bills more relevant to COVID-19 response and recovery). But again, with the current no FOP status as confirmed by IPOPHL-BCRR, photographers like Judgefloro are required to ask for a free license from the copyright holders before taking photos of these FOP-reliant works and publishing them under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or PD licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This asking of permission and license also applies to photos already hosted here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgefloro: It doesn't look like @JWilz12345: made any comment whatsoever in your linked DR other than to create the nominations. My personal suggestion, regardless of whatever might happen from this thread, is you probably need to chill out. It's not terribly helpful to repeatedly post pages long compilations of hereto, whereas, henceforth. You will find a great deal more success if you speak plain concise English. Also, please remember that this is a multi-lingual project, and make some effort to be considerate of the substantial number of users that speak English as a second language. GMG ^talk 13:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Thanks and good evening from hereat Philippines ; thanks for you message and kindness; allow me to state with all due respect that the Mass Deletions of JWilz12345 in my Talk Pages are almost daily and there is a very long debate going on; if you notice, JWilz12345 filed hereat a very long Response; thus I am obliged to answer them point by point; it took me about 7 hours to write via research the Introduction Reply and not it took me 5 hours to write the Rejoinder; rest assured that when I have time I will file and Executive Summary which is suggested by the Help Desk kind administrator,

Please give me time to succinctly or tersely summarize this long Legal Treatise for the Commons Community sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a court and nobody gets paid to sort through several thousand words of quasi-legal filings you've repeatedly posted in several different places. Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems the lengthy reply you've received is in response to your own long windedness. You will, I suppose, eventually find someone willing to sort through these reams of text, but you're not doing yourself any favors, because the average user is probably just not going to read it at all.

Poking around (because no, I also do not have the time to spend hours reading everything you've written) I can say for certain that no matter how much flowery language and Latin phrases you use, you are not going to entice the WMF legal team to weigh in on your uploads. That's simply not something they do. So you can probably drop that bit all together. Besides that, you would probably have a stronger argument if 1) this was the only user nominating your uploads for deletion, 2) the nominations weren't generally successful, and 3) if this user was somehow only nominating your uploads, when it seems they are simply making lots of nominations, many of which end up being yours. It would also help if I could not fairly easily find instances like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Food menus in the Philippines, where I completely agree with the rational and the deletion, because these pretty clearly seem to be derivative works.

Having said all that, before you spend several hours replying with pages of text, don't bother. I'm simply not going to read it. Let me be quite clear about that. Responding to something like File:9391SM Center Pulilan 02.jpg with 2,400 words of mostly unrelated text is bordering on disruption. It's not a complicated issue. It's a picture of a copyrighted work containing again copyrighted cartoon characters. That's the end of the discussion. It does not in any way require us to opine on the nature of the Filipino Supreme Court or the minimum wage. GMG ^talk 13:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am reminded of my favourite legal judgement: "Counsel made nine points in his appeal. There's nothing in any of them. Nine times nothing is nothing. Appeal dismissed". None of us has the time to wade through interminable legalese, even though we used to do it for a living. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Critique-Rejoinder (answer to Response) of JWilz12345

Extended content

NB JWilz12345 counters that User talk:Judgefloro#Introduction, used copy-paste methods from various archives of talk pages and other discussions. The History and long case of JWilz12345 almost daily editing or inputs of Mass Deletion Requests was tersely laid as Evidence of Disruptive Editing in the Comprehensive history of edits of my Talk pages by User:JWilz12345 starting with TWO Requests 3 December 2017 Request to me to take Photos : Balite Drive and Skyway Segment 10; this Faulty generalization puts in my reverberating mind FOP Sorry "I am sorry, but I don't have the time or energy to fully comprehend FOP-related legalities in the Philippines, so I am neutral. Please stop pinging me about them. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 05:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Ok. I understand.[reply]

Sorry again. Philippine FOP is actually stressful to me . I actually hate seeing these deleted, but "my hands are tied" because I must comply with the longstanding policies here. I hope that Wikimedia Foundation will finally agree to initiate a dialogue with IPOPHL on freedom of panorama. Because that is what IPOPHL indicated in their reply to an email sent by Higad Rail Fan in November 2020. This dialogue may be helpful in pushing for the inclusion of FOP in the approved amendment to R.A. 8293, because the proposed amendment, House Bill No. 8062, still has no FOP provision. The exceptions are now at Chapter VII, Sections 159.1–165.3. Hopefully WMF agrees to the WMF–IPOPHL dialogue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC) But I do not want my response to be affected by their inputs. To contradict JWilz12345's each and every * fallacy , I respectfully Proffer the following:[reply]

Point ONE - First Fallacy of JWilz12345 - he cites my cited, the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020), saying, and I quote "that it is is irrelevant for Wikimedia Commons. It is for real life cases and proceedings outside Commons. He seems to treat all deletion requests as similar to court cases and Wikimedia Commons as a court, but that's not the case: deletion requests are not like court cases. Numerous Burj Khalifa and Louvre Pyramid pictures were deleted without the need of "intervention from the countries' courts". This Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases is not relevant to Commons."

This reminds me of THREE things a) De mimis Discussion most relevant to this case "IMO it is actually ridiculous that mere users need to establish the legal policies to which Commons must adhere. One would expect the Wikimedia lawyers to take care of this. I guess that would be my starting point... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC) We could ask the WMF legal team to issue guidance in this matter. (I am the author of meta:Wikilegal/Database Rights myself...) --Gnom (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)" b) "And, many thanks for the photos! It's a great help since most of the available photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 are way back to around mid-2018 at most recent. Again, I'll be looking forward for your additional photos.JWilz12345 (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC) :-) @Judgefloro: I think they wouldn't allow it since the construction is ongoing (not to mention the safety/ease of construction mobility issues). Again, I'll be looking forward for added pictures, most esp. when the weather improves (at least slightly).JWilz12345 (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC) and[reply]

c) Analysis Source Again, I'm not an expert in law. I might page @Clindberg, King of Hearts, and Howhontanozaz: for this.

'From this point on I won't get involved in deletion requests at various photos of Philippine structures and artworks until a major development to the FOP situation in the Philippines occurs. The source used here is https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ph/ph198en.pdf (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition)). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1st Question to JWilz12345 : You stated as Admission Against Interest that is Declaration against your interest that i) "You are not an expert in law and b) From this point on I won't get involved in deletion requests at various photos of Philippine structures and artworks until a major development to the FOP situation in the Philippines occurs" - then Why tell me, a Member of the Philippine Bar, a Lawyer and Jurist Regional Trial Judge with evidence Legal Expertise both in Civil and Criminal Law that I am wrong?

2nd Question to JWilz12345 : why do you continue the Mass Deletion Requests which is only within the Domain of Wikimedia Foundation Lawyers?

Point TWO - SECOND Fallacy of JWilz12345 - he states that I seem to counter COM:EVIDENCE policy through this 2020 revised rules of procedure. (Quote: "For instance, the 2020 IPR Rules now require the complaint and the answer thereto to include the evidence in support thereof.") But, this doesn't apply to Commons as, like I said, deletion requests are not like court hearings. He also uses this revised rules and procedure to counter Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, by claiming that the architects and sculptors need to submit proof." This statement is Legally Untenable being utterly Devoid of any Merit in law or in Fact: in support of my Contradiction, here:

"There is no local (Philippines) jurisprudence or court records that ruled on FOP nor any copyright protection on landscape, architectural works in relation to photography. The intent of the law is protection on the reproduction of architectural plans and physical reproduction of finished works and not landscape photography."

I support my Stance by a landmark FOP ruling by the Supreme Court on G.R. No. 195835 SISON OLAÑO, VS. LIM ENG CO. dated March 2016, Copyright infringement is thus committed by any person who shall use original literary or artistic works, or derivative works, without the copyright owner's consent in such a manner as to violate the foregoing copy and economic rights. For a claim of copyright infringement to prevail, the evidence on record must demonstrate: (1) ownership of a validly copyrighted material by the complainant; and (2) infringement of the copyright by the respondent. This applies to no FOP tags by random users claiming a building, structure, public art in the Philippines automatically presumed to have a copyright. The ruling state that any petitioner citing a copyright violation must establish a valid evidence like certification from the Intellectual Property of the Philippines that a subject (for example, a building or a sculpture) has an existing copyright on its record and is deposited. As for architectural works, copyright violation happen is when a violating party got the patented architectural plans, drawings reproduced and used as basis for reproduction of its final product. A mere possession of the image the finished product does not mean the person already commit a copyright violation.

An earlier ruling, on G.R No. 161295, dated June 29, 2005, it states that Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and copyrightability. By originality is meant that the material was not copied, and evidences at least minimal creativity; that it was independently created by the author and that it possesses at least same minimal degree of creativity. Copying is shown by proof of access to copyrighted material and substantial similarity between the two works. The applicant must thus demonstrate the existence and the validity of his copyright because in the absence of copyright protection, even original creation may be freely copied.

To discharge his burden, the applicant may present the certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence. A copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is one element of copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership and the validity of the facts stated in the certificate. The presumption of validity to a certificate of copyright registration merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant should not ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that underline the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively challenging them, shifts the burden of doing so to the applicant.

This therefore solidifies freedom of any content contributor, whether in Commons or Wikipedia in Flickr, Photobucket that taking photograph of any subject and uploading it on commons or any internet site does not violate copyright unless there is valid evidence that the subject possesses intellectual property.

Point THREE - THIRD Fallacy of JWilz12345 - states that I do claim that all artists must register first their works in order to obtain copyright is invalidated by IPOPHL's page on copyright itself."Copyright laws grant authors, artists and other creators automatic protection for their literary and artistic creations, grom the moment they create it. Recordation or deposit of your works isn’t necessary but authors and artists may opt to execute an affidavit of ownership with the National Library or the IPOPHL for the issuance of recordation and deposit. This proves that despite the new rules and procedures, the regular rules apply, because if the Philippines abandoned this and reverted to mandatory registration, we would have breached the Berne Convention and most of WIPO treaties."

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is never an issue in this discussions; the Supreme Court and the IPO-Bureau of Copyrights never transgressed the same nor any other World Treaty in formulating the New 2020 Circular on FOP; on the contrary the the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020) implements Copyright Law not just for Court Evidence Procedures but in all case (whether trademark, tradename, unfair competition or FOP Coyright issues - Commons Uploading); your False_analogy is the height of false logic in argumentation; you divert the topic to Berne when the only issue is Commons Uploading; like this 'Numerous Burj Khalifa and Louvre Pyramid pictures were deleted without the need of "intervention from the countries' courts" Again another False_analogy : the Laws thereat are different from Philippine Laws; it is like asking which is more beautiful a rose or ylang-ylang;

Point FOUR- FOURTH Fallacy of JWilz12345 - Can you cite an authority whether local (IPO) or SC Ruling which can support your stance that This Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases is not relevant to Commons.? I never contradict COM:EVIDENCE policy by this 2020 revised rules of procedure. (Quote: "For instance, the 2020 IPR Rules now require the complaint and the answer thereto to include the evidence in support thereof.") Distinguo : Court hearing are not applicable to Commons uploading or even Deletion discussion.

Your heavy reliance on Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, is highly devoid of legal merit; I never stated that architects and sculptors need to submit proof here, but only in Special Court or in IPO Procedures if they file the case; if you base your Mass Deletion Requests;

Time and again I did underscore that the mere Creation of the work of art inter alia, like books, etc, IPSO FACTO vests upon the Creator a moral right called Copyright; in fact your did state: @Judgefloro: I think that Ianlopez1115 is formulating a draft for the request for formal opinion of DOJ on the Commons:FOP Philippines matter, based on his reply at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. You may want to reach out to his talk page at User talk:Ianlopez1115. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Category:Letter of Judge Florentino V. Floro to Wikimedia Commons editors - users @Judgefloro: I will post these two photos at the most relevant forum, at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The foregoing are indubitable evidence of your Faulty generalization;

Point FIVE- FIFTH Fallacy of JWilz12345 - states that I ignored the rule on government-commissioned works, claiming "local government property like National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vvis-à-visRA 3019 Graft Law...". According to section 178.4 of the copyright law, "In the case of a work commissioned by a person other than an employer of the author and who pays for it and the work is made in pursuance of the commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall have ownership of the work, but the copyright thereto shall remain with the creator, unless there is a written stipulation to the contrary." This is the height of Faulty generalization; how can a Lawyer and Judge contradict the law; you are taking my statements out of context by cherry picking parts thereof that will support your Fallacy;

Not only did I repeatedly underscore that Government works like the Municipal Hall and Tourism offices of Bulacan inter alia are sourced from LGU Funds and National Funds if any; take for example the Photographs of Coronation of Birhen ng Baliwag: the photographer as SOP signs a De Kahon contract being paid and simultaneous transfer of all his rights to the Municipal Government; the Commons Community may take Judicial Notice hereof due to the fact that this is embodied in the Local Government Code vis-vis Copyright Law as Implemented by the latest the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020);

The Article VIII – Judicial Department Judicial Supremacy of the Supreme Court; it has exclusive original jurisdiction to issue Circulars which have the force and effect of law as quasi-judicial bodies do also in Rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect accordingly the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020) (A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC) which was issued upon [https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/news/supreme-courts-revised-rules-on-ip-cases-improves-litigation-driving-innovation-and-creativity/ Application of and adherence to the Revised Rules: Rule 22 of the Revised Rules specifically provides that the application of and adherence to the rules shall be subject to the periodic monitoring of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by visitation and submission of data.

COM:EVIDENCE is not contradicted by the transfer of rights of creators to local government; what the local government cannot do is to force them to transfer; for this reason alone, all LGUs are now required to Kaliwaan or simultaneous signing of contracts of payment and waiver of copyrights;

Point SIX - SIXTH Fallacy of JWilz12345 - wrongfully and with gross error misquoted me to wit "4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions" -

Question to JWilz12345 : Why did you not include in your arguement the Philippine law on Extinctive Prescription whereby rights and actions are lost by the lapse of time. (Arts, 11 06, par. 2 and 1139.) Another name for extinctive prescription is litigation of action. Article 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n) Article 1150. The time for prescription for all kinds of actions, when there is no special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the day they may be brought. Vide; 172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 49a) SECTION 176. Works of the Government. ‑ 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. 176.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest or otherwise; 184.2. The provisions of this section shall be interpreted in such a way as to allow the work to be used in a manner which does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the right holder’s legitimate interests. SECTION 195. Waiver of Moral Rights. ‑ An author may waive his rights mentioned in Section 193 by a written instrument.

Point SEVENTH - SEVENTH Fallacy of JWilz12345 - wrongfully and with gross error misquoted me to wit " On church properties ("Reply, Rejoinder: Roman Catholic Churches, statues and accessories are outside the scope of the prohibitions of Philippine Copyright Laws by virtue of Settle Jurisprudence and Case laws of Canon Law and International Law") - countered by Aymatth2 at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Freedom of panorama for religious works and properties. The canon laws are only relevant for churches' uses of copyrighted works for any purposes, but that doesn't remove the artists' copyright with respect to uses by other people not working or serving in the church.

The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Article II, Section 6) and, No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. (Article III, Section 5). There is no conflict between Church properties and copyright law; I repeatedly underscored that a Parish Church including its accessories plus all works of art therein, from the moment of the signing of Decretum of Solemnization Creation, IPSO FACTO vests upon the Titular Bishop of the Diocese the property and moral including copyrights of any worker of art;

Last Question to JWilz12345 : Can you cite any Law, Copyright or Supreme Court Ruling or the Philippines of USA where any sculptor or creator of work of art has been ruled to have copyrights of Church works of art inter alia? If not, then your bases must legally fall on their own weights;

FINAL Point- FINAL Fallacy of JWilz12345 - in a desperate attempt to support his final Verbum, accuses me of Ad hominem input, and a possible online threat against IPOPHL people when I just reserved my right to the Appeal Processes of Law; this is plain Fallacy used by losing Trial Lawyers I met; the process mandates that any Ruling of the IPOPHL-BCRR's is appealable to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Trade_and_Industry_(Philippines) Department of Trade and Industry ] its Decision is in turn appealable to the Salvador "Bingbong" Campo Medialdea who incidentally is the husband of my seatmate classmate Betty or it may be appealed vis Request for explanation by putting ad hominem inputs against IPOPHL people (e.g. at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Emilio Aguinaldo Monument in Malolos, Bulacan), saying that "if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office...". This is another form of Request for DOJ Opinion of my classmate seatmate and counsel of my sibling in 1 year Adoption case, Justice Secretary; No attack was done to these people since I have nothing against them; I just said that Disbarment or Violation of RA 6713 may apply if there is omission of action or negligence; remember that 2 letter of mine with the IPO were not answered in writing by Verbally En Consulta by the high ranking officer Atty. Leonardo Oliver F. Limbo, Attorney III who spoke on Enforcement of Copyright by the IPOPHL;

The inputs of IPOPHL-BCRR in the Feb. 10, 2021 Zoom dialogue are just explanation like question and answer; but they do not change or make the Copyright law; they cannot interpret the Copyright Law for it had already been done by the IPOPHL-BCRR and Supreme Court; in fact it is IPO Atty. Leonardo Oliver F. Limbo, Attorney III with whom I discussed the FOP Commons Uploading for an hour that DRAFTED the the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020);

Petition to the Commons Community to Direct JWilz12345 to Stop the Mass Deletion Request on My Talk Pages and on Ramon FVelasquez and or To Put on Hold all His Mass DRs until the IPOPHL-BCRR would issue a Reply on a Third Letter that I am Drafting and will File in Due Course: ALTERNATIVELY, to instead ask any other Administrator to Re-Nominate any or all of JWilz12345's Mass DRs pending Resolution of Floods of Mass DRs now pending on FOP Philippines

IN FINE, I humbly ask the Commons Community to Direct JWilz12345 to Stop the Mass Deletion Request on My Talk Pages and on Ramon FVelasquez and or To Put on Hold all His Mass DRs until the IPOPHL-BCRR would issue a Reply on a Third Letter that I am Drafting and will File in Due Course;

ALTERNATIVELY, I I humbly ask the Commons Community to instead ask any other Administrator to Re-Nominate any or all of JWilz12345's Mass DRs pending Resolution of Floods of Mass DRs now pending on FOP Philippines; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgefloro: you are making things complicated. All deletion requests can be launched by anyone, and it is contrary to your claim that only lawyers can file such requests. Examine all deletion requests to Burj Khalifa and other structures from no FOP countries. Not all who started the DR's are made by lawyers.

Also, my deletion requests are not destructive, with evidences (not based on rumors). And I don't launch more than 10 FOP DRs per region (country; excludes DR's for derivative works, packaging, etc.), and as the Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending has still almost 200 case pages, I usually refrain from launching more. At this moment I refrain such initiating of DRs due to immense number of open discussions.

Those past discussions, even getting obsolete threads from my talk page that you copy-pasted as your evidences? These are already irrelevant ever since the Feb. 10, 2021 IPOPHL-BCRR dialogue, which confirmed two things: a) that Philippine FOP will soon be introduced here, and b) the current no FOP status prevails. And those IPOPHL-BCRR people in that dialogue are lawyers.

With regards to "reaching out to ianlopez115", that is no longer relevant since IPOPHL-BCRR's legal opinion in the dialogue. That also applies to your request for legal opinions and interpretations. How can these be made if FOP is nonexistent in the law in the first place (acc. to IPOPHL-BCRR)?

Please read thoroughly both User talk:Clindberg/archives 10#About Judgefloro's claim of "extinctive prescription" for RA 8293 (where I asked Clindberg about your claim of prescriptive extinction) and Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Freedom of panorama for religious works and properties (about religious works and properties, where the lawyer-admin Aymatth2 eventually said that canon laws do not override civil laws, and the law of the deed only applies to physical ownership. And you always equate copyright with physical ownership despite that it's not so, as admins regularly say at COM:UNDEL.

Even in one DR, regarding an artwork in Angono, Rizal, Howhontanozaz forwarded a reply from Angono Cultural Heritage Office that the copyright is still held by sculptor Lito Balagtas, and as he died last year, the office said that copyright is passed to his heirs. This contradicts your claim that the Local Government Code has the power to transfer copyright. No, it is only relevant to physical possession. The government and the public owns People Power Monument, but Castrillo' heirs own the copyright. How many times will I repeat copyright ≠ physical possession?

Again, my only one request is for you to contact the copyright holders (the artists, architects, sculptors or their heirs, not the owners like municipal offices, the churches etc.) and ask their permissions for free licensing of your images, via COM:OTRS correspondence. It's very simple, you're just complicating things. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judgefloro, a reference you cited [5] is not FOP related. It is "The petitioners are the officers and/or directors of Metrotech Steel Industries, Inc. (Metrotech).[6] Lim Eng Co (respondent), on the other hand, is the Chairman of LEC Steel Manufacturing Corporation (LEC), a company which specializes in architectural metal manufacturing." More applied to industrial design than architecture and sculptures. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I'm just going to boldly collapse this. This is such a jumbled mess of unsigned comments, half signed comments, comments out of order, and comments apparently copy/pasted from third parties... I honestly can't even tell who said what here.

This is not a venue for litigating the entirety of Filipino copyright law. If there is a particular issue with a particular file, it needs to be discussed in the particular at COM:DR. If there is a problem with a DR, then it need to be discussed in the particular at COM:UDR. If there is confusion over a particular issue of copyright, then it needs to be discussed in the particular at COM:VPC. GMG ^talk 14:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo I wrote a summary of the whole thing on Commons:Help desk#Executive summary by User:JWilz12345, within a thread began by Judgefloro itself (with the "executive summary" headers added by Jmabel). For the review if the copyright law, that FOP status is clear in accordance with IPOPHL-BCRR's webinar last February 10, 2021 (indicated at the bottom of COM:FOP Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've already a bit touched on the issue that these long winding diatribes being posted in response to DRs are unproductive bordering on disruption. Of course anyone is welcome to seek discussion and clarification of the rules and regulations, though that's generally more appropriate at a forum like COM:VPC. Judging by the 7,000 word novella at HD, if a user can't manage to have that discussion in a way that is intelligible, then our local standards are not in any way going to change, and their images will continue to be deleted. Generally, if a user continues to upload inappropriate files that get deleted, they get blocked. They may consider that a warning or not as they please, though a blocking administrator may certainly consider it sufficient notification.

The onus is on the uploader to effectively communicate why their files are appropriate. If that truly requires 7,000 words of impenetrable legalese, then it's quite possible that sufficient doubt exists about the copyright status that it's not appropriate regardless. If we find more clarity at some point in the future, the files can always be undeleted. GMG ^talk 16:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sock block request

Hi, Could someone block Showme3 for being a sock of Stan_old - Showme3 hasn't edited since December 2019 which was before Stan was indeffed however he could easily return given he's now indeffed here, Metadata for Showme3s and Stans images are both the same. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked Showme3 indefinitely, but did not delete his uploads. If somebody thinks, that they must be deleted, then regular discussion is needed. At least some of them has educational value. Taivo (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo, Many thanks for doing this - I have tagged his files for DR but did wonder if some were okay to be here, I'll have a look again, Thanks again for your help it's much appreciated, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 11:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JeyReydar97

JeyReydar97 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked Jey for a month and will delete his/her last remaining uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Miller

User: Roman Miller (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Used a bare {{Delete}} tag in this edit after this request and this warning.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giovanni Manchia

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done GMG ^talk 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GMG. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tafulug001

Tafulug001 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, EugeneZelenko. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tanner novak

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

blocked rubin16 (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, rubin16. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TommasoRmndn

User:TommasoRmndn is uploading images that are modified without saying so. This issue was raised at the English Wikipedia Mona Lisa talk page first. See File:After photo for the return of Gioconda at the Louvre Museum 1914.jpg vs the source image (person second on the right) and File:After End of Prohibition New York Times 1933 3.jpg vs source image (person on far left). I've not checked for others, though I would expect there are plenty more. These images have been inserted into articles, under the guise that they are legitimate [6] [7] Aza24 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Done~~. I deleted some copyvios. There are only 6 uploads left. You can examine them one by one, 6 files is not too much. And you know now correct source for Mona Lisa file, you can simply upload correct version on top of incorrect version, using the same filename. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, I'm not sure how this is "done"—and I don't know why I'm all of a sudden responsible for going through and replacing the edits of this user. This is clearly trolling; it's unreasonable to assume that this user "accidentally" completely altered the faces of people in their images. I mean seriously? No one is talking to this user (or warning them) and the files just get to stay on the site? Aza24 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not responsible for that. I simply deleted 3 his uploads. I thought, that maybe you are able to understand, are the remaining photos original or photoshopped – I'm not. Except Mona Lisa file – tomorrow I try to re-upload it. (Also I striked "done" mark.) Taivo (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clever photoshopping but still indidious vandalism as a misrepresentation of the original image. Unless it's really Forrest Gump, of course. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the user has created a sockpuppet account: Osammot Omer (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user ("Osammot" is "Tommaso" backwards). I’ve replaced the doctored version of File:Gli Italiani si voltano Moira Orfei 1954.jpg.

I’ve also overwritten the remaining doctored images, though I could only find low-res versions of File:After Spogliarello di Aiche Nana 1958.jpg and File:President Enrico De Nicola sign the Italian Constitution 1947.jpg. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Destinyinstitutesalatiga

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. -- Geagea (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Geagea. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Junior2912

Junior2912 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Ovruni (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Due to big number of copyvios I deleted Junior for month. Also I deleted last remaining upload as recreation of content previously deleted as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Puropanzer29

Puropanzer29 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, did you discuss this with them? Did you make any attempt to explain what the problem was, to this brand new user? No. So why are you immediately calling for action here (presumably some form of blocking). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Template:Copyvionote and Template:End of copyvios have explanations for users. That will be enough. If you think that's not enough, you may want to suggest changing the text of the templates. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked Puropanzer for a week and will delete his/her last remaining contributions. Warning the user with templates is enough, no further attempt to explain the situation is usually not needed. Taivo (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coldplay48

Coldplay48 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after warnings. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked Coldplay for a month. Taivo (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Login not recognized

User: dgreusard

Hello,

Since that day, my login, recognized on Wikipedia whatever the language, is not recognized on Commons.

After several attempts, in doubt including with other login/passwords, I posted a reset request, twice, and didn't receive the announced mail.

Of course, I checked all folders with unread messages.

I even tried to recreate my user login, but was immediately stopped, the page answering that this login already exists.

I don't know what's going on.

Can you unblock me? What can I do?

Greetings,

Dominique Greusard — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.132.218.47 (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:EJ Bishop3

EJ Bishop3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after warnings. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The user is blocked for a month. Uploads are deleted, two lasts are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Taivo and Nat. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princhex2012

User: Princhex2012 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after warnings for doing so. All 5 uploads have been copyvios. Vandalism.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Both vandalism and copyvios have stopped after you warned him. Thank you for nominating his uploads for deletion! Taivo (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wonyeong rose

User: Wonyeong rose (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio after several warnings.

Urara Haru 麗春 19:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rose was not warned before, so I warned him/her. Taivo (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

uploads by User:Ivanlebebev

This user is uploading what appear to be scans of postcards and claiming them as their own work. Just became aware of this on en.wp like two minutes ago, will commence taking them all out of use over there, but they will almost certainly need to be deleted and what a free image is needs to be made clear to this person. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all the postcards, clear copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also warned Ivan. Taivo (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SteaminThomasTheTrain32Returns

SteaminThomasTheTrain32Returns (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploading copyvios and removing deletion templates despite warnings. Blocked for sockpuppetry on enwiki and simplewiki. Suggest blocking socks as well. See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SteaminThomasTheTrain32/Archive. —Hasley 17:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked all socks and deleted remaining upload. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monrraromero

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a week and all uploads deleted (all copyvios). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nat. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:George "Gay"

George "Gay" (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) General spam, mostly low-quality explicit uploads that are out of scope. Many have been nominated for deletion, and I will batch-nominate the rest now, but this needs to stop.--Molandfreak (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like @Garcia1865: requested speedy deletion for most of the files.--Molandfreak (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Uploads have been deleted either by a regular DR or per CSD F10. User has been kindly reminded of our policy on project scope and on nudity. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Utilisateur45454502

Utilisateur45454502 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done User blocked for 1 week. Most files deleted as copyvios. 2 files remain not deleted but under discussion in a DR. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nat. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shah Mohi

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

Copyvio after warnings. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done User blocked for 1 month. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nat. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheUser2020

TheUser2020 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done GMG ^talk 14:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GMG. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:POS78

POS78 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

For several weeks this user is playing with categories naming, making numerous arbitrary redirects, ignoring the standardization and leaving the media in redirected cats. I asked him to stop three times (first, second, third), he said that it won't happen again, but then continues with the same practice again, again and again. He is doing the same disruptive redirects on other projects like English Wikipedia, so he get warned. Fixing his redirects on Wikipedia is easy, someone simple redirect it back, but here on Commons it is not. Numerous page histories have been destroyed because of his playing. Furthermore, it should be noted that User:POS78 has been blocked on Persian Wikipedia as sockpuppet of User:M.k.m2003, also blocked here on Commons. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I do not intend to sabotage And that I want to use a more accurate name, I'm ashamed if I made a mistake But I promise it will not be repeated and I will not moves an article without its correct name And that I was blocked about a year ago with M.k.m2003's username But I had forgotten, Can I apologize and be allowed to work on Wikimedia Commons? I am very eager to upload pictures of historical places and I was successful Without any violation, Please see my files[8] You do not see any violations, Please give me a chance to prove myself, thanks POS78 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@POS78: لطفاً استفاده از این اکانت (POS78) را همین حالا متوقف کنید و دیگر با این اکانت ویرایش نکنید. به info-commons

wikimedia.org ایمیل بزنید و بخواهید دسترسی به صفحهٔ بحثتان (M.k.m2003) را باز کنند. بعد درخواست آنبلاک بدهید. شخصاً نظر مساعدی نسبت به باز شدنتان دارم ولی اگر بی‌کفایتی نشان دهید و مثلاً در کار کردن با رده‌ها دقت نکنید، دوباره برایتان دردسر درست خواهد شد. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orijentolog: Fawiki has its own problems. Let's not import issues from there. I have positive opinions about POS78. They are indeed trying very hard to learn making positive contributions. I can mentor them for a while if need be. Regarding "playing with categories", I have a different opinion. Ribat seems to be different from caravanserai. Although they are used interchangeably, ribat seems to be mainly for horses and the like, whereas caravanserai seems to be more generic.[9] I indeed don't know the difference myself (even after skimming [10]) but many of them are called ribat in Persian, for example see Ribat Mehr on Iranshahrpedia and its registration file. My point is further discussion may be needed. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4nn1l2: About fa.wiki, OK. I don't say everything what POS78 did is wrong. Personally I was "mentoring" him, giving him advices about categorization, even when he was asked about references on en.wiki, I sent him some tips. All I asked is that he don't make arbitrary redirects because of three reasons:

(1) in most cases, it was wrong or misleading. I spent a lot of time searching for proper names, namesakes of specific buildings (I even leave notices in edit summaries about it), and then POS78 come and redirect it. Without any notices, discussions or sources.

(2) He insists on "Castle of X" naming, instead of "X Castle". I told him that there are thousands of buildings, even counties and provinces, with such standardized naming, but he don't care.

(3) He never move files after redirects. That's why I called his redirects as playing.

Generally, "ribat" is very rarely used in English terminology, and registration data isn't always authoritative for naming. A fine example would be the "Seleucid Temple of Khvorheh" recently opened by POS78, here on Commons named as Parthian mansion at Khorheh. One Iranian editor already asked me why I reverted his temple category and asked me for sources, and he got it. POS78 can also ping me and ask anything, I'll respond to him, it's far better than making arbitrary redirect to "a more accurate name" which is in fact terribly outdated. When POS78 also recently opened Temple of Mehr and Temple of Mehri, I noticed him it's the same site and he should redirect one. There's no problem if someone makes such mistakes, last summer I added this categories for the same site, based on data from fa.wiki and news media, and two days ago I opened scholarly articles and realized all was wrong. You see, fails happen to all of us.

My general tip to POS78, you and other Iranian editors would be: if you see some category which I edited and something seems "wrong", first check the page history (for notices) and Wikidata (for sources). In most cases you'll find them. For example, take a look at this old dams in Razavi Khorasan, they all have tens of high-quality references inside. It took hours to find them, compare data, insert and so on. Overal result is (IMHO) beautiful: visual presentation with numerous reliable data in infobox, automatically translated to any selected language. It makes Wikipedia in general as "failed" project. :) Hundreds of other buildings have the same, so it can be highly frustrating when someone comes for several seconds and is making superficial edits. And finally, if you don't find any notices or sources, you can always leave message on talk page or contact me directly. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your excellent contributions. My understanding is that he cannot speak English well and uses Google Translate. I will talk to him in his native language and hope that he will listen. I will mentor him in Persian. That's my point. I specifiaclly tell him think twice before changing your edits, because you indeed work perfectly :)

I know that he was treated poorly by fawiki admins and he may need some support now. Thanks, 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joselugo02

User: Joselugo02 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Spam & copyvio.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Already globally locked; I deleted the last remaining upload. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 04:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:H2kaz

H2kaz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upload deleted. But I'm inclined to wonder if it may be more productive in the long run if someone like maybe @Yasu: could help us out in trying to explain things in ja. GMG ^talk 11:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you, GMG. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Des Vallee disrupting a file repeatedly

FILE PROTECTED FOR 3 MONTHS:

StuffedDance and Des Vallee are advised to begin a discussion on File talk:Regions of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.png and advised to discontinue any and all counter-productive edit warring. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User has provided links to make a change to the map. Yet the links do not support the change he is making. When told of this, he reverts saying they do support it. Please take a look since he obviously doesn't care what I tell him about. File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Regions_of_the_Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria.png StuffedDance (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done File protected for 3 months due to counter-productive edit warring. @StuffedDance: Firstly, you did not inform Des Vallee of this thread as required by the instructions above. I have done so for you. Secondly, this is not the appropriate first step when seeking dispute resolution. You had the option of contacting Des Vallee directly on their talk page or starting a discussion on File talk:Regions of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.png. You did not do so. Thirdly, both you and Des Vallee were engaged in counter-productive edit warring. You are both advise to discontinue. Further edit warring would be considered disruptive and may result in further administrative action to prevent further disruption. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StuffedDance You didn't look at the source or didn't notice, both sources, clearly support the border of Kobani being completely different other borders like this support it, clearly align with AANES control. Map of current Syrian civil war and turkish occupation also supports this border, and the SOHR also supports this border. So change all other maps that have Kobani more towards the east, or you are defending an outdated border. Syria live-map which keeps up to date borders in Syria and is considered reliable also states the borders as such.

Nat can you please review the maps and sources and change back to the version I added all sources do support the change? If you would like you can also mediate a discussion because the sources do absolutely keep up with the current border, and he clearly hasn't reviewed the sources correctly, so I don't know what. The current map is outdated, and needs to be updated. Des Vallee (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Des Vallee: This is not the place to adjudicate or the right venue to discuss what is essence a content dispute. If you wish to discuss the file, please do so at File talk:Regions of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.png. Either you or StuffedDance can begin that discussion there. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Pcs34560

Pcs34560 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
Reasons for reporting: Continuous practice of persistently removing license tags from uploaded media. Other users have warned him on his talk page, but he has ignored them.--Araisyohei (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walter Grassroot

Walter Grassroot (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
Reasons for reporting: Continuous copyright violation by uploading videos from Chinanews.com's youtube while Chinanews.com's legal statement claims the rights. Mass deletion for *.webm please.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Youtube/Google FAQ, it's eligible for me to move these documents under a Creative Commons license. Again, YouTube allows users (i.e. China News) to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license. For these particular documents, they are allowed to be reused under CC license. Meanwhile, I did not move other documents without CC License (on Youtube) to Commmons. Walter Grassroot (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This report is nonsense. I urge Zhxy519 to stop trolling immediately. Along with this post, Zhxy519 wrongfully nominated several files for speedy deletion - which is against relevant criteria and has been reverted by me. I'm citing this previous DR case regarding contents from Chinanews.com. --Techyan（Talk） 09:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 * It is now becoming more and more obvious that there are no administrators who actually carry about the guidelines (maybe apart from the ones concerned copyright). Just in case if someone realizes the shame of this situation, I give my last argument as addition to the earlier provided list of using the censored here Belarusian words. According to the publication of Dr. [[:w:be:Уладзімір Уладзіміравіч Агіевіч]] ([[:w:en:National Academy of Sciences of Belarus]]) a Belarusian term "maskalizacyja" (censored in here just because some Russian admins doesn't like it, that is very close to [[:w:en:Nazism]]) is even more correct than an alternative "rusifikacyja" for [[:w:en:Russification]] (Albaruthenica. Nr. 13, 2000, p. 72, which are the proceedings of the scientific center related to the Belarusian Ministry of education). --[[User:Kazimier Lachnovič|Kazimier Lachnovič]] ([[User talk:Kazimier Lachnovič|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 *: May be if you are right and everybody else here is consistently wrong, you should look in the mirror rather than to resort to personal attacks. I have already mentioned a few times that I am not Russian, I am Dutch. And accusations of me in nazizm is something you should get a block for. I am unfortunately can not do it myself, but normally users accusing others in nazism have no place on the Wikimedia projects, and my role as administrator is to make sure these users get removed asap.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
+*:: Don't see a big difference, but it's not a problem for me to reformulate. The admin with [[:w:User:Ymblanter|the native Russian]] who just admitted to being involved in deliberate discrimination of the Belarusian language. + was previously seen in spread of pro-Russian propaganda (e.g. ''Russian is still the mothertongue of 95% of the population of Belarus'' [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2014/04/Category:Sto%C5%ADbcy&diff=126086526&oldid=126043031]). And I have all rights to compare obvious aggressive linguistic chauvinism with similar type of discriminations including Nazism, especially during the rise of modern Russian Nazism. And you are the one who should has been blocked for calling the whole local Wikipedia community a ''a clique of ultra-nationalists'' and comparing with the [[:w:en:Ku Klux Klan|the terrorists]]. --[[User:Kazimier Lachnovič|Kazimier Lachnovič]] ([[User talk:Kazimier Lachnovič|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 == MesinKetik ==