Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

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-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.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
122, 121, 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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • 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 via their user talk page(s). {{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.

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

I skipped several months of contributing here (I did my last edit on September 6th) since I faced a very disappointing situation about clearly not-following Commons:Policies and guidelines by User:Yann. This user made a renaming of File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg to File:Flag of the Slonim County (1764-1792).jpg without providing any valid reason for it [1], and providing the reason for renaming is obviously required by Commons:File renaming. When I asked politely about the renaming reason the user called me a troll and threatened to block (everyone can read this conversation here: User talk:Yann/archives 51#Renaming File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg. In the meantime, I can't find any direct problem statement about the original filename by any user. This name was in Belarusian language (as a depiction of Belarusian historical emblem, took from the book of Belarusian professional heraldist) and the file is still in use in the correspondent article be-tarask:Пагоня in the Belarusian Wikipedia. On the other hand, the new file name is totally misleading since it is based on some amateurish original research, not on the reliable sources or some sound and clear evidence, which is quite clear from uninvolved user's comments in this discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Files with clearly misleading names. I have also been informed about some other issues with administrative actions by User:Yann (like selective blocking of just one side of the edit war conflict and this blocked side wasn't an initiator of the edit war), that don't concern me directly, but I believe should also be discussed here. But first I would like to make sure, that the Commons:Policies and guidelines are not just a nice declaration and such requests are not wasting of my time. Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Second opinion on unblock request of User:Kazimier Lachnovič

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

I keep this link at my homepage since March 2021, so I have doubts that the user is capable of contributing constructively. However, if the result of this discussion is that they get unblocked, it must be made absolutely clear to them that their behavior on Commons was not acceptable in the past and must not be repeated. (Much of their contribution is moving their own uploads, so I am not sure removing the filemover is a good idea). Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the specifics of Kazimier Lachnovič's past behavior, it's ridiculous to block them just for opening an ANU complaint against an administrator. I don't see how anyone being even slightly good faithed about this can't see that Yann, Pofka, and Guido den Broeder are working together to push a Lithuanian nationalist POV. Which clearly entitles Yann miss using his administrator privileges. Both times Yann was reported recently Guido den Broeder played defensive for him and got the person blocked. Guido den Broeder and Yann also play defense for Pofka any time there's ANU complaint opened having to do with him. Not to mention Pofka requesting Kazimier Lachnovič's filemover rights be removed. Which was also voted on by Yann, who subsequently removed the rights after Czalex raised concerns that it wasn't justified. Whatever the case, there's clearly something going on here with the three people involved in this using Yann's tools to push a POV and he shouldn't be able to remove someone's rights after voting in support of the proposal regardless. IMO it's a massive conflict of interest. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As i neutral, i agree, the user is a crat on be-tarask wiki and has been around a very long time, to block him for 6 months here even though he has no prior blocks here IMO itself is admin abuse, we want people to lodge complaints against admin (s) on this project without the fear of being attacked or blocked as we have seen that this is the only project on wikimedia (outside of enwiki) where admin abuse is pretty high.. his work here has been good, we need more editors from his region on commons, quite a lot of Eastern European images here needing proper re-naming and re-categorising, lets stop blocking people here cause their opinions are not the same as yours.. The block was harsh, one week would have been justifiable but honestly, 6 months is bordering on admin abuse..Blocking contributors is not how you build a project, this should have been wikimedia's motto..--Stemoc 05:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a natural blocking for political reasons and nothing more. Block a participant for a request against an administrator, the actions of the administrator against whom a complaint was filed. On the basis of which some Wikimedia Commons administrators seek to actually discredit Wikimedia Commons (and, accordingly, in whose interests such discrediting is) by changing the correct names and descriptions of images to incorrect ones, as discussed above, on the basis of amateur original research and contrary to the trustworthy source of this image (the book of the recognized heraldist and historian Anatoly Titov, a member of heraldic societies of Ukraine, Poland, honorary member of the All-Russian Heraldic Society). The administrator had to not just silently close the corresponding deletion request, but to argue for his actions that were not trivial (from the point of view of the internal rules of Wikimedia Commons). Kazimir is very interested in what exactly his "unlimited edit-warning, personal attacks, and trolling" was about: he asks for specific examples (with diffs) otherwise it looks like slander (as in the case of the same slander about him from Ymblanter "who called me "a Nazi" in public" and from Pofka "who call Lithuanians as rubbish", who himself is not modest in epithets, but at the same time no one pays attention to it - "And btw a Belatusian law is a law of a criminal terrorist state"). For their part, as Adamant1 and Stemoc correctly noted, it looks more like an abuse of authority by the administrator. Or the removal of participants for the purpose of revenge for the fact that they wrote a complaint against him. It's not the first time I've come across this, and if earlier it didn't go beyond "verbal" skirmishes, now it looks like some administrators decided to take someone's side to the detriment of all the rules. But it already really looks like a kind of mockery, Лобачев Владимир was banned for the joy of the Profka for no apparent reason, and A.Savin referred to the blocking being made because of his blocking in the Russian Wikipedia, while Savin himself carefully forgot that he was also blocked in two sections of Wikipedia at once, in Russian, in 2019 temporary blocking, and German, in German, indefinite, there he was one of the administrators. In the Russian Wikipedia, he was accused of introducing advertising content 1, 2, 3, 4. However, in the case of Лобачев Владимир, the actions of the administrator who blocked it are now being considered by the arbitration committee, that is, the blocking may also be recognized as illegal, but A.Savin konencho decided not to pay attention to it. Therefore, the actions of this administrator cause extremely strong doubts. Johnny Moor (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption of A.Savin's dishonesty is only confirmed. He started hitting on me for leaving complaints to him on the discussion page. It looks like he decided to shut up everyone who is dissatisfied with him. I believe that this administrator cannot perform his duties. Johnny Moor (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

User:Olusola David, Ayibiowu

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

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

Massive image deletion requests by user A1Cafel

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

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

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

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

Please block sockpuppets

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

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

User:202.75.86.157

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

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

User:Salebot8

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

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

User:Poya shamsi

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

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

Speedy tagging by Εὐθυμένης

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

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

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

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

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

Dronebogus

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

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

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

Yann

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

Admin supervoting with illegitimate rationales.

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

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

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

So you made up a complaint about "offensive images of Mohamed uploaded specifically to piss people off" that never existed. And you wonder why I don't take you seriously? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alterbulat

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

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

When will you stop being a pain? Admins have been doing that since the creation of the project. These qualify for speedy deletion, so what's your problem with blocking and deleting them? Yann (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you start following the policies that you, as an admin, are required to follow.
Why close DRs like this immediately [7][8], so that there is no chance for any other editor or admin to see what's going on? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

188.162.254,245q

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

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

THIAGOW13

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

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

My ip

My phone broke the screen went blank so I put my SIM cards in an old phone so I can continue playing I've contacted win loop when the phone went down and let him know that I would do what I could do to get back up and this is the only way I could get back up I didn't know there would be any difference as long as the SIM card was working — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:387:15:630:0:0:0:3 (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing multiple accounts

Redarm (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Tuttybet (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , both with a history of mass copyvio uploads, re-uploading immediately after deletion: e.g., [9]. Xunks (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Both accounts are inactive for 2 years. If they will continue copyviolation, then they can be blocked. Taivo (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

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

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

User IulianaIvanov

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

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

Prasadkarhad

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

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

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

UR-Rh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a current hierarchy: Category:Frank Welker → Category:Frank Welker characters‎ → Category:Scooby-Doo (character)‎ → Category:Scooby-Doo interpreters‎ → Category:Frank Welker → …
With regards to the film location edits, like removing Category:Buckingham Palace from the parent category Category:Film locations of Peter Rabbit (2018) in London), note wiat @Pi.1415926535: said on Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Film locations of Sonic the Hedgehog:
Closing as delete. Per discussion here, use as a film location is usually not a defining characteristic of a location. Categorization of filming locations under a media should be reserved for the few locations where substantial changes made for filming are visible (like Category:Onk Jmel), where the location is only notable for its filming use (like Category:"Home Alone" house), or where a defining feature of the location in the cultural consciousness is its use in certain media (like Category:Rocky Steps). Otherwise, locations should be listed on the article about the production and/or on Wikidata using P915, both of which allow for the needed citations.
And related to both of those, Category:Scooby-Doo! The Mystery Begins had these parent categories:
Category:Scooby-Doo! (2009 film series)
Category:2009 comedy films
Category:Warner Bros. animated films in the 2000s
Category:Warner Bros. animated films by title
Category:Animated films by title
Category:Warner Bros. films by title
Category:Warner Bros. direct-to-video films
Category:Hanna-Barbera films by title
Category:Films by title
Category:Films by Brian Levant
Category:Films featuring Scooby-Doo (character)
Category:Films featuring Shaggy Rogers
Category:Films featuring Fred Jones (Scooby-Doo)
Category:Films featuring Velma Dinkley
Category:Films featuring Daphne Blake
Category:Films starring Frank Welker
Category:Films starring Nick Palatas
Category:Films starring Robbie Amell
Category:Films starring Hayley Kiyoko
Category:Films starring Garry Chalk
Category:Films starring Kate Melton
Category:Adventure comedy films of the United States
Category:Mystery films of the United States
Category:Children's comedy films of the United States
Category:Children's animated mystery films of the United States
Category:Films scored by David Newman
The category only contains Category:Templeton Secondary School‎, a filming location, and nothing directly related to Scooby-Doo! The Mystery Begins, or any of the above parent categories.
Here's another example: Category:The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas, contains categories for that film's actors, but no files at all. These and similar categories appear to have been created just to create category hierarchies for their own sake, whether or not they're necessary or helpful in actually categorizing files. Trivialist (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might wanna look at the Scooby Doo-related categories just in general. Seems to be a common theme Trade (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that it's the same editors who have been creating Wikidata items for seemingly every element in the last Scooby-Doo and Space Jam movies. Trivialist (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MadroDragon

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

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

BeeSpeed1989

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

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

Alterbulat

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

✓ Done Blocked for 6 months, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alterbulat‎. More files need review. Yann (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated all pictures for deletion. EXIF data for File:Магомед Даудов с Рамзаном Кадыровым.jpg and File:Магомед Даудов в ЛНР.jpg are not recognized as valid by Chrome EXIF Viewer Pro extension. Anyway pictures of the same guy was deleted as copyvio (see talk page). Yann (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=724269954"