Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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 []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~120
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-04: ~113

Other:

• Duplicates: ~0
• Advertisements/spam: ~42
• Personal photos/selfies: ~2
• Other speedy deletions: ~44
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~12

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~55
• Interface admin: ~19
• Technical: ~2
• Template protection: ~36
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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:Ready Street

Ready Street (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is doing mass uploading of photos from Nigeria with a multitude of categories not related or redundant like this. I have warned him on March 21st and he replied that he would be more selective but has continues to overcategorize since. An administrator should warn him further or maybe block him for a while. Furthermore, he mass-uploads redundant photos of doubtful use. Pierre cb (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I will stop the mass uploading of photos from Nigeria with a multitude of categories not related. Ready Street (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ready Street (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Mass uploads of redundant photos of Nigeria. Should be stop, otherwise will clog Commons. Pierre cb (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: One report wasn't good enough, you had to write another after five days?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: It looks like they are still uploading duplicate images. So the prior report clearly wasn't effective. There's really no reason they should continuing doing it either. So I can't say I blame Pierre cb for opening another report. It should have just been dealt with on the 25th when they opened the first one. BTW, they also seem to be uploading a lot of COPYVIO along with the duplicates. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Support temporary block per Adamant1. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  In Nigeria As long as you follow appropriate community standards, you are free to take pictures or record videos of anything and anyone on any public site. In general, taking pictures or recording videos of a tourist attraction—whether it is held by the government or privately—is accepted as lawful unless specifically forbidden by a statute or law.

  You can decide to delete the photos or keep them. Please do not delete pictures.

  I work for Ready Street Ent, Nigeria. Ready Street Ent is a marketing and general contracts company. Ready Street (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  I hate to say this Ready Street, but you will need to verify that you actually work for Ready Street Ent - see our policy of this here. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. One week block should be currently enough. Next blocks can be longer. Taivo (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Taivo I think they need to follow the username policy before they are unblocked. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

The account Ready Street and the organization belong to me.

I am the owner of the Ready Street Ent.

If you require any additional information about me or the company I shall be pleased to send it to you.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr. Adeola Ready Olayiwola.

(I have sent the above letter to info-commonswikimedia.org). Ready Street (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User:FrDr

If the user's talk page is any indication they seem to have a long history of uploading COPYVIO and have already been reprimanded for it by at least one user as evidenced by the comment in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FrDr from Patrick Rogel. Although I'm not sure if punitive action is justified at this point, but it would be good if they at least received a more formal warning and were told to stop listing themselves as the author of works they didn't create. Since it seems like they didn't get the point when Patrick Rogel asked them to stop doing it. Adamant1 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

These are derivative works, but why FoP wouldn't apply? Yann (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I responded in the DR. You can be my guest and exclude it though. They still have a pretty long history of uploading COPYVIO and attributing works to themselves that they didn't create regardless. So it would be cool if you didn't miss the forest for the trees by acting like this only involves one deletion request or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Stop opening invalid DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tourist signs in Liège‎. This looks like harassment to me. Yann (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: How can I show evidence that the images violate copyright when you closed the DR without giving me a chance to? I don't really appreciate you treating me like I have to meet some bar of evidence that doesn't exit just because you can't be bothered to look into it yourself or assume good faith. Same goes for your false claim of harassment. Like I said, FrDr has a long established history of uploading COPYVIO and miss attributing files going back multiple years that I've had essentially nothing to do with. I should be able to report someone without you trying to attack and harass me every time I do. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you have it on reverse. Most of these pictures were taken in public places. So it is up to you to show that there is a copyright violation. Sure these files need a a {{FoP-Belgium}} template, but that not a valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I did. I said the images were taken on private conservation land multiple times. Including on your talk page. What part of that are you having such a hard time with? You can't just ignore comments and close DRs based on nothing when I've said multiple times in multiple places that the images were taken on private land. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Where did you see that the land is owned by Natuurpunt? This association manages the nature reserves, but I don't see evidence that it owns the land. That is usually not how it works. This kind of association works with public funds to manage publicly owned land. Please keep the discussion in one place. Yann (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

And if you don't see the evidence then it must not exist right? Do a Google search. There's plenty of results. For instance this one which is like second to the top that says "the aim of Natagora is together with Natuurpunt, the second Belgian BirdLife Partner, to protect the remaining nature in Belgium through buying and managing land, protecting species, running awareness programs for a general and specific public and lobbying local and regional governments." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually this at least shows that Natuurpunt doesn't own the land, only manages it (probably creating the information boards). It seems that some land is owned by Natagora, but I doubt it is the default setup. Yann (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Also what is important is not who owns the land, but if it is open to the public. So far, it is seems that these reserves are open to the public. Yann (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Both Natuurpunt and Natagora own the land. Your moving the bar since your original claim was that it was owned by the government when it clearly isn't even if Natuurpunt isn't the owner. And you can doubt it is the default setup, but I told you I looked into the specific places where the signs were located and they were privately owned. I don't really care about ones that aren't. That's what the conversation or DRs relate to.

As to your last point, sure technically "ownership" doesn't ultimately matter. But it's an indicator of how accessible to the public something is. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Belgium "the provision was intended to apply to locations that are permanently accessible to the public, such as public streets and squares, and that the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public." I don't really see how a private nature reserve would be any different then a museum when it's clearly not permanently open to the public. Although that doesn't mean there isn't a conversation to be had about it, but that should have occurred in the DRs instead of you just knee jerk closing them out of process and then forcing the conversation to take place between you and me in this ANU complaint where it's clearly the wrong venue. As it's just a deflection from the user and behavior I reported. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I think you have this backward. Assuming the nature preserve is normally open to the public in the daytime, how would that be any different than a public park that is closed at night? - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: From what I've found and people who live in Belgium has said the standard for something to qualify for FOP is if it has "controlled access" or not. With private private nature reserves in particular they have barriers, fences, signs restricting people from doing things and accessing certain areas of the nature reserves, parts of the reserves are closed off seasonally, and is enforcement through patrolling, along with being closed at night. Being closed at night is just one factor of several for why I think there is "controlled access" in private reserve though. So be my guest and disragard it. That's not the only reason I've given for why I don't think they qualify for freedom of panorama. It's never a single thing anyway. People on here apparently just don't have the nuance to consider multiple factors to something for some reason though. So I was trying to stick with one variable out of several for the sake of brevity. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yann, I can see how you might think it is harassment, but from the discussion above it looks like a good faith request to me. Given that the debate has now spilled into ANU, perhaps the deletion request should be reopened so that others can weigh in? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No. There is no basis for these DRs, and |requesting deletion of hundreds of pictures under invalid reason is harassment to me. Yann (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it was hundreds and a good percantage clearly violated FOP because they were taken inside of buildings. Its possible I was wrong about some of them and your allowed to disagree with my reasons for nominating those images for deletion, but its not like I didn't have any and that people don't get things wrong sometimes. No one has a 100% success rate on here and its just ridiculous to claim the whole thing is harrassement just because I got a few wrong. Especially since your the one who prematurely closed the DRs in the first place so the there could be no discussion to figure out the unclear cases. Which also led to the files that legitimately violated FOP because they were taken inside of buildings being kept. The whole thing is a circular Self-fulfilling prophecy on your part.

The only reason there was no basis for the DRs though is because you wouldn't let me or anyone else provide one before closing them. You can't just close a DR out of process immediately after it was opened with no knowledge of the thing, discussion, or allowing the nominator to respond, and then use your own actions and disagreement with the DRs as evidence that they are baseless and the person who opened them is harassing the uploader. That's not how this works. You should have kept them open for the normal time frame, let other people comment, and allowed the images that clearly violated FOP to be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop talking nonsense. All your actions are the opposite of what you says, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tourist signs in Liège. Yann (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Really? So File:Collégiale Saint-Barthélémy Liège 10.jpg wasn't taken inside of a building huh? Oh yeah, what happened to making personal? Practice what you preach. If I can't say this is an axe grinding campaign on your part then be my guest and stop making personal, insulting comments about how I'm talking nonsense. People are allowed to make mistakes sometimes. You clearly have zero clue what your talking about though and are just on an axe grinding campaign, which is why you refuse to answer the question I've asked you multiple times now in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Natuurpunt. You clearly have answer. Except to cry about how what I'm saying is nonsense. Otherwise answer the question instead of wasting everyone's time with the pointless rude comments. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This was taken inside a church, which is certainly a public place. Still nonsense without any valid rationale. Yann (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yann, I don’t think characterising Adamant1’s responses as nonsense is very helpful. There is a reasonable disagreement here, it can be discussed without getting personal. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I mean without any valid rationale. Yann (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I personally tend to side with your view, btw. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Your moving the bar again Yann. I said some of the images were taken inside of buildings, which you called nonsense even though they clearly are. Just admit you were wrong. And what evidence exactly do you have that churches are considered public places in Belgium? Oh let me guess, you have none and it's just your personal opinion? lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit waring and vandalism by User:Микола Василечко

I had added Category:Unsorted postcards to File:Berezhany. Zamok 1916.jpg because the original description said it's a postcard. The edit was subsequently reverted by User:Микола Василечко and they removed the reference to it being a postcard, which was added by the original uploader. Which I reverted. They then decided to edit war me over it because supposedly that's not what it is. I guess they know better then original uploader. It's obviously a postcard reprint of an original photographer and there's nothing wrong with adding it to a category for postcard in a such an instance. Although removing perfectly valid information about the format of the image is clearly vandalism. Can an administrator please revert their edit and tell them not to do it again? Adamant1 (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I also have disruptive behaviour by this same editor to report. Should I add the evidence to this thread or open a new case? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

whichever you feel like. Probably just adding here would be better as long as it's not super long. I have no problem sharing the ANU complaint though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Найперше, прошу адміністраторів звернути увагу на наступну репліку користувача «Your just being a control freak». Чи це не відверта образа? Прошу дати оцінку цій фразі. По-друге, щодо самого файлу. Це не виглядає листівкою, нема ніяких фактів, крім хіба запису завантажувача, але це без доказів. На листівках зазвичай є написи, тут їх нема. Чому нема? Бо це як не оригінал, то копія оригінальної фотографії, а не листівки. Тим паче я навів докази, що фотографія має автора і в нього не одна фотографія була опублікована в путівниках. Оригінальні плівки, гадаю, зберігаються в одному з музеїв чи архівів Польщі. Завантажувач був очевидно, не достатньо інформований про зображення, яке він (вона?) скачала десь з інтернету. Перезавантаження здійснив інший користувач з https://polona.pl/ . Laurel Lodged — тобі не тільки я вказував, що ти вигадуєш забагато. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

On the leaflets, there are writings, there are none here. Why would there be writing on the front side of the postcard? That's not where people write the message. Also, insulting other people as children really doesn't help your side any. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ось це листівка. І напис там, де треба. І це вже доказів не потребує. А тут не листівка, а фото. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a photograph of a postcard that's a reprint of another photograph. As I told you on your talk page they aren't mutually exclusive. Your talking in circles though. Are you really going to argue the person who took the photograph and uploaded the image lied about it being a postcard? They would know since they have access to the back of the card. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Користувач, який завантажив файл, не фотографував його! Нема exif-даних камери! Він скачав його, очевидно, десь з інтернету. Тому й не володів інформацією, що це таке. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The original was uploaded by User:SofoPodilska from Polona, a Polish library and I assume that's where they got the information from that it is a postcard. So again, are you claiming that the original uploader and/or Polona is lying and doesn't know what medium the photograph is in? And what's your actual evidence that it's not a postcard besides pure speculation? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

«The original was uploaded by User:SofoPodilska from Polona»: book «Przewodnik po województwie Tarnopolskiem» (1) — 1928, (2) — 1936 (File:Berezhany. Zamok 1916.jpg is page 183). In book published photo, not postcard! All the photos in the book are from the authors' original photos, not from postcards. --Микола Василечко (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I never the image wasn't ever used in a book. The version uploaded by User:SofoPodilska is clearly a reprint on a postcard of the original photograph though. No offense, but I feel like your gaslighting. Just because the photograph was used in a book once doesn't mean it can't also be reprinted on a postcard. That's not how things work and the version of it uploaded to Commons is clearly a postcard. Or are you really going to act like it's a 1/1 recreation of the page from the book that you linked to? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support Assuming I interpret Adamant1's translations correctly (based on responses), I would support an initial 3–7-day block for edit warring. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  Adamant1's translations is not correctly. --Микола Василечко (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

which part of my translation is incorrect? Even if it is, your still edit warring and lying about the image not being printed on a postcard. I hate to say it, but a 3-7 day block really seems like the only remedy to this since Микола Василечко clearly isn't willing to admit to or fix their mistake. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case, could you please provide us with the translation yourself? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Adamant1’s edits. I just saw you changed one of my images to unsorted postcards, and it was clearly the right decision. These cat changes should not be being reverted. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Chris.sherlock2: may I assume that you are saying you agree with Adamant1's edits, not Микола Василечко's or SHB2000's? The placement and indentation of your comment makes it hard to tell. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, that is correct. I support Adamant1. I have corrected the indentation. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:The patriarchy are emasculated

Can someone please block User:The patriarchy are emasculated since they are clearly only here as a troll account? Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Endorse. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done: VOA indeffed. --Achim55 (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

User:XitZ2012

Consistent uploading of COM:COPYVIO bus images from Flickr from late 2023 onwards, falsely claiming them as "Own work" even after multiple requests for deletions after finding originals. User often tends to edit images in some way and, on occasion, adds their own watermark. Their talk page is worth a look for further evidence. Hullian111 (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

User:The Squirrel Conspiracy and DR procedure

User:The Squirrel Conspiracy often suggests images for deletion, which is very helpful, thank you for that, and more recently especially AI-generated images, about which they seems to have some quite respectable ideas. So far so good, on the contrary. However, their actual practice sometimes consists of following this chronological procedure:

1 Requests the image's deletion

2 They removes the image's use on a wiki project where it is used in the main, for example on fr.wiktionary, where he has done this 8 times (and had never contributed before).

3 The DR debate is not closed, it continues, then the DR ends, possibly with the image being deleted.

They has done it for at least 8 images used on fr.wiktionary https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Squirrel_Conspiracy

1 DR starts at 05:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

2 The_Squirrel_Conspiracy removes the images from the main on fr.wiktionary, on February 15, 2024, in the wake (even before the DR, there is at least one case).

3 It is evidently a non-editorial act, as they had never contributed to this project before. The debate continues and ends on February 22, 2024.

I don't know if there are other similar situations with other wiki projects and if there is a frequency of this modus operandi. It appears to me that this modus operandi is in full contradiction with the rules on DR, I would like to have confirmation.

Kind regards, --Benoît (d) 12:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? Unless these AI pictures are added for clarification of the article I see no benefit. Furthermore, some images are crosswikispammed and do not meet certain wiki rules for ie. subtitles and alike, but I won't out such users here. In such cases, I would have done the same as TSC. What is certainly wrong, would be removing images and then claiming they were never used. Best, A09 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Like this one? [5], removal from fr.wiktionary (5:31), DR creating (5:34). ----Benoît (d) 13:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I have done the same too some times, so I can't really condemn TSC's actions as I see them as legitimate Bedivere (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I looked through his fr.wiktionary contributions and all of the contributions seemed to be reasonable. In all cases he didn't just remove the images, but replaced them with more suitable alternatives — there is no reason to use AI images for subjects where there are free images avaliable. For example, we have dozens of real images of pastel de nata, why use AI ones? Also seeing all of the images in those articles were added by you, I'm really doubting your motives — what was the reason to use AI images in those articles? --DJ EV (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

COM:Redundant specifically allows for this. It states that:

”Before requesting a bad quality file for deletion, make sure that the file is not in use anymore by using GlobalUsage. You may replace uses of the file on local projects by superior versions, subject to the local project’s policies. If at the end of the discussion period a deletion is agreed upon and the file is still not in use, it can be deleted.”

(bad quality also can mean redundant). They appear to have followed the rules to the letter. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is equal. Following your logical statement, why do a DR and not a speedy deletion in that situation? ----Benoît (d) 07:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Low quality and redundant images are not candidates for speedy deletion. Regardless, I am unclear as to which statement you are referring to. Which is the statement that is illogical? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose Any action per Chris.sherlock2's comment. It seems like everything was above board here and no offense to people who like AI artwork, but there's zero point in including images created by AI in Wikipedia articles if there's none AI alternatives. Although I wouldn't necessarily advocate for said images being deleted from Commons based on that alone. There are plenty of other reasons why we shouldn't host anything generated by AI though. Regardless, I don't see anything wrong with The Squirrel Conspiracy's actions here. Especially since they were following the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the user should be stopped from trying to change Commons' assessment about the use of images by Wikimedia projects. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Commons does not directly influence other projects. If, for example, the French Wikipedia has a problem with the images being replaced, they should take action. They have not done so. This is outside of the scope of Commons. We don’t dictate their policies, nor do our policies or guidelines tell us to do so - in fact we are careful to state actions should only be taken based on the local project rules and guidelines. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The users goes to edit projects influencing their DRs here. It's a crosswiki action. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

He replaced AI images with better quality and real images on the French Wikipedia. He then listed the images here for deletion. That’s the direct procedure we recommend. The image replacements are within the policies and guidelines of Wiktionary. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you stated your view above already, but you forget to repeat that you consider AI images to be of bad quality. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

For all we know The Squirrel Conspiracy saw the images on our end, thought they weren't appropriate for the project and replaced them on Wikipedia instead of just leaving the articles with dead links if the images got deleted. It doesn't really follow that they did it the other way around. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if he did, it’s irrelevant. Their actions were within the rules of the project, so its a valid set of actions to have taken. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure I see your point. The images were replaced by better quality non-AI generated images on an entirely seperate project. The AI images were deleted because there are replacements of sufficient quality. It went through the deletion process here and got deleted. Them’s the facts. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, we don't all need to agree about the inappropriateness of cross-wiki actions. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We do need to make a decision whether any actions need to be taken though. And in this instance, whilst we can disagree about the actions taken, it’s pretty clear that there are no admin actions required. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• If the user agrees to not remove AI images as "bad images" going forward, no further action is required. Also, it would be helpful if they were transparent about their actions in the DR. We don't need a remake of "burn all gifs". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Can you point out where the images were directly characterised in this way? I checked a few of their deletion requests and they are all quite transparent. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

SPA User:Crispybcritters

User:Crispybcritters is an SPA. On 2019-02-14 they nominated File:Lesley Barber at the 2017 Slaight Music Residency Showcase (34730771094).jpg for deletion. Their nomination was a nonsensical claim the image wasn't free. The deletion justification was nonsense, as the image passed flickrreview.

In November 2019 an anonymous IP launched a second nonsensical nomination. That anonymous IP is very likely a sockpuppet of Crispybcritters.

Today Crispybcritters made a third nonsensical nomination.

Since they are prepared to use sockpuppetry a block may not end their attacks, but I think it is a good first step. Geo Swan (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

They are only here to make trouble, I suggest an indef block. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done request closed, user indefinitely blocked, only here to waste our time Bedivere (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

AnkurPl

AnkurPl has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted imagery related to Kolkata despite multiple notices asking him not to do so. According to their block log they have been blocked twice for this. Given that they have continued uploading copyrighted images (like this), I request that they be reblocked until they are able to understand that commons should not be used to host copyrighted images. Sohom (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. One year block (third block). Taivo (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The War of Edits User:Laurel Lodged

Extended content

Прошу заблокировать участника Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) за неконсенсусную категоризацию и развязанную из-за этого войну правок. Online translation: I ask you to block the participant Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) for non-consensual categorization and the war of edits unleashed because of this. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Oppose By "non-consensual", he means, "Things I don't agree with". I have tried, respectfully, to explain my point on his talk page. He replies fail to address the core points and are often disrespectful, lacking in civility and do not assume good faith. See this diff which he has erased from his talk page. See also this diff which he has also deleted. In it, he grudgingly admits that I was correct ("Catholicism = Catholic Church + Old Catholic"). I think that his main grievance is contained in this diff (which he has also deleted). Basically, it boils down to the necessity to differentiate in category names between bricks-and-mortar church buildings versus churches as institutions or denominations. Relying on a single word - churches - elides this semantic difference and is a hinderance to user navigation. Because he refused to truly engage with this semantic difference and went on mis-categorisation, I was obliged to intervene. And yes, that did result in edit wars. For this I apologise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Есть консенсусное название категории "Christian denominations in <State>" (см. Category:Christian denominations by country), Laurel Lodged заменяет на неконсенсусный вариант "Christian denominational families in <State>". Online translation: There is a consensus name for the category "Christian denominations in <State>" (see Category:Christian denominations by country), Laurel Lodging replaces with a non-consensual version "Christian denominational families in <State>". Ыфь77 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC) What is a denominational family? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC) See Category:Christian denominations by denominational family and illustration on right. The two are not the same. For example, Category:Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland is a denomination; Category:Presbyterianism is a denominational family. There are many hundreds of denominations within Presbyterianism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Где на этой схеме "Jehovah's Witnesses" и "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", которые входят в деноминации, но не входят в семейство деноминаций? Online translation: Where in this diagram are "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", which are included in denominations but not in the denominational family? Ыфь77 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC) I've started to create Category:Nontrinitarian denominations to hold these religious groups. Many would not regard them as mainstream Christianity; others regard them as a branch of reformed Protestantism. While not explicitly called out in the diagram (which admittedly is a simplification of a complex structure), is that the annotated Council of Ephesus may be taken as the theological dividing point between Trinitarian and Nontrinitarian branches of Christianity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Здесь Вы не правы, потому что учёные-религоведы не могут однозначно классифицировать эти деноминации, поэтому самое правильное их положение - сразу в христианских деноминациях. Online translation: You are wrong here, because religious scholars cannot categorize these denominations unambiguously, so their most correct position is immediately in Christian denominations. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Where have you been discussing this? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Я не собираюсь обсуждать с тем, кто правит без консенсуса. Все прошлые попытки договориться в формате "1 на 1" не привели к результату. Online translation: I'm not going to discuss with someone who rules without consensus. All previous attempts to reach an agreement in the "1 on 1" format did not lead to a result. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) So let's get this straight, you are demanding that someone stop doing something and you are not willing to discuss it, but you claim they are acting against consensus. And you've gone straight to ANU to ask to have him blocked? I think you need to reconsider your position. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Laurel is on point here. Everything he has said so far checks out. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 2. Где на этой схеме распростанённая категория "Eastern Christianity", которая входит в деноминации, но не входит в семейства деноминаций? Online translation: Where in this diagram is the widespread category of "Eastern Christianity", which is included in denominations, but not included in the denominational family? Ыфь77 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Did you fail to notice the reference to Great Schism in the diagram? That is generally taken as the dividing line between Eastern and Western Christianity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Ещё раз для тех, кто плохо знает лексику: "Eastern Christianity" входит в деноминации, но не входит в семейства деноминаций, поэтому будет создавать ненужное дублирование категорий при принятии варианта "denominational family". Online translation: Once again, for those who do not know the vocabulary well: "Eastern Christianity" is included in denominations, but is not included in the denominational family, therefore it will create unnecessary duplication of categories when adopting the "denominational family" option. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Eastern / Western is not a binary classification of Christianity. It is just a layer of categorisation that may be adduced to add colour to a question. There are Trinitarian/Nontrinitarian traditions in both the East and the West. There are Chalcedonians / Nonchalcedonian traditions in both the East and the West. If it was truly binary, where would you put the Church of the East in the scheme? They would not belong to either I think.Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Вот именно, строгое выделение именно семейств деноминаций чрезмерно усложняет категоризацию, порождая бесконечные споры как поделить христианские деноминации на семейства. Online translation: That's right, the strict allocation of families of denominations overly complicates categorization, giving rise to endless disputes on how to divide Christian denominations into families. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) I'm confused: are you congratuating me for omitting Eastern/Western as denominational families or criticising me for omitting them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Second. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 3. Где на этой схеме восточнокатолические церкви? Вы предлагаете их выделять из Категории:Католицизм? Online translation: Where are the Eastern Catholic churches in this diagram? Do you propose to separate them from the category:Catholicism? Ыфь77 (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC) We've already had this discussion. Do you remember admitting that "Catholicism = Catholic Church + Old Catholic". I have been implementing this solution consistently. All "Catholic" categories that I have created or amended include both Roman and Eastern particular sui iurus churches. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Если строго выделять именно семейства деноминаций, то единая католическая церковь должна быть разделена на 5 категорий: Римско-католическая церковь, грекокатолические церкви, ортодоксальные католические церкви, восточнокатолические церкви, отделившиеся от Ассирийской церкви Востока + католические структуры, отделившиеся от англиканства (на время подписи 3 единицы). Online translation: If we strictly single out the denominational family, then the united Catholic Church should be divided into 5 categories: the Roman Catholic Church, Greek Catholic Churches, Oriental Catholic Churches, Eastern Catholic churches that separated from the Assyrian Church of the East + Catholic structures that separated from Anglicanism (at the time of signature 3 units). Ыфь77 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC) You may prefer to use this diagram which makes the Eastern Catholic / Roman Catholic reunion explicit. Again, I have chosen to use current realities to describe the branches or denominational families. I have not gone down the rabbit holes of past splits / reunions / splits / reunions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Вы сами предоставили доказательства, что выделение denominational family слишком усложняет категоризацию, но продолжаете настаивать на своём варианте. И кто из нас двоих занимается деструктивной категоризацией? Online translation: You yourself have provided evidence that highlighting denominational family makes categorization too difficult, but you continue to insist on your own version. And which of the two of us is engaged in destructive categorization? Ыфь77 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC) It's not that difficult. Just stick to the current end nodes of the illustrations and omit everything else. Interim stages with splits and reunions are only of interest to history students; they need not distract us here in categorical space. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Мы обязаны категоризировать согласно названию категории, поэтому в случае "denominational family" обязаны выделить до 5 подкатегорий вместо 1 Католической церкви, а в случае "denomination" оставляем одну категорию. Online translation: We are obliged to categorize according to the category name, so in the case of "denominational family" we are obliged to allocate up to 5 subcategories instead of 1 Catholic Church, and in the case of "denomination" we leave one category. Ыфь77 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC) @Ыфь77: I can see absolutely nothing here that calls for blocking User:Laurel Lodged. This seems like a reasonable controversy over how best to organize a category tree, certainly not something to be solved by blocking someone for having the temerity to disagree with you. But perhaps I am mistaken. Either you need to present a concrete case (with diffs) as to why Laurel Lodged has done something that merits a block, or (at least in terms of the Administrators' noticeboard) we should end this discussion right here. Please also be aware that if your case consists of "the two of us has been edit warring back and forth" I would then say that if either of you should be blocked for that, then both of you should be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Laurel Lodged вернул 3 неконсенсусных названия категорий и добавил ещё 7, хотя знал, что я ранее унифицировал Category:Christian denominations by country. Это злонамеренное развязывание войны правок. Я вижу 2 варианта развития конфликта: 1) заблокировать ему или нам обоим основное пространство и пространство Категория до установления консенсуса по выше указанной проблеме, 2) административно либо ещё как установить консенсус по этой проблеме и обязать Laurel Lodged ему следовать. Со своей стороны обещаю, что буду следовать установленному консенсусу либо вообще покину этот проект. Online translation: Laurel Lodging returned 3 non-consensual category names and added 7 more, although I knew that I had previously unified the Category:Christian denominations by country. This is a malicious outbreak of a war of edits. I see 2 options for the development of the conflict: 1) block him or both of us from the main space and the Category space until a consensus is established on the above-mentioned problem, 2) administratively or otherwise how to establish a consensus on this problem and oblige Laurel Lodging to follow it. For my part, I promise that I will follow the established consensus or leave this project altogether. Ыфь77 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Меня устраивает вариант установления консенсуса в названии категорий третьим лицом достаточной квалификации, но я не настолько владею английский языком, чтобы знать, на какой странице это можно сделать. Online translation: I am satisfied with the option of establishing consensus in the name of categories by a third party with sufficient qualifications, but I do not speak English enough to know on which page this can be done. Ыфь77 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) P.S. Только надо обязать Laurel Lodged не продолжать неконсенсусные правки. Online translation: P.S. We just need to oblige Laurel Lodging not to continue non-consensual edits. Ыфь77 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)  Comment Staying out of the specifics of the edit waring because I don't have time to look into it right now or really care. But this whole idea of "denominational families" seems questionable at best. The only thing that seems to come up for it on Google is an unsourced Wikipedia article and this rather questionable diagram from a random website. I've certainly never heard of the concept and have a background that's heavy in religious studies. So @Laurel Lodged: not to say your POV editing or whatever, but what exactly is the whole thing based on aside from your personal opinion? Like are there any actual sources talking about the concept of "denominational families? I'd also be interested in how you think a "family" is somehow different from a "denomination" because at least from what I know there can be denominations within other ones. And again, I have a background in religious studies. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC) I think the request to block Laurel Lodged is now addressed - we won't be doing this. ANU is not the forum to discuss category changes. Perhaps take it to VP? Unless there is a better forum for discussion, of course. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Or conversely start a CfD, but I think it's relevant to the discuss as far as there's other remedies to resolving a dispute or sanctioning someone besides a block and at least some those depend on of if this is something Laurel Lodged's essentially created out thin air based on their own personal opinion of dominations. It's one thing to edit war someone over a disagreement about which concept should represent a particular set of images. It's another to edit war over something that doesn't even exist to begin with though. Not that I necessarily think Laurel Lodged needs sanctioning either, but then there's also no point in taking it to VP or doing a CfD if there's no reason to because "family denominations" aren't an academically sound idea to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) There are references to denomination families by Pew Research [6] Academic papers reference denominational families [7][8]. It’s a synonym for denominational movements. The U.S. Census Bureau categorized denominations into families [9] So it would not be accurate to say that Laurel Lodged made this up. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC) it would not be accurate to say that Laurel Lodged made this up Good thing I never claimed they did then ;) Although I still think it's something that is probably worth discussing in the proper venue. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Apologies, I took the bit where you wrote “It's one thing to edit war someone over a disagreement about which concept should represent a particular set of images. It's another to edit war over something that doesn't even exist to begin with though.” to mean that Laurel Lodged made up the term. I apologise for my misunderstanding! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC) @Chris.sherlock2: No worries :) --Adamant1 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Законна или незаконна концепция "family denominations" - дело десятое. Я думаю, что сумел выше доказать, что она для Викисклада неудобна. Online translation: Whether the concept of "family denominations" is legal or illegal is the tenth matter. I think I have managed to prove above that it is inconvenient for Wikimedia Commons. Ыфь77 (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Not really, you came here to have Laurel Lodged blocked for making a change you claim doesn’t meet consensus, but you can’t show us where this was debated. That’s really the point here - I see no attempt by you to gather consensus by the wider community, instead you immediately came to ANU in an attempt to sanction another editor you were engaged in a disagreement. If anything, that is an example of tendentious behaviour where you asked admins to silence someone you disagree with. You have not demonstrated that Laurel Lodge’s changes are invalid. It’s possible the wider community may yet find this to be the case, but I see no attempt by you to discuss this outside of this request on ANU. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Я уже писал выше, что были попытки договориться с Laurel Lodged в формате "1 на 1" ни к чему не привели, поэтому я выбрал жесткий вариант, потому что не знаю до сих пор, как правильно действовать в таких случаях. Напомню, что блокировка - это не наказание, а способ предотвратить будущие нарушения. 10 эпизодов нарушения откровенно говорят, что действовать надо было немедленно. 2) Администратор попросил не развивать дальше этот раздел, давайте присоединимся к его просьбе. Online translation: I already wrote above that attempts to negotiate with Laurel Lodging in the "1 on 1" format did not lead to anything, so I chose the hard option, because I still do not know how to act correctly in such cases. Let me remind you that blocking is not a punishment, but a way to prevent future violations. 10 episodes of violation frankly say that it was necessary to act immediately. 2) The administrator asked not to develop this section further, let's join his request. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Online translation: Thank you for your opinion. Ыфь77 (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Happy to provide it, although I’m unclear why I need to do so on ANU. You have not given me the chance to provide it on a more appropriate forum like CFD, which is the point I’m trying to make. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Online translation: This is Adamant1's answer. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Clearly no admin action called for at this time. Several people have made good points or asked good questions on the substantive issue here (as against the conduct issue), but this is not the place to discuss categorization. Suggestions: User:Laurel Lodged and User:Ыфь77 should both take at least the next 7 days off from changing categories in this area, and probably until something at least approaching a consensus is reached. Someone (@Adamant1? @Chris.sherlock2? Ideally not one of the two warring parties, but that would still be better than nothing) should set up an appropriate place to discuss the categorization issues at hand (probably a CfD), and link it here and maybe from the Village pump and/or some relevant category pages. Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Sounds reasonable. I'll probably open a CfD at some point if no one else does. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I’ve got evidence of its usage so if you do let me know so I can contribute to the discussion. It is actually a bone fide term. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC) @Jmabel: У меня просьба: я не нашёл в русской справочной системе Викисклада доступной ссылки на то место, где можно разрешить подобные конфликты, в чём вижу ущемление прав не англоязычных участников. Можно здесь дать ссылку, куда могут обратиться 2 добросовестных участника, если они не могут договориться в формате "1 на 1"? Online translation: I have a request: I did not find an accessible link in the Russian Wikimedia Commons help system to a place where such conflicts can be resolved, which I see as infringing on the rights of non-English-speaking participants. Can I give a link here where 2 bona fide participants can contact if they cannot agree in a 1-on-1 format? Ыфь77 (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC) P. S. У меня с Laurel Lodged этот конфликт - не единственный и нам явно нужен посредник для категоризации в сфере религии. Online translation: P. S. This conflict with Laurel Lodging is not the only one, and the two of us clearly need an intermediary for categorization in the field of religion. Ыфь77 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC) It sounds like Ыфь77 is not satisfied with what I proposed as a way to discuss this. If someone else (including Ыфь77) can propose a better way to proceed than I did, please do. But in any case, let us please not continue the substantive discussion about categorization here on this page. - Jmabel ! talk 13:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Меня полностью устраивает Ваше решение. Online translation: I am completely satisfied with your decision. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Но я хочу от Вас увидеть ссылку на страницу, куда мне и другим участникам можно обратиться в других подобных случаях. Извините, если онлайн-перевод исказил смысл моих слов. Online translation: But I want you to see a link to a page where I and other participants can contact in other similar cases. I'm sorry if the online translation distorted the meaning of my words. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC) @Jmabel: . Ыфь77 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC) @Ыфь77: This page is to discuss problems with individual users' problematic behavior. I am trying here to put to rest an inappropriate request you made to have another user blocked. This is not the place to discuss a categorization issue, or how to set up multilingual forums, or really anything other than individual users' problematic behavior. We have let the conversation range wider than that. I believe someone (probably Adamant1) will open up a CfD to discuss the category issue. You (or anyone) are welcome to go to Commons:Village pump or Commons:Village pump/Proposals or for that matter Commons:Форум or some other appropriate venue I may not be thinking of to propose how we would better handle multilingual conversations. But not here. It is not a user conduct issue. - Jmabel ! talk 14:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Online translation: Thanks for the clarification. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I'm happy to abide by a 7 day ban o editing in the whole of religion. Looking forward to the Cfd when it's opened. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that is necessary. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC) I don't know. I still think the thing is spurious at best. Including some of the subcategories in Category:Christian denominations by denominational family. Unfortunately I'm to busy with other things right now to do anything about it though. But I will point that the couple of sources you provided as evidence that "denominational families" are a thing don't even mention or have anything to do with them. The article with the poll by Pew Research does, but then it also has this line "The family that shows the most significant growth is the nondenominational family." So really at least going by that "family" is just a fancier term for cohorts or groups of people that share the same believe, which is literally what "denomination" means. Ergo, "denominational family" can be translated to "domination domination" or to put it another way, "denominational families" are essentially just denominations with a redundant word added to the end. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) That's fine - but again - ANU is for admins to make admin decisions. This is a discussion about the categories. I only noted the things I found because I was pointing out that there appears to be some evidence of the term being used. If this was being discussed at the appropriate forum, then I'm happy to be found wrong. But this is not the forum to do this. Can we please have an admin shut this whole thread down? There have been plenty of chances for all parties to move this to CFD or other forums and now we seem to be discussing the category itself on here. This needs to stop as no admin action is required and, as I say, this is not the place to discuss categories themselves!! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Really not an administrative matter. I hope someone will set up a place to discuss the category hierarchy for Christian denominations, and if someone does so, then feel free to link that here. Otherwise, as far as this page is concerned, this discussion is closed. - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

User:HollyJollyCarl

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

These kind of titles are not appropriate. I have no clue if the symbol have any deeper meaning tho. Not gonna bother requesting a rename because i dont think it belongs here in the first place--Trade (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Starting to sense a pattern here--Trade (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Globohomo is certainly a homophic term. The fact that they didn't add a description makes me think its not purely to document it either. So the user probably deserves at least a warning, if not a full block for the homophobia. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Vandal blocked, uploads nuked. Bedivere (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/217.21.224.203

Special:Contributions/217.21.224.203. Is he just completely confused? Is it vandalism? No clue. He's actually changing license on my media. What in the world? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like at least 90% bad edits, and enough of a pattern to say it's all one person. I lean towards blocking (no urgency), but if someone wants to try somehow to reach out to an IP and discuss first, go for it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

E.g. this nonsense: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Europium.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=866033335 where he just makes the license wrong: https://images-of-elements.com/ Completely insane. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Now he's Special:Contributions/217.21.233.208 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

User engaged in edit war, does not seem to understand category's purpose

Evrik (talk · contribs) Keeps on inserting an inaccurate category at File:X, 1980.jpg. On my own talk page, he said this is an edit war and I said "In that case, it needs to be restored to what it was prior to the dispute" and then he stopped editing. His misleading edit summary just now implies that he is restoring it to what it was previously, but it's just his preferred version. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

To put a finer point on it: he is removing Category:X (musical group from the United States) and replacing it with Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States). If you look at any other "members of band" category, the "members of" category is for 1.) subcategories about said members (e.g. Category:Michael Stipe under Category:Members of R.E.M.) or 2.) images of individual members. They are not intended for photos of the entire band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

And the same issue at File:X1979LA.jpg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Michael w

• User: Michael w (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reason for reporting: Making this edit (adding a delete tag without year, month, day, reason, subpage creation, or transclusion) after reminder and failure to respond to the reminder on talk page for two years.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't seem to see that diff. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: As it has been deleted, only Admins can see it now (sorry). It was a bare {{Delete}} tag, placed without preview or followup.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ähem Jeff; the user created Category:Supercharger Herrieden and within 16 minutes tagged it for deletion, which is his right and an established speedy-rationale (G7). His only fault was using a delete-template with the wrong syntax instead of a speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Túrelio: I told him to stop doing that two years ago. He is still doing that. "We cannot work here with people who are not willing to follow our procedures, in particular for deletion requests" per AFBorchert.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@User:Jeff G.: Thing is that many contributors are not regularly active in meta area and overtime some may forget the proper syntax even if they once knew. Sure, it would have been better to simply ask another user. Anyway, I've explained to him your (assumed) rationale. --Túrelio (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Personality rights

• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza16.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza18.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza19.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza20.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza23.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza24.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza4.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza8.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza25.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza26.jpg

All by User:Beatriz.V1.0 All this pictures show minor in a political event to protest against goverment in Argentina, so I thing parental consent is required, what we do, speedy deletion or deletion request? Second opinion I need, thanks in advance --Ezarateesteban 23:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not just list them for deletion via the regular process? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please create a bulk deletion request and nominate them all. The situation is not urgent. But I personally rather support deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Should I nominate User:Tulsi for removal of adminship?

Now there are both en.wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard and Meta RFC, shown somewhat a panorama that Tulsi is probably supporting cross-wiki paid editing, and looked like not all are disclosed (which already result their two global permissions: Global sysop and Global rollbacker, removed 4 years ago). When peoples (include other Commons administrators) ask for clarification, they either simply ignored and archived, or replied by "I don't know" or likely clauses/its (Nepalese?) translations. If concerns from both sides are also true for Commons, then... Just wondering, are there "paid uploading" shown regarding the topic user? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally please do not bring problems from other projects into Commons. Especially after 4 years. Do you have evidence, that he has involved in undeclared paid editing in Commons? Taivo (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Taivo: Unless I'm reading the edit histories wrong or something it looks like he at least let some files through VRT that are blantent advertising. For instance, File:Sunny Leone snapped at Mehboob Studio.jpg is clearly meant to advertise the Indian website bollywoodhungama.com. Really the file should have just been deleted on site as blatant promo. Although I'm not claiming they paid Tulsi to give the file a pass either, but it is questionable considering that they are now blocked on Wikipedia for paid editing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

BollywoodHungama is a major source of free images from a professional media outlet (just like Mehr News, VOA, etc.). All he did was a LicenseReview, which is a very normal thing for an admin to do and does not imply an endorsement of the suitability of the content for Commons, only that it is freely licensed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Good for them. The image is still blatant advertising with the way it's watermarked. I get the feeling you didn't even look at the image before deciding to try and educate me about what kind of source they are though. Like I wasn't aware of it already, but that doesn't negate the fact that the image is blatant advertising that shouldn't have passed VRT. I don't think their approval not being an endorsement of the content is a good excuse either. As it becomes much harder, if not impossible, to delete an image once it has VRT permission. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Adamant1, the image specifically was not passed at VRT by any agent, and the tag comes from {{BollywoodHungama}}, which itself has a history of fourteen years or more. I have myself raised queries related to BollywoodHungama but that's a different debate, which doesn't contribute to this discussion anyway. ─ Aafī (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

enwiki's bullshit drama should never leak onto commons or we'd end up blocking half the contributors here, paid editing has nothing to do with commons, we provide images only I have dealt with bollywood hungama thing for years, thats not paid-editing lol. Since his activity on commons is limited, its quite possible he isn't abusing his rights here. The "paid-editing" part of wikipedia to me is kinda stupid cause it applies to articles but not images apparently, you can monetize of adding images to commons and getting free publicity by enforcing your images on related enwiki articles but if you decided to make an article of a person who might barely meet the notability criteria, then you are obviously getting paid to do it..If anything, looking at his logs, Tulsi deleted a lot of images of indian people over the last few years for failing commons copyright policies... Stemoc 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Taivo. We would need evidence that they engaged in undeclared paid editing on Commons itself or evidence that they abused use of the tools on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Just as a reminder: paid editing, either disclosed or undisclosed, is totally allowed on Commons (see COM:PAID), so that alone wouldn't support removal IMO. Of course, if there are any concerns regarding his administrative actions or VRT permissions (although he hasn't had the VRT permissions global group since 2023), or if he lied, etc., that could be an issue. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We would need more evidence, and even then, as Mdaniels5757, paid editing is not grounds for removal of adminship per se. Bedivere (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't either see any substantial evidence that Tulsi has abused advanced permissions on Commons. Nonetheless, as Mdaniels5757 has noted, UPE claims do not merit initiating an RfDA. Tulsi resigned from VRT voluntarily a year ago, so I don't think that's a place to look around too much as he seems to have very fewer VRT actions in 2023 itself. ─ Aafī (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

UPE, undiclosed paid editing (?), is apparently not the same as mere paid editing. Both are abhorrent to me, but COM:PAID, official as it is, goes out of its way not only to allow it, but to allow it going on undiclosed. And now most people commenting on this thread think it’s great to keep in a trusted position someone who admittedly (?) / apparently (?) engages in paid editing. Just wow. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like a policy on commons, you are free to propose a change. We aren't going to remove an admin for not violating policies on Commons.

Don't bring the drama of enwiki's admin's noticeboard here. I will always regret having created that damned thing. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I don't think paid editing is that much of an issue on Commons as Wikipedia. It certainly isn't something that would be worth removing admin access over. At least without serious evidence that it's negatively effected the project. Although I would remove VRT privileges from someone doiong paid editing just to air on the safe side. Since as I've noted above it's much harder to delete an image on here once it has VRT permission. Plus someone doing paid editing shouldn't have access to that kind of private information anyway. Although it appears that Tulsi isn't working in that area anyway. So I guess it's not really an issue in this instance. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't bring enwiki drama onto Commons. Can an admin please close this thread? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would ask that the thread not be closed quite yet. I want a little bit of time to look through Tulsi's administrative actions, and encourage others to do so as well if they would like to. But, as I said above, my view is that this is likely going nowhere absent more than the allegations I've seen. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I've finished looking for now, and didn't find anything of note. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence Mdaniels5757. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Terabhaiseedhemaut4L

The mentioned user is continuously removing the license tags of various files and nominating them under the criteria "no license". Any admin pls take necessary action against him.--Junior Jumper (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Junior Jumper as per rules specified above, you need to inform the user about the report. I have done it for you this time. Also, I will just add two links where he did this.
  • At File:Samrat Chaudhary and Nitish Kumar participating in Rajya sabha nomination (cropped).jpg removes the license at Revision as of 15:37, 8 April 2024. Then nominates for deletion for no license at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samrat Chaudhary and Nitish Kumar participating in Rajya sabha nomination (cropped).jpg.
  • At File:Lalu Prasad Yadav.jpg removes the license at Revision as of 09:36, 9 April 2024. Then nominates for deletion for no license at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lalu Prasad Yadav.jpg.

This is clear misuse of editing privileges. ShaanSengupta^Talk 12:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I am new to Wikipedia hence I didn't know Terabhaiseedhemaut4L (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it will not happen again Terabhaiseedhemaut4L (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Also to note. Maybe the username too violates policy. It is a combo of four hindi words. Tera, Bhai, seedhe, maut. It means, Your Brother (is) Straight Death, respectively. Just mentioned my thought. ShaanSengupta^Talk 15:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

A try to makeup after the report? I highlighted this at the deletion discussion just behind your nomination. Yet you went on with doing the same thing again. Any explanation for that? ShaanSengupta^Talk 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thiên_bình_t10

Thiên_bình_t10 (talk · contribs) repeatedly copyright violations. Lemonaka (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked one week. Bedivere (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Popefauvexxiii: refusal to AGF

User:Popefauvexxiii stated in a comment I have created a deletion nomination in bad faith.

I then warned the user at their talk page and told them that their comment was violating a WCommons policy of WP:AGF. They replied by stating: I stand by my statement. Good luck on your digital crusade. When, in the same thread, another user stated such an accusation of bad faith required proofs, Popefauvexxiii replied: I believe our respective activity logs paint a very clear picture for anybody who cares enough to scratch the surface (link to talk page section: [10]).

Popefauvexxiii, without any proof, claims I behave in bd faith. I think sanctions need to be taken against Popefauvexxiii for their refusal to AGF. Veverve (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Admonished. And I don't think this calls for more than that. - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Nvdnguyendung

Nvdnguyendung (talk · contribs) Uploading Spam files. メイド理世 (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)