Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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
20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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 (index)

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.

Subject: Request for Permanent Block of A1Cafel[edit]

Dear sysops,

I believe that the actions of User:A1Cafel are inappropriate, contrary to the collaborative spirit, and demotivating for other contributors. I request that the possibility of an indefinite block be discussed, as this user has received multiple warnings and has been blocked four times in less than a year for reasons related to the concerns I am raising [1].

Specifically:

  1. Excessive and Unwarranted Deletion Nominations for Images: User:A1Cafel has been excessively nominating images for deletion, often citing reasons related to Freedom of Panorama (FOP) or the lack thereof in a specific country. This includes not only legitimate nominations for images but also nominations for items like plaques affixed to sculptures, which may not be justified.
  2. Stalking Contributions: I have noticed a pattern of User:A1Cafel closely tracking my contributions, with deletion nominations appearing in reverse chronological order based on my recent edits. This behavior, apart from being unsettling, contradicts the Wikipedia principle of "Assume Good Faith." I am not the only contributor affected by this problematic approach; prominent contributors like Chabe01 and to a lesser extent Romainbehar seem to have faced similar situations, and there may be others I have not yet documented.
  3. Intensity of Nominations: The intensity of User:A1Cafel's actions is also a concern. Aside from acting as a self-appointed watchdog, the lack of discernment is evident. For instance, the nomination of both a legitimate sculpture image and an accompanying plaque for deletion highlights a lack of careful consideration. The contributor in question does not allow for sufficient time for analysis and response, with new deletion nominations coming in daily in my case.
  4. Contributor Demotivation: Lastly, User:A1Cafel's behavior has a demotivating effect on contributors. In my own case, I have fallen behind on uploading nearly a thousand photos from three or four countries due to User:A1Cafel's recent conduct. I had maintained a daily upload rate until these disruptions. While this is a personal experience, it is likely that this negativity affects others as well. In any case, User:A1Cafel's actions do not align with the fundamental principles of collaborative work.

Thank you for your attention, --Benoît (d) 13:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, photographing sculptures and statues is a kind of derivative work. You need to either obtain the permission of the artist, or they have been dead for 70 years, especially for those countries with no FoP, or their FoP applies to buildings only. Your country, France, has a non-commercial FoP, but that is not accepted on Commons. Second, I didn't stalk anyone on nominating DRs. I just found the information of the sculptures using French Wikipedia. Lastly, I don't think this is a demotivation of the project. As an user, you should confirm that your uploads are complying with COM:L. If there is any violation of that, they cannot stay here and need to be deleted. I understand you may feel frustrated to see some of your valuable images were deleted, but copyright is copyright, we must respect it. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read me attentively, I don’t complain about COM:L, I don’t feel frustrated by images deletion when they must be deleted. I complain about your behavior. Your answer consolidates my opinion you don’t get the issue, or don’t want to understand, and you are not able to call yourself into question regarding your behavior here. It is my 5th point: unability to reconsider his/her own behavior, is an aggravating factor. ----Benoît (d) 15:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think I make too many nomination that may hinder other's attention, I can slow down the nomination rate. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As an user, you should confirm that your uploads are complying with COM:L.
OK, so why don't you do that? I see two regular sorts of edit from you here, both in great bulk. Tagging others' uploads for deletion under FOP claims, and uploading images yourself which have just the same issue (from your talk: page right now, File:Floralis Genérica (20964656646).jpg & File:Floralis Genérica (16429027530).jpg). Why are you so adamant at enforcing a rule on others when you won't follow it yourself? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are uploaded a few years ago. At that time, I think that they can fall under de minimis. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would have to agree with the nominator here. A1Cafel's actions overall are a nett negative to the project and they've been told about this repeatedly, for as long as I've seen them here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to disagree. Admittedly they had some problems early on, but I deal with them a lot myself and at least from what I've seen recently their DRs are usually pretty spot on. They also seem to know the relevant copyright laws and guidelines well. I guess there isn't a way to check what a nominators DR success rate is on Commons like they have for Wikipedia, but IMO to justify a block there would have to be clear evidence of them repeatedly opening DRs that were closed as keep. Including ones related to the person who opened this complaint. I haven't seen either one myself though. And at least when it comes to the person who opened this they clearly have had a problem with uploading COPYVIO in the last year. Their accusations that A1Cafel is somehow intentionally stalking them and excessively nominating their images for deletion in the process is also clearly spurious since A1Cafel has only nominated 15 of their uploads for deletion in the last 4 months, isn't the only one doing it, and the amount of nominations is directly related to how much COPYVIO someone uploads anyway. But so far it seems as all of their nominations have resalted in delete. So this is clearly an issue with Benoît Prieur not knowing or following the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You mean we should be grateful that they've abandoned their old practice (for which they were blocked) of also threatening to block those they DR'ed? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1@Adamant1 I think on average I close around a dozen of their DRs every day, and besides very few cases where I came to a different conclusion, I think 99% or more end in "deleted per nomination". I also don't see any "attitude" in the DRs, and the rational is mostly above average. Is anybody of the opinions that we should silently ignore FoP violations? Krd 15:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Krd here. I close usually 6 to 10 DRs a day and FOP cases are something I frequently close. I don't notice any particular attitude as far as the user's nominations, and I just added an Undelete category because the user brought it to our attention at UNDEL. I definitely don't think we should ignore FoP violations, and I look on with interest to efforts to bring FOP to countries like the Philippines and South Africa. Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to me that remark from Krd and assent from Abzeronow) should settle the matter. I'm a little surprised to see a claim of "99% or more" in terms of anyone's DRs, though. Do we never (or almost never) end up with anyone getting the relevant permission from the copyright holder, or deciding that something is de minimis where A1Cafel didn't think so, or discovering that a building or sculpure is a older than A1Cafel thought? - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

̈*@Adamant1 Since I need to justify myself, I must clarify that I have an excellent knowledge of the rules related to Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in all the countries where I have had the opportunity to travel. To the extent that I have my own process, allowing me to store images that may be uploaded someday (due to changes in the law, or whatever). I have a personal storage for this, as well as a Flickr account. I am also a contributor to non-wiki projects where I always try to adhere as closely to CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) as possible and use them as secondary storage until the upload is possible on Commons. Examples include [2], [=icreator:%22Prieur,%20Beno%C3%AEt,%201975-....%22], among others.

Of course, I am not infallible, and sometimes photos slip through this initial personal filter (lack of information about the artwork, etc.). What is statistically puzzling is that A1Cafel has identified around fifteen copyright violations in the past four months, given that I typically take an average of ten photos per day for Commons:

  • Lille, France (two days spent, late 2020)
  • Paris, Panthéon, France (one day spent in August 2023)
  • Cibeins, France (20 minutes stopover in 2017)
  • Nice, France (1.5 days in March 2022)
  • Monaco, Monaco (2 days in November 2021)
  • Bourg-en-Bresse, France (I go there often, but these are photos from 2016)
  • Cannes, France (two days spent in April 2023)
  • Dagneux Cemetery, France (an afternoon in 2016)
  • NYC, June 2023
  • Paris, 2021

All these copyright violations are effective and have been rightly removed. the laws of statistics being stubborn, I only wonder how A1Cafel managed to identify all of this in such a short time, unless through stalking me. I am very interested, assuming there was no stalking involved, in learning about the modus operandi (parent category, etc.) that led to such a "coincidence." ----Benoît (d) 17:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Benoît Prieur: Sorry if that de-motivates you, but I would hope you are not saying that we should retain copyvios to keep you motivated, or that your work should not be subject to scrutiny despite someone finding some actual problems. If you can point at half a dozen specific examples in the last year or so where A1Cafel nominated your images for deletion but the consensus was to keep them, I might see this differently. And, if so, then Krd and Abzeronow should reconsider their remarks. But right now, I'm inclined to take their remarks at or near face value. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deletion is not demotivated me at all. I'm clearly happy to see deletion of pictures which must not be on Commons for copyright reason. I'm demotivated by the obvious stalking (I can provide similar studies for others stalked contributors) and by the way of considering it a good behavior as long as it detects copyright violations, whereas I find it completely creepy and in contradiction with our values. Please try to understand that what depresses me is not the deletion of photos (for valid reasons). It's a behavior that I personally identify as toxic. ----Benoît (d) 17:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an FYI, but if I'm reading A1Cafel's edit history from the last few days correctly they have nominated upwards of 500 files for deletion just since yesterday. Of which you uploaded like what, 3 of those? So the accusation that they are singling you out in some way is clearly baseless. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, These are some examples of DR's by A1Cafel on my uploads in the recent 6 months *** All were "Kept":
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nathalie Orozco.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua Kevin K. Sullivan welcomed 222 individuals who had been imprisoned by the Government of Nicaragua for exercising their fundamental freedoms- U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on March 31, 20
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Foto Martin Lätt
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Photo by Gaurav Dwivedi
Which is similar to this still open DR from June - Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Photo by Milburn Fernandes
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Photo by Rakesh Malholtra
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bucha Summit, March 31, 2023.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Attorney General Merrick B. Garland met with President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy, United for Justice Conference, Lviv, March 3, 2023 - 52744852495.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Attorney General Merrick B. Garland met with President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy, United for Justice Conference, Lviv, March 3, 2023.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Jan. 27, 2023.jpg
and this most recent DR for alleged COM:OOS of the now burned famous Lahaina Banyon Tree (largest in the US) Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Maui_-_Shawn_-_5462362804.jpg. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: I'd say that looks like someone who might be too inclined to start DRs, but certainly also indicates that he wasn't particularly stalking Benoît. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Edit conflict) Firstly, I would like to second Krd and Abzeronow that stress that the nomination of FoP violations is not a problem per se. Hence, I do not see here any reason why we should admonish or even block A1Cafel as, so far, we do not have any proof of a practice of abusive nominations by A1Cafel. Secondly, I would like to add that we should take some care in FoP nominations, i.e. naming the relevant country and, if possible after some research, identify the artist and their life span. This makes it easier to undelete these images when eventually the artwork is in the public domain. I asked recently A1Cafel to improve their FOP-related DRs in this regard and my impression is that A1Cafel's nominations got better. Finally, I would like to ask A1Cafel to review their own older uploads in regard to FOP and to make sure that the focus in nominations is not on selected users. If we run across an image that needs to be nominated, then nominate it. But nobody should run systematically through all contributions of an individual user if there is no good reason for this. I do not know if this has actually happened here but I mention it as Benoît got this impression (unfortunately without evidence to evaluate this further). --AFBorchert (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A1Cafel has a long history of cross-wiki sockpuppetry, that's all I know about them. Lemonaka (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AFBorchert I don't agree! A1Cafel has been recently abusing of the DR tool (recently = September 2023), when he repeatedly, and continued after being warned, to nominate WLM files. This is disruptive for the project, because it gets in the way of the main photographic competition on Commons that implies many local chapters besides WMF. These files have regular permissions that are made public by the organisers, thus nominating the files for deletion discourages potential new users, attracted here by the competition.
I fully support Benoît Prieur's request. A1Cafel is here to "delete the project", not to contribute to make it grow. If undef block seems too much (but I wonder why), then I propose indef ban on DRs, so to force him to contribute positively. (of course, any sockpuppetry would imply a full block without having any AN/U, from my point of view). --Ruthven (msg) 14:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Ruthven: you don't provide any links there, so I have to ask: were these WLM files deleted? Or were these things that shouldn't have been DR'd? - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jmabel There are links in A1Cafel's talk page, but also, e.g. Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Biblioteca_Sandro_Penna, Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:The_Infantryman_Monument_(Salsomaggiore_Terme), File:Piemonte (174).JPG, etc. To have them deleted or not is not important, because it stresses the users, kick them out of the project, and reinforce the fear that, "whatever is done, on Commons they'll delete our files". It depreciates WLM in the same occasion. The best solution to prevent this is a block.
    @AFBorchert I reckon that, if there are no issues in his tending categories, he should do that, and no other activity on Commons. Note that I warned him in the past about repeatly requesting file deletion, even after an undel. This is to persist in a negative activity for the project. Ruthven (msg) 07:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ruthven, naïve question of mine: why don’t WLM files have to adhere to FoP policies? RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @RodRabelo7 That's exactly the point. WLM have permission from the copyright holders for publication under a free license. Ruthven (msg) 12:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Ruthven: " WLM have permission from the copyright holders for publication under a free license." Could you clarify that? There's no mention of any special arrangement like that in en:Wiki Loves Monuments nor in Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments. I see that in most countries with little freedom of panorama, we simply don't run WLM. But are you saying that there are countries where there is limited FoP and WLM has permission from copyright-holders to publish photographs of (at least some) subjects that would normally be excluded by lack of FoP? Or have I misunderstood you? - Jmabel ! talk 15:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      The whole work behind WLM, implying local chapters and volunteers, in countries where there is little FoP is to obtain the permissions for the monuments (photograph and publish under a free license). These authorizations are usually put online by the organizers. When a monument is "free" for WLM (or even outside of the competition, if the authorization is wider), there is a little template materializing it in the File page. This is true for Italy, for instance (which is the local version that I know the most, and where there are no copyright rules for many monuments), but the concept is similar for other countries. Monuments that are in the public domain, usually do not need a permission (Italian do have them, because of the no copyright rules above that we can ignore on Commons, but that the local chapter wants to avoid). Maybe some organizers from different countries can explain their workflow. Ruthven (msg) 08:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: I guess by "no copyright rules" you mean the it:Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio (COM:Italy#Additional restrictions for cultural heritage assets). But aside from that, I've seen several times now the claim that "WLM have permission from the copyright holders" (or similar). From what I have seen, WLM has authorizations by various Italian cities, regions etc. to photograph various buildings, monuments etc. As I gathered, these cities etc. are allowed to give such authorizations accd. to the Codice mentioned above, but this is not about copyright, but about non-copyright restrictions. The codice explicitely says such authorizations must adhere to copyright. Also, the cities might be the owners of the various buildings and monuments listed in these authorizations (though I have my doubts if that is really true for every single of them), but does that really make them the copyright holders? I've seen various theories that Italian copyright law (some article or paragraph 11) gives them the copyright in various cases (for works made "on their behalf"), but I also have my doubts about that. The WLM authorizations I have seen did not mention copyright at all. You might want to participate in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Il Grande Ferro R, Alberto Burri, pala De André, Ravenna.jpg (which was not started by A1Cafel).
All of this WLM Italy business is rather unclear, and frankly, I am not convinced that everything is all right as far as copyright is concerned. And I'm an admin here and do know a thing or two about copyright I think.Maybe I'm missing something, but if that is the case, it should be thoroughly explained how everything is in order then in these WLM Italy cases. COM:Italy isn't very helpful here. And if people like me and JWilz12345 (who started the DR mentioned above) don't see it, it must be explained better, and it's unfair to hold it against A1Cafel. --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: thanks for mentioning me. Regarding the very-unique case of WLM-Italy authorizations from Italian comunes or cities (from Ravenna to Assisi) over copyrighted buildings and monuments, the best place is actually at COM:VPC. All involved users must be pinged there for participation, and the deletion requests with mentions to the WLM-Italy MiBAC permissions or city (comune) permissions must be tagged with "on hold" templates pending the finality of the discussion. Or do you want me to start the (nth) thread? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: Please do start the thread, I can't right now (but will participate later). --Rosenzweig τ 09:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig The general idea is that the organizers contact the copyright holders (the City Council for monuments, and the Diocese for churches, generally) in order to have a permission to publish photographs under free license. This solves both FoP restrictions, and the Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio.
As far as I've checked so far, these permissions are correctly stated and OK for Commons purposes.
Then, somewhere it has been asked to validate them via VRT. This is honestly not doable, and we must trust the organizers, simply because VRT hasn't the number of agents sufficient to perform such a large verification. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is this about WLM and permissions documented? It's news to me, and I'm a 20-year veteran of Wikipedia, have been on Commons almost since it started, and an an admin both here and on en-wiki. If I haven't heard about it, and can't find it anywhere, it almost certainly should be more prominent. And I certainly would not have expected any particular user to be familiar with it, or to sanction them for not having known. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC) I see that a separate discussion has been started at COM:VPC, I will ask there instead. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Ruthven: These are strong statements but without any diffs, any statements whether A1Cafel has been warned and how he continued afterwards. The claim that “A1Cafel is here to "delete the project", not to contribute to make it grow” does not seem to be justified given that A1Cafel also uploads files, tends to categories etc. etc. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Anyone need some evidence for their Long-term sockpuppetry? Lemonaka (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I was unaware of the sockpuppetry. That's very troubling. But in terms of A1Cafel's nominations under their own username, I speak as someone who took great exception to their earlier work as slipshod and uncollegial and say that from what I've seen in the last several months at least (and while I didn't see everything, I do look through COM:DR frequently), their work has generally looked quite good, competent and well-justified, and I've had no objection to their tone, either. In a few cases in which they were shown to have made a mistake, I've seen them accept it without trouble. So at least in terms of their work under their own username, I oppose any kind of block beyond existing limitations. If anyone wants to propose some form of discipline for the socking, that would be different, and I would bow out of a discussion on that basis and defer to the judgment of those who know more about how severe or minor it is, but I have no objection whatsoever to A1Cafel's deletion requests for photos of French art and architecture on the basis of a lack of commercial FoP, although they could probably sometimes be more careful about what might be de minimis. So consider this a qualified vote of confidence for A1Cafel at this point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AFBorchert. Above I wrote a response to @Jmabel-
"These are some examples of DR's by A1Cafel on my uploads in the recent 6 months *** All were "Kept":" (Please, see all recent DR links from my talk page in my above reply).
I offered those examples of failed Deletion Requests as an example of a pattern of behavior that I personally experienced by this User. My response was to Jmabel writing,
"If you can point at half a dozen specific examples in the last year or so where A1Cafel nominated your images for deletion but the consensus was to keep them, I might see this differently. And, if so, then Krd and Abzeronow should reconsider their remarks. But right now, I'm inclined to take their remarks at or near face value."
So, a dozen DR involving me that have all been "kept." Jmabel wanted "a half a dozen specific examples in the last year..." I gave a dozen specific examples in the last six months.
I suggest this is the proof you asked to have provided. It is not specific to @Benoît Prieur, however it does answer respond to the behavior related to your question,
"... we do not have any proof of a practice of abusive nominations by A1Cafel."
and you further wrote,
"Finally, I would like to ask A1Cafel to review their own older uploads in regard to FOP and to make sure that the focus in nominations is not on selected users. If we run across an image that needs to be nominated, then nominate it. But nobody should run systematically through all contributions of an individual user if there is no good reason for this. I do not know if this has actually happened here but I mention it as Benoît got this impression (unfortunately without evidence to evaluate this further). "
Lastly, I want to thank Benoît Prieur for taking his time to make this submission.
Sincerely, -- Ooligan (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: COM:AN/U is not a board to submit requests for further research. Convincing evidence needs to be presented here including diffs. See also this comment (first paragraph) by me on Benoît's talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: I completely agree with Benoît Prieur. A1Cafel indeed stalks contributions and harasses users. Take a look at these absurd deletion requests: [3], [4], [5] etc… If you still don’t believe the opening of those deletion requests was pure harassment, let me explain: minutes before they were opened, I removed from this category some duplicates uploaded by A1Cafel. In fact, the whole category was duplicated. (Funnily enough, A1Cafel has some obscure fetish uploading everything they can regarding the coronation of Charles and Camilla, while nominating to deletion everything they had not uploaded themself!) Not to mention this sort of harassment: [6], [7] etc… I don’t have much time available for this, so I won’t spend the little I have left collecting more and more evidences.
    Honestly, their POV-pushing behavior is tiresome, and it was one of the reasons that made me decide to take a break from Commons (in addition, of course, to personal problems, such as a tumor). I always try to learn with mistakes, some of them being sort of childish, but A1Cafel seems not to. I don’t know if a permanent block would be a solution (I am permanently blocked on ptwiki, and I don’t think that is something nice), so I would suggest something like a three- to six-months block. That would have helped me there, I suppose… RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Another comment: I haven’t read the whole discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I suggest a permanent ban for the user from opening whatever RfD. Maybe is beyond their intentions but their actions are disruptive, not helpful at all. -- Blackcat 15:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topic ban of A1Cafel from uploads with Flickr2Commons[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by A1Cafel, yet again. Also Commons_talk:Flickr2Commons#Duplicates_2

A1Cafel has been requested over and over to stop doing batch uploads with Flickr2Commons that duplicate batches which have already been imported. This is a time-sink for other editors, they clearly have no intention of changing their behaviour over this.

Accordingly, they should lose access to this tool. The project does not need these uploads, they are just a source of extra work for others. No other measure, i.e. requests to A1Cafel, seems effective.

Their access to the Upload Wizard for doing similar uploads should also be considered (I express no opinion on that point as yet) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes! Yes! I entirely support that. A1Cafel must stay away from Flickr2Commons, because he does not care for due diligence. The Upload Wizard on the other hand is a much surer tool, it is duplicate-proof, and anyone should be allowed to handle it. --Edelseider (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I sadly see no other way of them changing their behaviour. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose It appears that there's been a discussion on Commons talk:Flickr2Commons about it allowing people to upload duplicates since at least 2015 and there's been no response from the dev after multiple comments, new threads about it, and 8 years. So my suggestion is to block access to the tool until the developer feels like solving the issue since it's clearly a bug and isn't something only A1Cafel has an issue with. I don't think it's fair to block someone for something that is clearly an issue with Flickr2Commons though. More so since the developer is apparently unwilling to fix it. If uploads of duplicates are really that much of an issue then Flickr2Commons just shouldn't be able to upload images until it's resolved. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose No ban or site ban. Per previous sockpuppetry, they have many methods for circumventing the rules. Lemonaka (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but if they're a problem here, but they also sock to get round blocks, then we shouldn't bother to ban them? How does that work? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andy Dingley Banning a people sitewide meant that more eyes will be on them if they use socks to circumvent their ban, topic-banning is less noticed when circumventing by socks. Lemonaka (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose, the issue should be handled from the root, not from the leaf. I agree with @Adamant1: 's input. See also this discussion where I commented. I once imported a single file from Flickr, until the file description page begins to claim about an already-existing file on Commons, prompting me to add {{Duplicate}} immediately. Strangely it used to detect duplicates before, until at some point it failed to detect duplicates. At least all batch uploading using that tool should be disabled for all users, including me, until the tool developer fixes the technical issue. Yes the boilerplate notice on top insists users to direct technical concerns on the developer's website, yet I cannot immediately see a button or link on that website for messaging of concerns. I do not want to click any of the links there that appear to be technical in nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose topic ban for the reasons stated by Adamant1. I'd be inclined to support blocking access to the Flickr2Commons tool until the duplicates bug is dealt with. Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: I may agree provided that Flickr2Commons is disabled for all users, including you and me, until the issue is resolved. Though Edelseider mentioned this discussion on the Flickr2Commons discussion page, and that discussion seemed to suggest a low probability of the tool being fixed. A possible suggestion is a semi-manual way of uploading using the regular UploadWizard, but it is not ideal for users who may have some erratic real life schedules or things to do like me, because descriptions as well as {{Flickrreview}} may need to be manually added. I agree to a possible replacement of Flickr2Commons that would be maintained by the community instead of a single user. I may have made an off-topic comment but this is one input that I wanted to say regarding this issue on widely-used Flickr2Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly oppose disabling Flickr2Commons. I use it quite a bit, and would find it very inconvenient not to have it. - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: {{Flickrreview}} is added automatically when Using Upload Wizard, and yes, the descriptions have to be added manually with that toll where there is none, but you have the option to "copy all informations to the other files", i.e. it is enough to write the description, add the categories, supply any tag etc. once. --Edelseider (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Rourib.2004[edit]

The user apparently unhappy with an undeletion request (1) removed comments he didn't agree with (2) tried to canvass the discussion, (3) called me liar, unscrupulous (i.e. person without morals), West Bengal hater among other things (3) had similar behavior with Sbb1413 insulting, and shamming him or her (4) ignoring the requests from Yann, Jmabel and Sbb1413 to be more civil (5) and moreover disregarding openly these requests. I included a few references, but one can look at his history in the previous days to see his general pushy behavior. Günther Frager (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sumitsurai, Bodhi, Nahid, do any of you know this person and could you talk to him and get him change his behaviour? Otherwise I fear we have no choice but to block the account. I can understand why that person feels so agitatet, but this is no behaviour we can tolerate. Kritzolina (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kritzolina: , I do not know him at all. Feel free to do what is appropriate. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kritzolina: I am sorry for this behaviour.
But the person who caused my agitation is the one who has filed this complaint. A 8 month old Wikiuser (the person mentioned) will now teach a near 8-year old Wikipedian?? I have never seen such bad behaviour from any Wiki user all these years who was hell bent in causing problems in my work.
Whoever, this person is: Keep in mind I will make those files return.. This user is now tracking my account activity and causing disruption in my personal privacy. I will block you soon. I don't want any contacts with you.
Nevertheless, I once again apologise to other admins for this bad behaviour. I will never repeat this again. Rourib.2004 (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rourib.2004: when you say "I will make those files return" are you saying that you will track down the actual copyright-holders and get permission (fine) or you intend simply to re-upload copyvios (another matter entirely)? - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ofcourse, the former one.
I will re-upload the files with proper licensing info and get permission from the Government of West Bengal, even though all their intellectual properties are free-use. Or, I will try to get those files undeleted with more proper arguments and with official permission of my government. Rourib.2004 (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ithink the more important question is.. will you treat other users with respect going forward, even if you think they are mistaken and not as experienced as you? Will you stop accusing people of bad intentions and stop being so aggressive? Kritzolina (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kritzolina I was not in a correct state of mind during the UDR debate. I once again apologise for my aggressive behaviour. You know, actually Indians get hostile when someone raises questions on their motherland (since the topic of the UDR was regarding the symbols of my home state: West Bengal), and due to continuous humiliation and rude behaviour by a single person in not letting my request pass made me furious. I never lost my cool in Wikipedia all these years.
From now on, I will make sure to be cool myself and treat others with empathy and respect. My sincere apologies to the admins here. Rourib.2004 (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am happy to hear that you will try and be more friendly and polite in the future. I accept your apologies for my part, but I am not the person you offended in your agitatet state of mind. You are still calling this person rude - which to a neutral reader is not true. They held a different opinion than you, but they brought it forward in a collegial, respectful way. Perhaps you want to take some time to think about how you want to interact with them and other Commons users who disagree with you on important topics in the future. And think about what steps you could take now, to make future collaborations less stressful for all.
I am closing this complaint now with a stern warning to you, to keep your cool in the future and to not take up you aggressive behaviour again. I will put this as a formal warning on your talkpage. Kritzolina (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment so in his apology he blames his uncivil behavior on me, really? When was I disrespectful? Was giving arguments (good or bad ones) in a discussion bad behavior? How could I logically make him insult and intimidate Sbb1413 due to my bad behavior 2 hours before I added my first comment to the UDR? I get it is upsetting when images get deleted and that we likely didn't manage to get our point across during the debate. I was expecting a bit of self reflection on his side. Regarding his accusations of invasion of privacy: he linked his conversation with Sbb1413 on the UDR and he pinged me (by mistake?) on the talk page of Abzeronow. The latter tried my patience and prompted me to open this complain. Günther Frager (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Closing with a stern warning, similar behaviour in the future, especially continued harassment of Günther Frager should lead to a block. --Kritzolina (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos uploaded by Lesson1[edit]

Lesson1 (talk · contribs) was found for introducing lots of hoaxes into folks and cultures articles in Chinese Wikipedia, their main account is Qqqyyy (talk · contribs), an LTA on that project. More discussion is on zh:Wikipedia:傀儡調查/案件/Qqqyyy/存檔.

Please be careful when using their photos, some of them maybe totally hoax. Lemonaka (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted a few files copied from FB/Instagram, and one derivative work. Other files need to be checked by someone who knows the subject. Yann (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann I purpose to tag {{hoax}} on all the images they uploaded. Lemonaka (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KazyKazyKazakhstan and Nazi symbol template[edit]

Hi. KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk · contribs) started putting the {{Nazi symbol}} template on logos of Ukrainian organisations that are clearly not Nazi symbols. An attempt to discuss the issue at User talk:KazyKazyKazakhstan#File:Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.png was not really helpful, the edit war continued on File:УССД Герб.svg with a rather uncivil argument Go ahead and walk around wearing this symbol <in Germany> if you are so confident that it is legal.. For the reference, the symbol in question is a propaganda for an independent united Ukrainian state (Українська Самостійна Соборна держава) which was absolutely not a Nazi idea. I am pretty sure that putting this template on files that are not Nazi-related is not what it was intended for, because it becomes quite a propaganda instrument. Thanks — NickK (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say that they were symbols of the Nazi party. I only said that they are "organization closely associated to it" exactly as the template said. The article about the OUN in english wikipedia says it "accepted material and moral support from Nazi Germany" so it qualifies as "closely associated with it" - unless you want to challenge that sentence in the official wikipedia article. So it is safe to assume that the symbols are banned in Germany or at least possibly the subject of legal challenges so we need to have the legal dislaimer template because people in Germany. They did not deny that the OUN was an "organization closely associated to it [the Nazi party]". They insisted I bring up a court case to prove it was forbidden in Germany but most banned symbols are not subject of individual court cases. It is important that Wikimedia be on good terms with Germany escpecially since Germany has such generous Freedom of Panorama. Personally though I think the simple extremist symbol in Russia tag will suffice though, but it is better to be safe than sorry with legal disclaimers, just like it is better to be safe than sorry with copyright laws. NickK does good work categorizing things but there is no harm in putting a little legal disclaimer on a controversial symbol just in case. Ukrainian independence is not Nazi but receiving financial assistance from Nazi Germany is something worth putting a little warning tag on especially with German law being very strong on symbols of banned and possibly banned organizations. If there is even a 10% chance someone could be arrested for using the symbol in Germany then we should put the tag on it just in case, just like we should nominate something for deletion if we suspect a copyright violation but aren't 100% sure. But if Wikipedia says that an organization got material help from the Nazis, then we should add a legal disclaimer for their symbols.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also like to note here that Ukrainian Wikipedians in general seem to be a bit overly paranoid. In my mass jihad against copyright-violating statues I nominated a statue of Bandera for deletion because it was not clear based on information provided that the statue itself was free (it looked like the release was for the photo part only) but a Ukrainian editor just called me a vandal and insulted me instead of simply clarifying that the release was for the statue itself not just the photo. Ukrainians have a right to be paranoid due to being at war but lashing out at everyone just trying to protect Commons and go by-the-book is getting extreme. I want to start another round of purges on FoP violations seeing as I've gotten pretty much every violating Kazakh statue nominated for deletion I could find but I'm worried the Ukrainians will not be civil about it.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry but Commons is not a battleground. Even on a normal day mass jihad is not an appropriate description of any activity on Commons, but using it today and then writing that there are concerns about people being civil towards you is another level.
And writing about go by-the-book on one hand, and then putting a clearly controversial disclaimer just in case is just strange. There is also a big difference between closely associated and accepted support (which does not make closely associated because OUN and the Nazi Party had clearly different goals). Even more so when the symbol in question File:УССД Герб.svg is declared Nazi-related while in practice it is related to something Nazis strictly opposed (Ukrainian independence) — NickK (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the book means adhering to the precautionary principle to the fullest extent, which means when in doubt, put a legal disclaimer on it. I don't understand what you want to accomplish by dragging this out here after the template issue has been solved. Bring your complains about the labels of the organization to the talkpage of the English Wikipedia article if you wish to continue to discuss. But there is literally nothing here that admins are needed for, we debated the templates and settled on the extremist symbol template. Do you want me to be banned or something? What the hell do you want now? The issue is already settled.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Jihad thing aside, which I agree was in bad taste, if a group has "accepted material and moral support from Nazi Germany" then it kind of inherently follows that they are closely associated with Nazis. Although you could nitpick the semantics of "closely related", but then nothing would qualifu for the template because someone could claim the group in question was only %99 associated with Naxi Germany so its not close enough because of the other one 1%. So accepying material and moral support from Nazi Germany seems like a reasonible place to draw the line. The real question is where would German court draw it and we don't have an answer to that from what I can tell. So its better to air on the side of caution. The fact that someone might use the existence of the template on a Ukrainian group as propaganda to claim all Ukrainians are Nazis or some nonsense isn't Commons' problem. Nor do I think its KazyKazyKazakhstans. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: The issue is that Nazis supported really a lot of stuff at least once. I can give examples of two groups who accepted documented material and moral support from the Nazis: Soviet Union (via en:Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the three German–Soviet Commercial Agreements) and BMW (via en:Forced labour under German rule during World War II). Still there is clearly no evidence that either Soviet Union or BMW were ruled unconstitutional in Germany, on the contrary, there is an evidence that post-war Germany accepted functioning of both. Putting a {{Nazi symbol}} template on Category:Symbols of the Soviet Union or Category:BMW roundel logos would be obviously disruptive. However, in exactly the same situation for the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and File:УССД Герб.svg this is somehow fine, despite two obvious facts: that (a) Nazis opposed the very concept of УССД (Ukrainian United independent state) and could not possibly support it, and (b) that the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists openly operated in post-war Germany without any ban — NickK (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume the law and by implication the templete mainly (if not exclusively) is concerneced with political organizations. Not just any company that had some kind of relationship with Nazi Germany. Since obviously no one is going to become a neo-Nazi if they buy a IBM computer just because the company was involved in the Holocaust. Whereas the same can't be said for an organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. There's obviously a difference. To such a degree that its ridiculous I'm even pointing it out. Are you really going to argue that a symbol for the Aryan Brotherhood shouldn't have the warning because Hitler drove around in a BMW or that the logo for BMW should have the warning because it's essentially the same as the Aryan Brotherhood? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about you both ask WMF legal counsel for advice instead. This arguing is unlikely to go anywhere any time soon--Trade (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getting lawyers involved? You think we should sue? Are you insane? This is not something to get lawyers involved in this wasn't even a 3-revert editwar! I am absolutely sick of this discussion. Nick can put or remove whatever template he wants, I don't give any fucks anymore, this debate has been so stupid and overblown. I don't want to argue about this anymore and I have no interest in this matter anymore. Close the discussion this is resolved already. Do not reply to me again. Unless you want to ban me I won't speak about this again but if you do ban me I will appeal it until people stop blaming me for just repeating what the English Wikiepdia article said. Maybe I also should be banned for trying to remove the link to a pro-Herbert Cukurs blogspot from Latvian Wikipedia, is it defamatory to call him a Nazi too now?--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume Trade meant in relation to finding out exactly where the legal line is in Germany whrn it comes to which symbols are legal and which aren't as that is something they might be able yo answer, not anything having to do with law suits or whater. I understand your frustration over the whole thing as I've been there a few times myself, but a word of advice, maybe just let it lie for now, both here and on Wikipedia. There's really no point in pushing the issue just because your upset about it. This will be archived with no action in due time. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not need to discuss the political orientation of the organizations. The definition of the template sates that it should be used if the organization was banner under certain laws. This does not apply to these organizations. Yes we do not have a guideline on how many countries need to ban an organization to add the {{Terrorism symbol}} on the file page (this would also affect the current flag of Russia). But the specific {{Nazi symbol}} does definitely not apply. --GPSLeo (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Le Boréalien[edit]

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

I request a temporary block of this user per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 107#User:Le Boréalien and their restarting of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Doonau.jpg with a non-reason for deletion that was already rejected. They are wasting too much of our time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe courtesy deletions like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tallinn2019.jpg that honored absolutely invalid deletion reasons should be reverted, too, if the photos are usable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done User warned, DR closed. I don't think a block is warranted at this time. Yann (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user is a repeat offender. How many times do they have to continue this kind of behavior before you all start blocking them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also note Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Danube river separating Pest from the Buda side.jpg and check their other recent activity, notably including their unrepentant response on their user talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I closed this. Honestly, there are many contributors with a much worse behavior still around here. Yann (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bullying from Perceval42[edit]

Hello, I would like to bring to attention the upload of @Perceval42: . He uploaded a picture for a joke or bullying on the qrticle about dwarfes on the Wikipédia in French : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_le_naingui.jpg. I would support a complete block of the account. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Image deleted, and given that they have no constructive contributions, account blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Simdro[edit]

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

Persistent uploading of copyvios with no evidence of any useful contributions. TommyG (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JuliaWilliam73[edit]

A weird one here. JuliaWilliam73 (talk · contribs) has just created an account, searched for content "Neerman" or some variant of "John Neerman", or else scatter-gunned the category Category:Rail vehicles and infrastrucure designed by Johan Neerman and tagged 11 of them for deletion, with a rationale of The file/page violates the licensing guidelines in some other way than being a clear copyright violation. or (for portraits) "Advertising or self-promotion." and one of "wrong description belongs to another author".

Also prodded en:Johan Neerman, a Belgian architect.

I've no real idea what's going on here, but it's not anything useful that I can see. Yet another grudge deletion? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A stale account at en:User:Julia Williams123 too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added one more warning, and closed all these DRs, which are clearly not following Commons policies. Yann (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I blocked. I'd be quite willing to unblock (or anyone else may) if there is a reasonable explanation and they don't intend to continue sowing chaos. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amnesty for LivioAndronico2013[edit]

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

So now that my head is clearer, and feeling the guilt 10 months after relentlessly persecuting a very fine photographer, who is in fact my brother, I've thought of a few things.

  • Perhaps Livio doesn't understand the license. It seems his goal is widest use of photos.
  • Share Alike requirement limits the reuse of photos, because people may not be willing to use the same license.
  • Livio currently claims authorship under sock puppet names, and so he's robbed of real credit for his work.
  • Being problematic in the image quality contests, he could agree not to participate in those.
  • A license such as CC0, PD, CC-BY would better suit those uploads if I am reading this correctly.
  • Claim authorship under one single name for all uploads so that he is properly recognized.

I have no problem with him returning under these terms, you know, it was just being so sneaky about it; plenty of other Wikis loved his photos and kept them. Elizium23 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you 151.57.109.127 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An IP sock of Livio, I presume? No amnesty can be given for someone who continues to sock. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Elizium23, what exactly do you mean as amnesty for LivioAndronico2013? Is he in jail or the like? And what guideline are you considering as basis of your proposal, COM:Amnesty maybe? --A.Savin 20:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose, Livioandronico2013 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is globally locked for cross-wiki abuse, and additionally is blocked on 3 wikis for sockpuppetry, having no apparent willingness to participate in encyclopedic work, and abuse of TPA.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to know, what does the acronym TPA mean? Thank you 176.201.145.187 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope Livio could get back and to have chance with photos again. People change with time. --Mile (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PetarM: How has Livio changed with time? His latest detected sock ("1municipio") is as recent as from September 2023. --A.Savin 11:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elizium23 They are confirmed as LTA, with no chance of being unlocked. Lemonaka (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to know, what does the acronym LAT mean? Thank you. 151.43.157.5 18:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, very kind. 151.43.157.5 19:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. Nothing to be done here. Permanently unwelcome user, LTA. Global (un)lock is not Commons' job, by the way. --A.Savin 22:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

クラカグループ[edit]

All uploads of クラカグループ (talk · contribs) are from https://kuraka-g.com/recruit/part.html and related site, please block and nuke their contributions. Lemonaka (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user and mass deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Postage stamps of Adamant1[edit]

Hello! I have a complaint against member Adamant1 because he is renaming postage stamp categories without prior community discussion and in violation of consensus. An example of this is renaming Template:XXXX stamps of country to postage stamps. Please consider blocking it in extreme cases. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have much to say about this except that I left you multiple comments on your talk page about it that you mostly ignored. Including one where I linked to this discussion, which again you seem to have ignored, where multiple people have agreed with allowing "Postage Stamps of X" categories. Including two administrators. So your insinuation that hasn't been prior discussion about it or that I'm making the edits against consensus is totally ridiculous and false. More so since you were aware of the conversation before you opened this and apparently couldn't even be bothered to participate in it even though you clearly disagree with the conclusions.
And as an FYI, I intentionally left the discussion open past when I could have closed it with the result I wanted so that people like you and another user who thought there shouldn't be "postage stamp" categories could give your opinions. I've also mostly stopped creating "postage stamp" categories since then to give people time to comment if they want to. It's not my problem that neither one of you have participated in it or that you don't think it's a legitimate discussion for whatever reason in the meantime though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Lil elitechong[edit]

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

Keep uploading files that the copyright status is unknown, make false ownership claims. 0x0a (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can`t create CategoryːVideos from Melitopol[edit]

I don`t understand why? I need this for my . ̴̴ RG72 (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RG72: : I'd say you are apparently not using a proper colon symbol (:), but this one: ː. Strakhov (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ufff, thanks dear, I got it. ̴RG72 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

91.160.111.29[edit]

Vandal IP Dronebogus (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked the IP. Taivo (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=812288502"