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

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.

Laurel Lodged

• Laurel Lodged (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Please block the user. This is not the first time he has insulted organizations of Russian Orthodoxy. Official name: The Patriarchal Parishes in the USA, it was "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States", has become "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States". It's an insult! Ыфь77 (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Also, please cancel his edits regarding the organization "The Patriarchal Parishes in the USA". --Ыфь77 (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Reply As usual, the complainant's reversions of my edits consist of a single crypic wod - ERROR. No further rationale is offered by him. I have attempted to engage the complainant in a discussion - see here. As usual, he ignores logic and insists that my intent is to insult the ROC. This is not true and he has been asked on myltiple occasions to desist from such remarks. As I pointed out there, an official name, while useful, is not always to be slavishly followed in categorical space. Within the self-contained bubble of the ROC, the name makes sense; outside the ROC, it's impenetrable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Explanation, online translation: There is a registered religious organization in the USA, categories have been created for it. Laurel Lodged came in and renamed the categories as if this organization didn't exist. Denying the existence of anything is an insult. Ыфь77 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: To eliminate inaccuracies, it is necessary to supplement, not rename. Ыфь77 (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  You are making a nuisance of yourself both here and elsewhere. I feel that the previous block for such behaviour has taught you nothing. Another, longer, block may be necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: You need more time to realize that you cannot approach religious organizations thoughtlessly. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: The user knows the name "Patriarchal Parishes in the USA" and will search for it. But it was "canceled" by Laurel Lodged. Is the convenience of one person above the convenience of others? I can't translate the term "узнаваемость" correctly, but that's what Laurel Lodging removed, while insulting a religious organization by canceling its name. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  See Wiki article Russian Orthodox Patriarchal Parishes in the USA where it is written "The Russian Orthodox Church in the USA is the name of the group of parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in America that are under the canonical authority of the Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus'.". Nothing could be clearer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: You don't understand the organization of the Russian Orthodox Church, but you've taken it upon yourself to edit categories. These parishes are united into an organization "The Patriarchal Parishes in the USA" with the status of a separate deanery. And you canceled this organization! Ыфь77 (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  The Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch is officially called the "Rūm Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East". Is Wiki "cancelling" the church by shortening the name to just "Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch"? Navigational ease trumps Easter-egg puffery. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Your name "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" contains neither "Patriarchal" nor "Parishes". The comparison is inappropriate. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: For reference: "Patriarchal Parishes" is the standard name for an organization at the level of a separate deanery in the Russian Orthodox Church, see Category:Patriarchal Parishes of Russian Orthodox Church. Before the Laurel Lodged edits, there were 6 such categories. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment It feels weird to read that a name change from "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" to "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" is seen as insult (cf. wikt:insult). In no fashion can I see that as derogatory, both names are quite neutral, the latter even more descriptive for people not deeply involved in the subject. And even if somebody had the medical meaning of insult in mind, approx. causing harm to some body tissue, it could not be transposed to such a renaming action. It's way easier to see and understand Ыфь77's present report as unsettling or uncouth activism, especially with known precedents to his file. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: The first name corresponds to the name of a religious organization, while the second one does not. In other words, by using the second name, you deny that such an organization exists. It's like saying, "There is no such Church." Isn't that an insult? I'm sure Laurel Lodged didn't want to write this, but he did. Therefore, he is guilty of insulting. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Uh, "In other words, by using the second name, you deny that such an organization exists. It's like saying, "There is no such Church." Isn't that an insult?" - that fits exactly in what I meant with "unsettling or uncouth activism". Languages all across the world allow for synonyms, and nothing disappears just because some official name is not used. The war in Ukraine, for instance, doesn't not happen just because it gets called "special military operation" among some countries and political circles. And a church doesn't vanish from existence just because it gets described with words that differs a bit from what the church calls itself, but which are contextually fitting. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: You're wrong. It's one thing to name a religious organization by another name, it's another to name it as if the organization doesn't exist at all. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding the word "insult" keep in mind that they are using a machine translation tool. The incorrect or confusing word choice might be the result of machine translation. However, if the organization is called "The Patriarchal Parishecl in the United States" then it's rather odd to rename it into "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States". That's like renaming the category for "Google Inc." to "Information technology companies in the United States". It doesn't make sense to rename the category of a specific organization to something generic and non-telling like "buildings". The organization has a name, and if that name is "Google" then call the related category "Google" instead of "information technology companies of the United States". Nakonana (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment FYI, I denied speedy deletion of Category:Patriarchal Parishes in the United States. Yann (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Online translation: I needed it to save the edit history when renaming it back. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Do you agree to rename it back? Yann (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this a disciplinary forum, not a category renaming forum? If you want to restore the status quo ante bellum (i.e. Category:Patriarchal Parishes in the United States) pending a full name change discussion, sure, go ahead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on this category, which is what should have been done from the start. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment At en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute, the Committee voted that Laurel Lodged had "failure to observe consensus", bad "behaviour towards other editors", was "indefinitely banned", and was "indefinitely topic banned from maintaining categories." His behavior here is no different, so the punishment should be no different (except we just have indefinite blocks here rather than bans).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  In personal communication with Laurel Lodged, I became convinced that he has 2 opinions: his and the wrong one. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  I could have made the same observation about your own behaviour but I have tried to keep my comments to the facts, not personal abuse. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Sure. Just look at your message here from 11:52 (UTC). Ыфь77 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  You appear to have gone straight to outrage, actually. That doesn't reflect well on you at all. Why didn't you take this dispute through the regular process of categories for discussion? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Not a single dialogue with Laurel Lodged has ended in that place yet. Religious insults require a quick solution. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  So you think it's OK not to make the attempt? And you consider this to be a religious insult, when it is likely just a misunderstanding? Your outrage is not impressive. I personally side with you over this, incidentally, but they way you are going about this is not helpful. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Do you see how much space this theme takes up? How much time has been practically wasted? All this time I took away from the really necessary editing of Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. That's why I prefer to immediately attract the attention of third parties rather than explain something to Laurel Lodged on my own. Ыфь77 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  I watched that discussion, and it was against BrownHairedGirl. Everything should be seen in that light - one of the worst participants of Wikipedia has ever seen, and one who was indefinitely blocked. I don't think I'd give this dispute much weight on Commons. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Are these category names interchangeable? "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" as far as I can gather from this discussion, is the official name of a church (church as in organization, the "canonical division of the Russian Orthodox Church...in the United States of America and Mexico" per ). "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" reads as a subset, as it applies to just buildings. Is the dispute that it should be "Buildings of the Patriarchal Parishes in the United States"? CMD (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  My sense of the situation is that the category Category:Patriarchal Parishes in the United States refers to just buildings (i.e. consists of church buildings and monastery buildings). They are not "parishes" in the sense of a parish hall, a parish church, a parish school, a priest, Easter parades etc. They are just buildings. I also have the sense that it is not an autocephalic church (i.e. it takes it's instructions directly from the Patriarch of Moscow). The label "parishes" suggest a canonical structure (e.g. a parish / deanery / diocese / province). However, that is not what the category actually contains - only buildings. To anyone outside the bubble of the ROC, the results of clicking on the category would be quite surprising. And "patriarchal" is not really enlightening either: which one is in scope - Constantinople, Rome, Alexandria, Moscow? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: Give examples of organizations of other Orthodox Churches with the name "Patriarchal Parishes". Ыфь77 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is a disciplinary forum, not a category renaming forum. Your comments are misplaced. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: My comments are appropriate here: if it hadn't been for your extremely erroneous renaming, this section would not have existed. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Laurel Lodged: in this case, it is relevant to discuss the substance of the matters at hand. If you were a little high-handed, but clearly correct, that is a less likely to result in a block than if you were both high-handed and wrong. And high-handed, wrong, and avoiding discussion is sort of a trifecta. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Hold on a moment... how is he being high handed? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • @Chris.sherlock2: Sorry, I'm not inclined to go back and research and produce diffs; you are free to take my word or not; if you seriously doubt that I am speaking honestly and, feel genuinely free to start an AN/U discussion about what you believe to be my possible bad faith. In that case, I will do the heavy legwork to back up what I'm saying, but I really have other things I'd rather be working on right now. I am not the one who brought the complaint here, I'm just commenting as an admin who has been engaged in this situation with these two for roughly a year.

  Laurel Lodged has repeatedly, unilaterally changed category names in terms of Eastern Orthodoxy in North America. Despite repeatedly having their changes be controversial, I don't recall them ever starting out by trying to build consensus rather than make unilateral moves. The particular case here isn't among the more egregious, but it's a pattern. Probably the most egregious, and certainly one where the the term "insulting" would reasonably apply, was to attach the parenthesized qualifier "Moscow Patriarchate" to categories about the Orthodox Church in America. The OCA was once under the Moscow Patriarchate, which let go of any authority over the OCA and considers it autocephalous. Some other national Orthodox churches do not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA. The analogy I'm about to make is imprecise, but this is contentious in the manner that it would be for someone to move Category:Ukraine to Category:Ukraine (Russian province) or to move Category:Gdańsk to Category:Danzig. There has been a pattern here, and that this case is but one example of that pattern.

  Laurel Lodged is reasonably knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy in North America, more knowledgeable in the area than I am, but their edits in this area have been repeatedly contentious, to say the least, and they are never proactive in seeking consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Whoa! I’m not accusing you of anything, nor would I ever impune your honesty. I’m not sure why you would think this of me… - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Really, I must object to the above comments of @Jmabel: . He knows better. He knows that I have been an active participant in the discussion Dioceses of the Orthodox Church in America since 23 April 2025. He knows that I have set out my case and sought to build a concensus. That that has not been possible is not my fault. The discussion would have benefitted from the input of other third parties. Regardless, it points to the fact that I have tried to engage with the complainant in a reasoned discussion. I think that Jmabel should withdraw the accusation of "I don't recall them ever starting out by trying to build consensus rather than make unilateral moves". By the way, you may refer to me in the third person as "he/him", not "they/them". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  • @Laurel Lodged: I had no idea of your gender until now. "Laurel" us usually a woman's name, but I figured it was best not to presume. I will refer to you by male pronouns from now on.
  • I did not say that you do not participate in efforts to reach consensus. I said that you consistently act without trying to build consensus first. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Online translation: As I wrote earlier, Laurel Lodged is poorly versed in Orthodoxy. The category refers to a religious organization, and the fact that there are no other photos in it besides buildings means that no one has photographed anything else or specified this category for personalities/rituals. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• There are a few issues on process here: Laurel Lodged renamed something (it looks likely incorrectly I'm afraid). However, I doubt they did this to insult anyone - going straight to outrage is hardly the way to handle this. Instead of discussing this in the appropriate area, which is a CFD, the opposing party has gone straight to Laurel's talk page. Now they have brought him to AN. I've now done what they should have done, which is to add it to categories for discussion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Both @Ыфь77 and @Laurel Lodged have been very recently blocked for these disputes. I think some more drastic measure needs to be taken now (I'm not doing it myself as I blocked them last time) issuing 1) interaction ban between Laurel and ...77. 2) topic ban on religion 3) block. Bedivere (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  А мне то за что? Я только отменяю то, что сделал Laurel Lodged! Ыфь77 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment There doesn't seem to be any discussion here. "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" is obviously not just buildings, but seems frustratingly terse and unclear. The website for the organization is at https://www.mospatusa.com , the header says "The Patriarchal Parishes in the United States (Moscow Patriarchate)" and the footer says

Any Republication for the Glory of God is Permitted with the Reference: "The Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA - www.mospatusa.com"

(do you think we could get a free license or is that "for the Glory of God" thing going to be a blocker?) which indicates that even they don't "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" is a sufficient descriptor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Moving a category from "Patriarchal Parishes in the United States" to "Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States" is an insult? Seldom read such nonsense... --A.Savin 19:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the third time we've had this exact same discussion, featuring these exact same users, on admin noticeboard too. At this point, the recurring discussion itself is becoming disruptive. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

After reading Jmabel’s comment, perhaps we need to put a condition on LaurelLodged that he is not allowed to move any categories but must submit them to categories for discussion first? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I insist, they should all be blocked temporarily for disrupting the project, and have them both placed an interaction and topic ban. Bedivere (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Can I point out that it was not me who disrupted this forum? It was the nominator. Since I followed the process, why should I be the one who is punished? It is the nominator who, among other offences, has not followed process. For my part, I boldly moved, I opened a discussion; my next move would have been to bring the disputed move to CFD. For which of these things am I deserving of punishment? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems, though, that you make controversial moves. Perhaps it might be better if you stepped away from this area. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

That would be true if you buy into the conversation of the nominator. You see now why he comes to this forum - he gets to make incendiary accusations, instead of having to explain his rationale (other than ERROR) in the calmer waters of CFD. In this forum, he gets to set the narrative. That's hardly fair is it? The moves are only controversial if you buy into the nominator's mindset wherein he reguards himself as the champion of Orthodoxy and will do battle for all perceived assaults on it. As it happens, while not a member of the Orthodox communion, I have quite a strong attachment to it. That matters not a jot to the nominator, who perceives any and all changes as insults to Orthodoxy (and Russia?) and worthy of the most severe sanctions. I will now go to the CFD created above and will present in a cool way what ought to happen to the categories that are the subject of this complaint. In this way you will see that the moves are not controversial and are based on logic. This is what would have happened as the third step of the process had the nominator not pressed the nuclear button and come directly to this forum. As I wrote above, he is making a nuisance of himself both here and elsewhere; for that, I ought not to be punished. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Online translation: You are mindlessly renaming categories related to religion. In the Middle Ages, you would have been burned at the stake as a heretic long ago. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to see you punished, but I do think you should be made to discuss category changes in the future. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I protest: I'm just correcting an obvious mistake by Laurel Lodged. And here it is only because it has never been possible to reach an agreement with him in other places. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Что бы Вы сделали, если бы "Категория:A.Savin" переименовали в "Категория:Разумный, с русским родным языком"? Ыфь77 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Disregarding the category dispute, I've blocked Ыфь77 for 1 month for these "middle-aged" violent phantasies. --A.Savin 18:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Good move. Bedivere (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

So what is going to be the final action here? This does not end with this block Bedivere (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

So… we need to define what went wrong here. From what I can see, LL makes controversial category decisions without discussing sufficiently. I can’t see where he has been uncivil or made personal attacks. So perhaps admins should attack the problem which is that unilateral decisions on categories should be prevented and LL should be forced to discuss category changes. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

+1. It's not the first controversial move (even outside the topic of religion, and outside the interactions with Ыфь77 as this is not the only editor with whom LL had discussion about religion-related category moves as can be seen on LL's talk page in threads like "Stop you incorect in categories of religion in Ukraine!"). Generally speaking there's a lot of dissatisfaction on LL's talk page about categories.

Disclaimer: I was involved in a discussion of one of LL's controversial moves that were not related to religion, but to administrative divisions and incorrect moves due to not understanding how Slavic languages work. Nakonana (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note @Wieralee: has rendered most of the above moot as he has boldly moved the category. No doubt he was influenced by the healthy category discussion here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  Which should not have happened as there was an ongoing discussion and it should have been decided by a closing admin. So I have reverted this. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  • I've been too much of an involved party to be the closer but, yes, it would be good if some admin would go to the various discussions where LaurelLodged and Ыфь77 have been contending and resolve them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, will someone take this on? I am an involved party, so I am not an appropriate person to close the CfD's etc. in question. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don't really see a consensus at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/07/Category:Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States - I think we'd need more participation first. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 07:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

More participation would be fine, but the same two people hashing it out for years, both riding the edge of being blocked, is not. And it is not imaginable that those two will reach a consensus. At some point, someone needs to make a decision. - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm for the blocking of both users. I have performed another block in the past so I guess it wouldn't be a good fit for me to close this with such an outcome. Bedivere (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

ذيبان العراقبه

• ذيبان العراقبه (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• شلاش العمري (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• دامر العمري (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Seems to be a sock or meat of blocked accounts شلاش العمري and دامر العمري. See Abuse filter log and below from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp	File	Uploader	Deleted file	Uploader
Jul 17 2025 09:09 PM	File:بيرق عرب العمريه.jpg	ذيبان العراقبه (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 4 edits)	File:بيرق عرب العمري من قماش احمر.jpg (Und | Log)	شلاش العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 17 2025 09:09 PM	File:بيرق عرب العمريه.jpg	ذيبان العراقبه (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 4 edits)	File:بيرق عرب العمري لون احمر قماش.jpg (Und | Log)	دامر العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. This was difficult decision, but I decided, that this is sockpuppetry. I blocked the unblocked accounts and tagged them. Taivo (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Kjw0106 and Alpsmango

• Kjw0106 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Alpsmango (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Seems to be a promo-only account. Already blocked on enwiki. Jonteemil (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Also Alpsmango which seems to be meat or sockmaster. Jonteemil (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done I hesitate to block. This is company textlogo, too simple for copyright, and uploaded twice with one year timespan. This can be coincidence. If one year has passed, then checkuser cannot help as well. No activity from alleged sockmaster account during a year. Let it be. Taivo (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Repeated reverts of DR closure despite it being an admin action

I'm requesting input regarding repeated reverts of an administrative closure I made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:This Is Fine (meme).png. The DR was open for over three months without resolution and had received extensive participation from multiple users.

I closed it as keep, citing consensus and legal rationale based on points raised by Carl Lindberg, Qzekrom, JayCubby, Nosferattus and others. I also added a disclosure in the rationale noting that I had previously commented about copyright law on a noticeboard months earlier, and stated clearly that I would have no issue if another admin wanted to reopen the discussion.

Despite this, Adamant1 has repeatedly reverted the closure with the justification that I am "involved", citing prior disagreements over the topic of AI-generated images and suggesting that I have a bias. While I appreciate the concerns, this is an admin action on a stale DR, with transparent rationale and a clear invitation for other admins to re-open if they feel the closure was inappropriate.

I believe this persistent reverting of a formal closure (without re-nominating the file, or bringing the issue here to AN) is disruptive. I’ve asked the user to stop and suggested that they bring it here if they object, but they continue to revert the closure directly.

I’d welcome input from other admins on (1) whether the closure was out of bounds given the circumstances and (2) whether it is acceptable for a user to repeatedly revert an admin closure they disagree with rather than escalate it appropriately. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, you are involved and your closure completely ignore many considered comments that explained this was a derivative work. Your judgement here is compromised and you should not have been the closing admin. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

For the record, this was the comment I made on VP/C, which is basically the same I made in my closing rationale. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

A couple of things from my end.

1. I reverted Josve05a and left a message on his talk page. He just reverted me without discuss it. So I reverted him again until he responded to the message. As far as I know, that's not edit waring and it's part of the normal "revert, discuss" cycle.

2. I personally feel like Josve05a is to involved in it since he got in an a couple of arguments with me over that file, the uploader, AI generated images in general, and advocated me for being indefed over the whole thing. Although I'm sympathetic to his thing about how long the DR has been open, I asked him to post a message on the admin board asking someone else to close it. I don't see why he can't do that or how me making the request warrants him reporting me to ANU. Really, this whole thing just comes off like a bad faithed way to continue the original disagreement and bully me over it. Regardless, I encourage people to read the messages I left on his talk page. I was more then reasonable about it. There's absolutely no reason he needed to close the DR or couldn't have at least discussed it with me before restoring his original edit. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Adamant, if Josve05a was 'too involved' here, what on earth does that make you, who originally opened it? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I wasn't involved at the time when I opened the DR. Although I'd agree I probably am a little to involved at this point but that's also why I've mostly stayed away from the topic since then. So what's your point? I tend to stay away from things I'm to involved in. Everyone should. Including admins. Got me. Neither one of us should have anything to do with the deletion request. That's why I asked him to post a close request on the admin board. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't care about the involved bit, but if this is resolved to reinstate the closure, consider this a closure review for what looks like a quite destructive AI precedent. Keeping an explicit effort to recreate a 2D copyrighted work in 3D (or some other transformation) using AI on the basis that it "only copies the ideas" legitimizes every "dear chatgpt, create a cool new version of [copyrighted work] that 'isn't copyrighted' because it 'only copies the ideas' but which is so obviously a copy of the copyrighted work that we can use it to represent the copyrighted work on Wikipedia". — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean yeah, that's how fan art works? You can't copyright the mere idea of a dog with a hat sitting on chair near a table while surrounded by fire. Trade (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

+1. I don't see how this could be a derivative work. It is not a cartoon style drawing, and all ideas behind this image are way older than AI. I am not sure if it is appropriate to use AI to reproduce this meme, but as it is there is no copyright issue.

About Adamant1 edit-warring, why I am not surprised? Yann (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but this image is literally a derivative image created by AI, and almost exactly the same. That makes it a derivative work. An uninvolved admin should have made the closing decision. They should certainly not have put conditions that only another admin could reopen the DR. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I just commented on that deletion request - noting I don't like it, but it doesn't look to me like a copyright violation. If there were a suggest Commons policy to prohibit using AI to produce new versions of memes the original of which is under copyright, I'd vote in favor of such policy. But as the issue seems to be current copyright law, the image looks to me to skirt it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  +1 - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Welp, yet another instance where an administrator gets a free pass on involved editing (and falsely reporting a user as part of it). Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Adam, calm down. Even at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Denmark you were being overly combatative. And that was about something only vaguely related to the talk page discussion Trade (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: My names not Adam and I never said it was. It's a little funny your (apparently not since it's not my name anyway) doxing me in the same message your going off about my behavior though. More to the topic, I think it's involved editing, which I have a problem with because it just leads to needless drama like this. That's my prerogative. It doesn't look like this is going anywhere anyway. Why not drop it instead of continuing to stir the pot by fake doxing people or commenting when it had already died off? I was perfectly happy to leave it there myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I want to be clear that I'm not happy to simply "leave this" unresolved. This isn't just about whether the specific closure was correct or not, it's about the principle of respecting administrative actions.

Adamant1 repeatedly reverted a DR closure as if it were an ordinary content edit. That is not how Wikimedia projects handle admin actions. Just as non-admins are not permitted to undelete files (and must go to COM:UNDEL), or unblock users (and must appeal via talk page or COM:AN), the same applies to closing deletion discussions: if you disagree with an admin close, the correct venue is to request review, not to unilaterally revert (regardless if you raise it on the admin's talk page).

I disclosed my prior comment on the matter, invited re-review by other admins, and even pointed Adamant1 to this board, yet they continued to revert the closure. That is disruptive and sets a poor precedent for how DRs and admin tools are respected on Commons.

Regardless of how one feels about AI-generated images or this specific file, I would like to see a clear statement from other admins, and the community at large, about whether this behavior, reverting admin closures without re-nominating or escalating through proper venues is acceptable. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: if you disagree with an admin close, the correct venue is to request review, not to unilaterally revert A few things that I think are important. I told you I'm topic banned from ANU. So me messaging you on your talk page about it was the me dealing through the proper venue as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise you'd acting like the only way I can resolve a personal issue with an admin is to violate the topic ban, which you'd have to agree is totally ridiculous. All you had to do was reply to the messages instead of immediately report me and that probably would have been the end of it. The idea that ANU was the answer after one revert or that admins being reverted in general is laughable. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It was three reverts if I counted correctly. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: I reverted a couple of bits minor edit in order to revert the close. It was two reverts to the actual close though. As a general practice I don't revert the same edit three times because that's where it gets into edit waring IMO (I think that's what the guideline says to). But your first revert comment was that I should take it to ANU. You'd have to agree going off about reporting people to ANU (or doing it) after one revert isn't the most good faithed way to deal with a dispute. Especially since again, you could have just replied to me on your talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: This was an admin action, not a regular content edit. You don't get to revert admin closures just because you disagree. That’s not how it works — same as with unblocks or undeletions, where review must go through proper venues like AN or UNDEL.

You reverted the closure three times (1, 2, 3), despite being told to take it to AN if you objected. Revert–discuss cycles apply to content, not to administrative actions. Whether or not you’re topic banned from AN/U is irrelevant, you could have asked another admin to review the closure instead of edit-warring against it (also, I pointed to AN, not AN/U). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you are topic banned from this board, then by the same logic you may also be broadly construed as topic banned from requesting reviews of admin actions (which needs to be done here). That said, the topic ban notice you refer to does include an exception: "when your participation is solicited by another user in good standing". Since you were directed here by me, that exception could broadly interpreted to apply, but it further undermines your claim that you were somehow unable to follow proper process. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Hmmm, my bad. I must have missed the revert when I was looking through the edit history. I was told by an admin awhile back that the exact number reverts isn't what determines if it's edit waring though. So...More to the point, I agree that users shouldn't generally revert "admin actions" (however you want to define that) but regular users can and often do close DRs as keep. So it's not a particularly administrative thing to do IMO. Otherwise you guys would essentially be above reproach for even minor edits. '

With the topic ban specifically, I asked King of Hearts for clarification about it and he told me I'm just topic banned from admin boards under the Village Pump. Not discussing administrator actions more general. For instance I can still vote on admins. So I assume reverting one and/or messaging them on their talk page would be a non-issue. Of course all of these things have random lines and exceptions to them. But you should know the general rule is to discuss things with the person on their talk page before taking it to an admin or ANU. Your not above that just because your an administrator or due to me being topic banned from administrative boards. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: A DR closure by an administrator is a clear admin action, particularly when it resolves a long-standing, heavily discussed deletion request. You’re correct that non-admins can perform certain uncontroversial non-admin closes (see en:WP:NAC for the concept), but that does not apply here. This was not a NAC; it was a formal admin close with tools and rationale.

So by your own admission, and based on the guidance you say you received, your topic ban from admin noticeboards would not apply to passive participation like !voting. But you went further; you reverted an administrative action after being told, on both the edit summary ("the closure is an admin action"), your talk page, and mine, that this was an admin close. You continued reverting after that, which is exactly the kind of behavior topic bans are meant to prevent.

If you had posted on my talk page and left it there, that would have been one thing. But instead, you took action against an admin close; that crosses a line, and you were explicitly told it was not permitted. You chose to ignore that and proceeded to revert again anyway. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. It's not like I have any way to know when you use administrator tools to do normal edits. For all I knew you just closed it as a normal user who was sick of seeing it open since you were involved discussion around it. Your the one who said you closed it because of how it had been open and from what I can tell you don't generally close DRs as an admin. It's hard to buy that you made the edit as normal admin actions when it's not even an area your normally active in. I've at least gotten two things out of this though 1. You clearly don't care about involved editing 2. Your under the impression that everything you do, even random edits in areas you don't normally participate in and/or that normal users can make, is an "admin action" and therefore can't be questioned or reverted. I'll certainly keep those things in mind next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Closing DRs is basically all admin actions I do. Regardless of intention it was wrong and you did not disengage when confronted. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I could say the same about you closing the DR to begin with and you reporting me to ANU over a non-issue. As well as you continuing this discussion when it clearly isn't going anywhere. This wouldn't a thing right now if you had of left the close up to another administrator and not needlessly escalated it when there was no reason to. Be my guest and disengage though. I'd love to move on from this. Your the one continuing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I won’t drop this. I’d like to see you actually sanctioned for your actions and disregard of proper process for once. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's to be expected. I'm always the one who should disengage while it's perfectly fine if the people saying so continue to beat the horse into the ground like the whole U4C case. For my part, I fully support you being sanctioned for involved editing and using ANU to bully users you get in minor disagreements with. I'm not holding my breath though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you really are the victim of your own actions—how surprising (sarcasm intended). You were explicitly told to disengage reverting admin actions, not to stop discussing them. But by continuing to revert, you not only undid admin decisions, you also risked violating your own topic ban. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not topic banned from things generally involving administrators, I'm banned from participating in admin sub boards of the Village Pump. At least that's what I was told. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

??? I called you Adam because it's half your username Trade (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: My user name is adamant because I'm particularly prone to refusing to be persuaded or to change my mind about things. Not because my first name is Adam. I could see why you'd make the mistake though. I probably should have thought about that when I created the account lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Autocorrect exists and would easily lead to such a mistake. You probably really don't need to read too much into it. Nakonana (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure. It's happened before. I mostly think it's funny. Trade's fine though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

OMG, I just realised that is how to say your name. I’ve literally thought you were Adam Ant this entire time… - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked Adamant1 for 2 weeks due to editwarring against this RfD's closure. --A.Savin 08:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

To also write is here: Yes, that the block was performed by A.Savin was not good in this situation. But the block is definitely justified because of the edit war with an admin about the closure of a deletion request. I support the block and we therefore have a 4-eye principle for this block. GPSLeo (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I think 2 weeks seems excessive. Surely we can reduce it to one week? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

You know what? I'm not that concerned whether the block was an appropriate length or not (two weeks is not a big deal, and I mean that sufficiently that if someone wants to block me for two weeks for saying that, I'll accept it quietly, as long as they link this remark as the reason for blocking me). But I'm getting really tired of admins using blocks in situations in which they are involved (and if there is any doubt, in this case I mean A.Savin). An admin is just as capable as any other user of raising an issue here and having someone else make the block, if appropriate. You simply should not be involved in a situation both as plaintiff and judge.

Yes, there are edge cases where someone might be tangentially involved, but this wasn't one of them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

How am I plaintiff on here? --A.Savin 18:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Are you stating that your block at 08:46, 27 July 2025 had absolutely nothing to do with Adamant1's comments roughly 90 minutes earlier at Commons:Deletion requests/User:A.Savin? - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

That's merely your speculation. I already stated that I don't care that much about my userpage. By the way, I've deleted it myserlf. (Much more important for me is, to contribute content without being stalked, harassed, libeled and defamed; but that's an other construction site) --A.Savin 19:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

You know that the perception of impartiality is really important, right? You shouldn’t be involving yourself in actions where you might be seen to be involved. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that we only have maybe ten admins actively blocking users after reports on this board. That no somehow involved admin took action here was the reason why this was open for nearly a hole week despite being a very clear case. GPSLeo (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

User stalking my uploads

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

A while ago, I nominated two of User:JayCubby's uploads as clear copyright deletions, and they were promptly deleted as such:

• File:AI-171 crash CCTV.webm
• File:Air India Flight 171 CCTV.webm

AFAICT, we had never previously interacted.

He responded immediately by nominating several of my images for deletion:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1043161366
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1043164010
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1043165963

He has now commenced doing so again. mostly on weak grounds where there is a de minims component.

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060841624
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060841771
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060842776
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060845802
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060846190
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060846827
• Adding: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060850248
• Adding: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1060851135

I'm not averse to having my images reviewed, nor even deleted if I have erred (though I will be defending all but one of the current nominations), but I do not take kindly to retaliatory actions of this nature, and nor should the wider community tolerate them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

No ping or notification? JayCubby (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

So clearly you are trying to police every edit that Andy makes. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Notification was made immediately after posting here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Andy, there is a standard template for ANU notifications. It is clearly documented that is the bare minimum that is expected when notifying a user, but you chose not to use it. I think you are an experienced contributor who knows about this, I find it curious you decided not to follow the regular process. At a minimum, it seems inflammatory and designed to give a rise out of Jay, however this impression I’m willing to acknowledge as just that - an impression and not what you intended. But if that was my initial impression, then it would be understandable if Jay saw it that way. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Despite JayCubby's accusation, I did notify him of this discussion, as required; and I did so just one minute after posting here, and in my immediately next edit, as anyone can see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley, no. Per my watch list, he had responded to a DR earlier, but it's easier to check contributions than a bunch of watch list entries for a response. JayCubby (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• No

When in a hole, stop digging. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

What you linked is what I am referring to. Perhaps there exists a miscommunication?

I opened his contribs to see the 21:06, 23 July 2025 ANU filing on or towards the top. JayCubby (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

You might have missed it because Andy decided not to use the standard notification template on your talk page. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

JayCubby did not miss the notification due to me not use a particular, optional, template. They posted here one minute after my OP, at the same time as I was leaving a notification on their talk page, as the time stamps show. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Or so you say. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I found the topic by chance, and assumed there would be no further notification. JayCubby (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

"as the time stamps show" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: what Andy says is completely congruent with the timestamps. Plenty of notifications are made be means other than that particular template, and I see nothing wrong with that. Please don't imply someone is lying when there is little or no evidence that they are. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Andy just asked others to AGF. Whilst it might be he is right, it’s also still speculation and it is absolutely not assuming good faith to say so.

I also think you need to be very careful about accusing me of calling Andy a liar. I was not. I saw his argument, I acknowledge he believes what he says, I disagree and I find it less than plausible. I strongly advise you not to say I’ve called Andy a liar because I have not said that and it is very wrong of you to say otherwise. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"They posted here one minute after my OP, at the same time as I was leaving a notification on their talk page, as the time stamps show." is not a matter of speculation. It is a demonstrable and demonstrated truth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Andy, you seem to be rather caught up on the time stamps of the whole thing. Is there anything unanswered in this thread? If not, I'd rather it be closed, as it appears to be generating more heat than light. JayCubby (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

ideally, I would have filed a batch request. However, I'm on my phone, making anything but single file edits enormously difficult. For that, I apologize.

My general preference is to file a deletion request, because quite often a potentially non-DM winds up being free. If you prefer, I can withdraw the deletion requests and go ahead and blur infringing elements. It will be a bit sloppier than usual, on account of the mobile. You made no effort on my previous couple of deletion requests to blur infringing elements.

We have absolutely interacted before. For God's sake, I was helping you at the graphics lab!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop/Archive/Jun_2025#c-JayCubby-20250602213700-Pigsonthewing-20250602181600

I don't think going through a user's recent uploads - initially to see what the user uploaded - is stalking. If I hit the random file button and find a copyright violation, it's not unreasonable to think that the uploader's uploads of a similar time period could contain copyright violations. JayCubby (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not 'reasonable caution' in checking for copyvios. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I check large volumes of files by scrolling past them and stop when something that looks sign-like or is vividly colored catches my eye. JayCubby (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

He appears to be reviewing file uploads correctly. I can’t see any files Jay has submitted for review that have an invalid rationale, and Jay does indeed do a lot of file reviews. Andy, whilst I empathise with you being upset that some of your files are being submitted for review, this doesn’t look like stalking. You e also said you never interacted with Jay before, but you clearly have. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not ""upset that some of your files are being submitted for review". As I said In my OP "I'm not averse to having my images reviewed, nor even deleted if I have erred ... but I do not take kindly to retaliatory actions of this nature, and nor should the wider community tolerate them".

What I said was "AFAICT, we had never previously interacted." Other than one reply to my post on en:WP:LAB/PHOTO, to which I did not respond, where have I "clearly" done so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Most of the images submitted are valid submissions. You are assuming the worst, and I’m sorry you feel targeted, but that doesn’t seem to be the reality and I’m not the only one who thinks so.

i suggest that this whole discussion be closed, as I think it’s generated a lot of heat and I can’t see any admin action is needed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop stalking me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Never once before you filed this thread have you left a note on my talk page informing me you found my actions disruptive, or proposing an alternative.

See the first bullet in the instructions: "Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first." JayCubby (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby: If nothing else, when you are nominating an image for deletion where there is some incidental inclusion of copyrighted material that is at least close to de minimis, you could indicate how it might be remedied (blur, crop, whatever) instead of just leaping to deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel, good to know. I will add that to my recent DRs this afternoon. JayCubby (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

JayCubby is being disingenuous. He knows full well that I objected to his retaliatory behaviour in the first of the above listed deletion discussions; which we know he saw because he replied with an equally disingenuous denial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley, no need for such a word salad. See, I can do it in fewer words:

JayCubby disregarding ostended objections defines a dastardly deed, confirming hom to be doubly disingenuous! JayCubby (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

For someone who's appointed themselves as the WikiPolice, you need to work on your accuracy and targeting. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The personally appointed Police promises to 'mprove his purportedly poor precision, sure. JayCubby (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby: unless you are actively trying to get blocked, knock it off. Deliberately antagonizing another user is sufficient grounds for a block. I doubt you were actually stalking him in the first place, but your conduct right here is sufficient for a block. This is the only warning I will give. - Jmabel ! talk 22:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

His first deletion nomination of one of my images came less than half an hour after I nominated two of his copyvios for deletion:

1. First video nominated at 15:58, 12 June 2025: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JayCubby&diff=prev&oldid=1043154981
2. Second video nominated at 16:01, 12 June 2025: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JayCubby&diff=prev&oldid=1043156662
3. His first retaliatory nomination at 16:21, 12 June 2025 (see first diff, above)

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Andy, none of the images/videos nominated are invalid nominations. As per Jmabel, it doesn’t look like stalking though JayCubby does appear to have reacted badly on this thread which is ill advised but, to my mind, somewhat more understandable (but not acceptable). You have done a lot of uploads, so it does make sense that a number of your uploads might get reviewed for deletion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the only person to have experienced retaliatory deletion nominations immediately after doing something that JayCubby took objection to, as User:AntiCompositeNumber has evidenced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

If is your assertion they are retaliatory, but from what I can see this doesn’t look to be the case. None of the deletion nominations you have highlighted have inappropriate justifications.

if you want to use this reasoning, can I clarify that you will no longer submit any of Jay’s files for deletion in future? I mean, you wouldn’t want to be accused on retaliation. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Multiple nominations of my files less than 30 minutes after I nominated his? If you believe that was a coincidence, especially in the light of evidence of similar behaviour provided by User:AntiCompositeNumber, I have a bridge to sell you... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I do believe that. Mock me all you want, it doesn’t affect me in any way. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I will say, it seems that it was incredibly antagonistic to accuse someone of “appointing themselves as the WikiPolice”. Perhaps, in fairness, you could ask Andy to knock it off also? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

On 19 July 2025 at 21:05, I gave JayCubby a final warning on the Wikimedia Community Discord server. They acknowledged the warning at 21:10. At 21:25, Commons:Deletion requests/File:UML 2019-09 Weed 3.JPG was opened, for a file that is not in use and is unrelated to any area that JayCubby actively edits in. JayCubby made no other edits to Commons that day. JayCubby was subsequently banned from the Wikimedia Community Discord server. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That’s not convincing. When reviewing uncategorised images, or indeed patrolling any number of images, anyone might encounter images that they need to submit for deletion that are “unrelated to any area they edit in”. Furthermore, your mention of “area they edit in” seems to be about external projects to Commons, is this correct?

The images Jay has submitted for review al seem to have valid rationales. I’m not sure how relevant a ban on a discord server (!!!) affects the allegations made of their deletion requests! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Question This thread could be closed; unless any administrator plans to take action? This discussion is going back-and-forth. Sev6nWiki (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The harassment is continuing; this was posted just now:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=prev&oldid=1061327272

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, I made it very clear the way by which I found the file. There will be more DRs of files by that photographer once I get back to a proper computer. A bunch of his pictures are well out of scope. JayCubby (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Andy, this appears to be a fairly low quality and uncategorised image of some food… it seems reasonable to submit it for deletion. It was uploaded by you, sure but it doesn’t have a detailed description, it’s not used anywhere and it doesn’t seem to have any educational use.

It seems very reasonable that it has been submitted for a deletion discussion. Perhaps it should be discussed on its merits? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It needs to be discussed here in the context of the retaliatiory and harassing behaviour evidenced here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

That has yet to be proven. It doesn’t look like stalking, and you have said some quite inflammatory things on this thread - things I’m sure you are well aware are unacceptable. Perhaps we need to look at your own behaviour? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Fine, if it needs to be discussed here, I will repeat what I said on the DR: "lack of categorization and the really bad description and file name" aren't sufficient reasons for deletion, but they certainly aren't merits. Why is an experienced user uploading a low-quality photo with a near-meaningless filename, no useful description, and no categories? And (the rest of this is outside what you said on the DR) why would you think someone who routinely looks at files without categories would have to be "stalking" you to run across it? And, even if they were stalking you (which I doubt), why the attachment to keeping such a low-quality file? (And if you really think it's worth keeping, wh more than half a year after you uploaded it does it still have a meaningless name and description, and no categories?) - Jmabel ! talk 07:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

On top of this, could Andy please explain why he said he had never had any interactions Jay when it seems pretty clear he has? And can Andy please explain why it is acceptable to use inflammatory language like calling him a “WikiCop”? That seems to verge on harassment. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I did not say "it needs to be discussed here", I said "It needs to be discussed here in the context of the retaliatory and harassing behaviour evidenced here". I also said in my OP "I'm not averse to having my images reviewed, nor even deleted if I have erred ... but I do not take kindly to retaliatory actions of this nature, and nor should the wider community tolerate them"

What I said was "AFAICT, we had never previously interacted." Other than one reply to my post on en:WP:LAB/PHOTO, to which I did not respond, what other interactions are "pretty clear"?

I have never used "inflammatory language like calling him a 'WikiCop'?", and I invite a retraction of that false allegation.

Perhaps you have missed that I have provided evidence of JayCubby nominating my files for deletion less than half an hour after I nominated two of his copyvios; and that User:AntiCompositeNumber has provided evidence of a similar retaliatory nomination? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

“For someone who's appointed themselves as the WikiPolice, you need to work on your accuracy and targeting.” Are you forgetting what you wrote, Andy? You also called him disingenuous. None of that is likely to invite rational and calm discussion.

I think you need to take a step back and calm down a little. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I am not forgetting what I wrote.

I am perfectly calm.

I look forward to your apology and retraction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologise for. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of me doing so, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It appears I was mistaken. I fully retract what I've said and I apologise to you. I was looking at the other Andy. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Chris may have been talking about the other Andy JayCubby (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• "That seems to verge on harassment" Indeed. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you, too, have missed that I have provided evidence of JayCubby nominating my files for deletion less than half an hour after I nominated two of his copyvios; and that User:AntiCompositeNumber has provided evidence of a similar retaliatory nomination?

Which "inflammatory things" do you accuse me of? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

You called him disingenuous, and you called him part of the WikiPolice. You don’t even seem to be aware of the inflammatory language you use, Andy. Please stop. - 14:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC) Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I again: I did not.

I look forward to your apology and retraction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

You wrote "JayCubby is being disingenuous" and you also wrote "For someone who's appointed themselves as the WikiPolice, you need to work on your accuracy and targeting."

I have nothing to apologise for and there is nothing to retract. You certainly don't seem calm as you are clearly upset that you believe you are being stalked. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

There are two Andy's in this discussion. I have just realised my mistake. In that case, I fully apologise for my comments and fully retract my statements. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Before (5312382842).jpg Jaybubby says "I don't want to come across as harassing you, as I am not." On the same page, they indicate an intention to continue nominating images I have uploaded for deletion. I view their behaviour as harassing.

In the light of the problematic behaviour that both I and User:AntiCompositeNumber have evidenced, I would like some form of restriction (voluntary or imposed) on JayCubby from interacting with me and in particular from nominating my uploads for deletion.

As I said in my original post here, "I'm not averse to having my images reviewed, nor even deleted if I have erred ... but I do not take kindly to retaliatory actions of this nature, and nor should the wider community tolerate them."

There are literally thousands of other Commons volunteers who are able and welcome to review my uploads. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that they have not necessarily nominated most of your uploads incorrectly, I don't see why they should be restricted. There aren't thousands of Commons volunteers, it's significantly less and not all contributors are going to want to review images. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked JayCubby for 3 days. Because stalking users is really shit (I myself am being stalked by 1989 and Christian Ferrer, so I know very well what it is about). Additionally, some of the nominated uploads are quite obviously de minimis and should not have been nominated. Some uploads, however, are really low quality, uploading which is rather a disappointing behaviour for a presumably skilled user like Andy Mabbett. --A.Savin 17:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I protest this block! This is completely unacceptable - it has not in any way been determined that Jay was stalking anyone, and this is a terrible judgement given several of us disagreed with the assertions being made. - I would appreciate another admin reviewing this decision.

With all due respect to A.Savin, but I am beginning to see why folks think the admin bit is not for him. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

M0200705

• M0200705 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Recreates File:Rajkanwar Singh Sandhu.jpg a second time despite having been warned with {{Dont recreate}} after the first recreation. Jonteemil (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This is not the same image. Yann (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Chris.sherlock2

I have never had any interaction here on Commons that that I can recall with this person, they are importing an old dispute, in which I acted as an admin and arbitrator on en.wp, on my talk page here, and when I made it clear I didn't want to do that, they resorted to a personal attack, specifically: "You are a massive jerk." I'm barely even active right now, I don't log in because I want to be subject to abuse from someone with an axe to grind that has nothing to do with Commons. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: Please stop importing drama.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Jeff G, I apologise and I will stop interacting with this person. FWIW, they had been commenting about me extensively on Wikipediocracy and recently announced their retirement from Wikipedia, which is why I left them a message - which was probably ill advised given their conduct towards me. I will say that it might be instructive to review their own imported drama with the message on their user page where they seem to be upset about alleged “gatekeepers” on Commons, however I will refrain from interacting with them forthwith.

I hope this explanation, apology and commitment will be sufficient to put this to bed. I remain committed to keeping the peace on commons, and hope to be a productive and helpful member of the community. In particular I hope to continue to have the ability to continue my extensive documentation of South West Sydney. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

"they had been commenting about me extensively on Wikipediocracy ". The last post with your name in it was just over a year ago, and mentioned you only in passing, the next most recent post with your name in it was nearly two years ago in a thread about you that you yourself commented on, two years after my last comment in that same thread.

So maybe don't act like this is an ongoing thing right now that somehow justifies your harassment of me here.

" I will say that it might be instructive to review their own imported drama with the message on their user page where they seem to be upset about alleged “gatekeepers” on Commons" is also nonsense, as those comments are clearly about an issue here, on Commons, that you obviously only noticed aftet you decided to start posting negative comments to my talk page. This is clearly an extremely weak attempt to paint a negative picture of me, so I consider this comment a continuation of your harassment of me.

Your explanation is full of half truths and illogical statements, but hopefully the commitment to stop harassing me is real. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I wish you well and apologise for calling you a jerk. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

User:1989

The user edited the first time since several month only to nominate the user page of User:A.Savin for deletion. The new user page might not have been the best idea of A.Savin, but the deletion request is definitely meant as an attack. If 1989 is only here for such things and not for productive work I think we should block him. At least we should implement an interaction ban between these two users. GPSLeo (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The user page of A.Savin is not terribly egregious and just expresses their opinion. It doesn’t name anyone, and it is a protest against what they perceive to be a wrong committed against them. It’s not hurting anyone and we should be confident enough in letting mild criticism on user pages.

As such, the deletion request should be closed immediately and 1989 should be blocked for some extensive period of time. That’s my recommendation, anyway. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know whether you guys understand Russian but I think the image used on the page might be problematic because it's using an insult. The depicted poster in the image says: "Суки, вы за все ответите!" Google translation: "Bitches, you will answer for everything!" (I'm using Google Translate just for the ease of it and so that others can easily verify the translation; as a Russian-speaker I confirm that the machine translation is correct in this case or at least close enough to the original statement.) The problematic word is the plural form of сука. Nakonana (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Disagreed with GPSLeo about a block for now, as well pointed by GPSLeo, 1989 had no interactions since some times with A.Savin, but only had one after A.Savin edits on his user page, this looks as a kind of provocation to me, and at least the wrongs are shared. A.Savin suggested "I wish to be left alone by 1989", I suggest A.Savin sets an example and avoids provocations. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  So why would you think it appropriate for 1989 to submit the user page of someone he is conflict with for deletion? By all means, they could take it here, but to propose it for selection is extreme provocation. Why are we being overly critical of the recipient of the provocation? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Although the case is currently suspended in Meta, I reported this case in the talk page of that case, I suggest avoiding any hasty action against 1989. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict) I have not violated any policy reporting a user page that I feel is an attack page against me. Whether named directly or not, it is no excuse to be called a coward or a bitch, especially if they are directly linking to that concerned page itself. If you, GPSLeo, feel I should be blocked for that, it says a lot about you and your status as an administrator should be called into question. Admins like you is exactly why I do not enjoy editing here anymore, since you’re so concerned about my work. Otherwise, I will defend myself, and I most certainly do not need to be active on here to do it. 1989 (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  You removed the message from your talk page what could be interpreted as an act to show disrespect. The U4C complained that we are not strictly enough enforcing the behavior guidelines. GPSLeo (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  It’s my talk page, and I don’t recall there being a policy that me removing what I want from my talk page is a violation. By the way, disrespect??? You do realize that the admin status is a privilege, not a honor, right? 1989 (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Removing the message is like saying "Warn my however you want, I do not care". New users who do this multiple times are blocked for this. GPSLeo (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Trust me, if I didn’t care, you wouldn’t be hearing from me at all. 1989 (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  You removed the message from your talk page what could be interpreted as an act to show disrespect.

No, per COM:AGF it cannot be intrepreted as such an act. Anyone here has an absolute right to remove such notifications with the interpretation at most being 'I am aware of this'. As an admin you should know this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

User:1989 stellt mir seit Jahren in äußerst aggressiver Form nach. Dieser Löschantrag, verbunden mit Pflege der Pranger-/Beschwerdeseite gegen mich auf Meta und dem Fehlen jeglicher sonstiger Aktivität, ist ein weiterer Beweis dafür, dass es ihm (mittlerweile) um nichts weiteres geht als mich durch dieses permanente Bashing in den Selbstmord zu treiben. Hätte 1989 dieses Verhalten auf Deutscher Wikipedia auf den Tag gelegt, wäre er schon längst infinit rausgeflogen. Wäre er ein User in Deutschland, hätte ich längst Anzeige bei der Staatsanwaltschaft gestellt, da nämlich Nachstellung/Stalking nach Deutschem Strafrecht ein Tatbestand ist (§238 StGB). Die Tatsache, dass er mich unbehelligt seit Jahren verfolgt, quält und krankmacht, ist nur seiner Anonymität (bei gleichzeitiger Nicht-Anonymität von mir) geschuldet, sowie dessen, dass er in Amerika ist. Ich kann ja von Deutschland aus keine Anzeige gegen einen Anonymous in Amerika erstatten, in Amerika unter Trump schon gar nicht. 1989 weiß das alles ganz genau und macht sich das zunutze, um mich aus niedersten Beweggründen und ungestraft krankzumachen. 1989 ist ein Krimineller. Meine Benutzerseite ist mir relativ egal, auch wenn die Aufrufe, sie gleich ganz zu löschen anstatt etwa einfach auf eine ältere Version zurückzusetzen, bei mir auch nichts anderes als nur ungläubiges Kopfschütteln hervorrufen. Das einzige was mir nicht egal ist -- ich möchte nicht mehr gestalkt werden, ich möchte, dass dieses kriminelle Verhalten von 1989 auf irgend eine Weise abgestellt wird. Das Einzige, worauf ich mich stützen kann, wenn mich schon die Polizei nicht vor solchen Leuten schützen kann, ist das UCoC. User 1989 verstößt gegen den Punkt 3.1 des UCoC. Irgendwas muss dagegen getan werden, sonst kann ich nicht mehr auf Wikimedia-Projekten beitragen. --A.Savin 09:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Wokeblueplanet24

• Wokeblueplanet24 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads File:Ann Davison.jpg a third time after warnings. Jonteemil (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Deleted the file again.
• I suspect that this may not be someone so much obstinate as just not getting it. I will try one last time to explain to them, more clearly. If they do this again, a long block would then be in order. - Jmabel ! talk 07:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Jmabel explained the situation to the user. Taivo (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

And then they uploaded another image of Ann Davison with a dubious source, so I will indef-block. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Merging accounts

Hello. I just discovered that I accidentally have two accounts on Commons because my original account was renamed to Sandik~commonswiki. Is there any way to merge them? Thanks in advance! Sandik (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware, but you can redirect the old user page and user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Or I guess in this case, move the old user page and leave a redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 21:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the advice, done! I've archived the old User talk on the new User talk page. Sandik (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Johnp32

User: Johnp32 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reason for reporting: Keeps uploading the same copyvio and removing the deletion templates (see deleted edits). XenonX3 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Deleted and blocked for 2 weeks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

SeattleWikiReader31

SeattleWikiReader31 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I see every reason to believe this is Wokeblueplanet24 evading their block. Only action was another upload of a (different) apparent copyvio image of Seattle politician Ann Davison hours after Wokeblueplanet24 was blocked for uploading such images and ignoring warnings. Can we go straight to an indef-block on a "duck" basis, or do we ask for a CU and let them run until the outcome of that unless they do something more egregious, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 03:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Enough of a duck for me to block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Two sections unprocessed

#ذيبان العراقبه and #Kjw0106 and Alpsmango have not been processed Jonteemil (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I processed them. They were difficult requests, at first I waited for somebody else to react and then forgot. Taivo (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Tembelpanda

Tembelpanda (talk · contribs). Please check/revert. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for spamming; spam edits reverted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hounding by Grand-Duc

• Grand-Duc (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Hello, since this report in the Administrators' noticeboard early in this month, Grand-Duc started to hound my edits in the COM:QIC, declining all my pictures candidates and flagging them as violating Commons guidelines. I think this is a despicable behaviour, because it is clearly some kind of revenge specifically against me, since dozens of pictures with the same "problem" he sees in my pictures are promoted every day (this one being just a random exemple from yesterday), and hundreds of them are for review right now (example) without him caring at all about them. This is preventing me to contribute serenely, so I call the admins for some actions that could stop him. Thank you. --Phyrexian ɸ 00:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Admin actions to stop me? Hilarious. You have all the power needed to stop any thing "preventing [you] to contribute serenely" that by yourself: see Commons:File naming#Descriptive for details on how to use this power. Furthermore, nothing stops you from contributing towards the growth of our repository - but QI seals are only accolades for which a bit more than run-of-the-mill contributions can reasonably be expected. Please refer to Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements. There, it is written: "Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices", so that any candidate has to be compliant with guidelines, that's a bit of a stronger wording than the standard disclaimer with "It illustrates standards or behaviors which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow" on every guideline page. Even stronger yet is the second requirement: "Quality images shall have a meaningful file name,[...]" - a shall rule is only a bit short of an actual must, if not outright equal, see en:Shall and will#Legal and technical use and also en:Shall issue.

Objectively, your naming scheme is failing the naming guideline, as far as I can tell and as you were told in the report you linked. You cannot comply if another Wikimedian take objection to some QIC of you and decline a promotion on those grounds. Also, I think that you went on the side of an illegitimate personal attack by calling some soundly reasoned QIC declinings hounding.

About your examples: I moved the first, as you were right in that the name was not really guideline compliant. I reviewed your second example after you made me aware of it, and yes, it has also a naming issue (and is not of the quality I expect from QI). I'm not often anymore on the QIC pages, so you cannot blame me from not parsing all of the candidates. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear - can you provide an example of an image he has hounded you over? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment On COM:QIC#Consensual review, there are several opposing reviews by Grand-Duc of images by Phyrexian, claiming an "unsuitable generic filename". This is clearly -- WRONG. I didn't look at the images in full-size view to assess their technical quality, but at least the filenames such as "Napoli_-_Gesù_delle_Monache_3288.jpg" are definitely okay, neither meaningless nor misleading. Grand-Duc, please stop that nonsense. --A.Savin 07:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: you accuse me of personal attack after you indulge is sarcasm and dismiss my comment as "hilarious". Ok. I see you have not any will to collaborate in the scope of this Project and just want to make your point here. Which is not even about the filenames, as you completely ignore the other many pictures with similar or even more generic names, but a personal vengeance against me. What you call "objectively" is just your personal opinion, as multiple people already told you, you should deal with it and move on without harassing other users.

@Chris.sherlock2: All my current submissions to COM:QIC has a negative comment by Grand-Duc, not actually reviewing the pictures, but just pretending they have unsuitable file names. I repeat: the 100% of my submissions are being discarded by Grand-Duc, who have done no other contributions to the page, so 100% of his contributions there is just rejecting my pictures for this specific reason. That's hounding. --Phyrexian ɸ 12:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Phyrexian: Without going into any other aspect of this, I notice you often upload specific works of art and just name them by the museum they were in, and a number. That may be permissible, but it is certainly not optimal. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Two things. First, I disagree with the opinions that filenames that say nothing about what is depicted and instead include only the large place in which it was photographed are acceptable. There's an argument that FNC 2.4 applies, and if not FNC 2.7 applies: Contains a coherent description or message that do not describe the subject of the file. However, when you open a noticeboard thread and have multiple people telling you you're wrong, it's not acceptable to proceed with the same behavior. I'd like to see Grand-Duc leave Phyrexian's images alone, but for Phyrexian to add some language about what is depicted to filenames moving forward. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Off topic. I give some explanation to whom says that some of my files have a not optimal name. I do agree that a very specific name would be the best. We could seek the best of the best and just allow very long and specific filenames in the language most people would understand without taking too much space in the name line, and end up in having all files on Commons having Mandarin Chinese names. I'm joking of course, but is clear that we should find a balance between an optimal solution and a useless file name. I also think we can agree that different people have a different sensibility, and thus will find a different solution for this balance. I think this is perfectly fine in a collaborative project.

There is a reason why I upload my own images with a simple filename: they are a lot (right now roughly 15 thousands own produced photographs and counting). They come from huge private archives, so when I search pictures to upload that could be useful for Commons I surf tens of thousands of pictures, and before uploading I process one by one almost all of them. Is a lot of work and a work I'm the only one who could do, being those my personal photographs. I could much more easily do as most of the people do here: just upload hundreds of pictures in batches, with meaningless filenames, useless descriptions and wrong categorization. But no, I try to make my work here useful, and find an optimal solution, giving them a file name that IMHO is above Commons standards, the best categorization I can do (often creating entires category trees and sorting other files) and a multilingual description with links to Wikipedia, allowing bots to automatically improve the file structured datas.

Also, I think everybody here knows that the file name is not the main way to find a file on Commons, being it a volunteer project that allows the use of any language in the world. We find pictures in this project browsing categories, searching structured data, and so on. Therefore, alongside with decades experience of Commons customs, I think my file names are quite good, as I said above Commons standards, but for sure good enough according our guidelines and enough to allow people to find them and understand exactly what's the subject. So why I do not choose even better names? Because of two reasons. The first being time: I would spend more time figuring out longer names, and as a volunteer on this project I prefer to focus my work on what I think is more useful, so I prefer to upload more pictures, to ad better descriptions and better categorizations instead of searching 100 different name of 100 different objects in the same building, that maybe have no descriptions on them and I have no idea what they are. Second, and more important, I need pictures from same batches to have similar names, or I could not easily figure out which of my files I already uploaded. This is the most important thing. My personal categories, that are already a lot, grows too much populated, and I need a way to not waste my time searching for my own uploads, and everybody's time uploading the same picture multiple times with different very specific names.

I hope is clear now why I choose descriptive names for my pictures that are just slightly general (and for sure are not subject to COM:FNCFNC 2.4 and neither 2.7). If my contribution here is not acceptable I can stop it any moment, I'm here to help, not to create problems. What I'm not doing is to make even more difficult and time draining the process to search, edit and upload my shots on Commons. I think the project could survive without my pictures, even if thousands of them are in use in over one hundred of wiki projects, according to GLAMorous tool.

Coming back in topic, my file names, good or bad thy be, were not the object of discussion here. The behaviour of Grand-Duc is, so I'd like to know if I'll be free to keep my contribution here without being molested by him seeking my QIC pictures or my edits anywhere else just because we have a different opinion. Thank you. --Phyrexian ɸ 19:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

A filename is not just about finding a file on Commons. It is also about having it be clear what the file is in contexts where it is used. And, yes, files named in Chinese probably get under-used outside of the Chinese (and certain other East Asian) wikipedias, but that is entirely off topic.

There are files where filenames about just the building are fine. Pictures of known works of art are not those. We would not want a picture of La Gioconda / the Mona Lisa to be titled "Louvres 984735". - Jmabel ! talk 06:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

It is stranger and stranger for me to see this discussion instead of discussion about Grand-Duc. If his actions worth just words 'hey, you should not do this', such filenames should not gain more emotions and discussions. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 07:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

And he is still deaf to this 'don't do it' from many people. "single remaining way", aha. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 08:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Phyrexian, you wrote "I do agree that a very specific name would be the best. We could seek the best of the best and just allow very long and specific filenames in the language most people would understand without taking too much space in the name line, and end up in having all files on Commons having Mandarin Chinese names. I'm joking of course, but is clear that we should find a balance between an optimal solution and a useless file name." Most of that is demonstrably false. Even though you were joking, assuming that Mandarin is the most spoken language is wrong. That is still English with over 1,5 billion speakers worldwide who can use English as maternal or learned tongue. And I think that the balance is NOT where you're placing your filenames, they are, as several other contributors concur, too broad.

Let's decline that with two examples; first one of those images where I opposed your QI nomination, File:Roma_-_San_Luigi_dei_Francesi_8250.jpg. The filename and the descriptions say that this is a photograph of the church San Luigi dei Francesi. I'll play a bit dumb now: if File:Roma_-_San_Luigi_dei_Francesi_8250.jpg is a picture of a church, where's the door(s) where worshippers can enter? Where are the windows, where is the bell tower? I can't see that on your image, so it's obviously not an image of a church and thus inadequately named! File:Église San Luigi Francesi - Rome (IT62) - 2021-08-28 - 2.jpg is indeed an image of a church and adequately named.

Your photo is a relief of a mythological, fire-spitting creature. Neither the file description nor the filename says whether that's indoors or outdoors or on which building side (which cardinal side) it's visible. The precision of it being a depiction of relief and maybe the subject (category says "salamander") would be IMHO the bare minimum for a guideline-compliant filename. The result could be something like "File:Roma - San Luigi dei Francesi Salamander relief outdoors 8250.jpg" (or indoors if applicable or west/east-northern/south side).

Second example: File:Berlin - Museum für Naturkunde 6942.jpg. You cannot claim that conjoined canine twin fetuses are a depiction of a museum, that's simply stupid. A good name could be "File:Berlin Museum für Naturkunde - Siamesische Hundeföten Alkoholpräparat 6942.jpg", because the fetuses are the main motif. On that case, you actively opposed a rename (Special:Diff/1052481749) despite your primary choice is clearly going against the guideline COM:FN.

You're IMHO also wrong in saying "Also, I think everybody here knows that the file name is not the main way to find a file on Commons, being it a volunteer project that allows the use of any language in the world. We find pictures in this project browsing categories, searching structured data, and so on." I could not possibly say it any better than JMabel above with "A filename is not just about finding a file on Commons. It is also about having it be clear what the file is in contexts where it is used.". Imagine some editor preparing longs article texts offline or compiling some bullet lists with images. These people should have their usages facilitated (with "speaking filenames") as much as you with "Second, and more important, I need pictures from same batches to have similar names, or I could not easily figure out which of my files I already uploaded." You cannot impose your working patterns on others; do that organising of yours separate from the main file space, maybe offline (with folders on your hard discs, metadata in EXIF / IPTC or subpages with galleries in your user space)! When you use galleries in your username space here, you won't even be bothered by file renames, as the links get updated by a bot. Furthermore, the Commons software is searching for duplicates based upon hash values, so "[wasting] everybody's time uploading the same picture multiple times with different very specific names." is moot point. It's technically hindered to do this.

Back to the last point: "[...]my file names, good or bad thy be, were not the object of discussion here. The behaviour of Grand-Duc is,[...]" Well, the file names are the reason why we met again here, so they are very well a subject to be discussed here. As told in previously, I made a compromise and left your uploads alone. But now, you're even pushing for a likely infringement of the Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements?! Why should I get even more compliant and not point out your bad naming choices? As I said before, QIC is more or less an "addon" to Commons' work and nothing you're entitled to. If you're participating, you have to abide to some more stringent rules, as put forth in Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements and its shall rule.

All that said, I won't dare to disparage your work in providing media, categories etc.! I know how time-consuming and ungrateful the curating work is. But I think that you should also be ready for compromises, like accepting renames towards more precise strings - if we could agree to that, and I happened to do some moves, I would leave your index numbers intact, as they are, according to your explanations, apparently of importance for you. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Phyrexian, Thank you for donating your photos to Commons. I can understand why you need the generic filenames in your archives, but you can change the name of the file when you upload them to Commons, and I recommend you do so before uploading files in the future. If you really need the original filename, put it in the EXIF. As to the policy compliance: Grand-Duc is technically correct in his interpretation of the QIC naming guidelines, and even if it wasn't required, I would strongly recommend you take the 20-30 seconds to accurately name files based on what they depict when you upload the file, as it makes the files very useful for people who don't know how to use the category system. The hounding allegations regarding Grand-Duc are valid, and this could have been resolved with rename requests and a note on Phyrexian's talk page regarding file naming. I don't see any sanctions needed against Grand-Duc other than a warning to stay civil in ANU reports and not mock users who spend less time filing ANU reports than you. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 03:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: «the file names are the reason why we met again here». No, we met here because you chose to hound specifically my QI candidates, despite you being inactive on that page and ignoring others' many files with similar names, blatantly violating COM:POINT. That's unacceptable and that's why we are here. And I'm honestly tired of being accused of policies violations, but since this should be a collaborative project I do my best to give explanations if requested. I'm glad to see everybody deemed your actions abusive and I'm confident you'll stop following me on Commons. That for me would be enough and I'm not calling for any further action.

Apart from this (off topic again), I see my previous explanation was maybe not clear enough, so I'll try to add some clarifications. I've been contributing on Commons since quite some years, so I know the policies, and I'm not violating them. If my work was disruptive I would have been told some thousands own pictures uploads before you stumble on them, I guess. I also do not violate Quality Image policies, or I would not have several hundreds of pictures with the same filename template promoted without anybody ever complain about it (not to mention the many thousands more QI pictures form other users with similar names being promoted constantly). So once again it appears to me that the only problem is you not accepting different opinions. For example the opinion of other users, very active in QIC, stating the name of my files you chased are fine. It's exactly 100% of others comments, on 100% of those files, so maybe I'm not the one driving against traffic the wrong way. On the other hand sometimes people kindly asked to give some more specific description, and I always do if possible (broad descriptions are just a matter of time), and invite anyone to perfect the details of my photographs, as you would expect in a wiki.

Once again, I understand and agree that very descriptive names are better, it would just make my contribution too much difficult and I would give up. You can look for instance at this upload of mine, done while I was working as a wikimedian in residence in a museum, and see it has a much more specific name. That's because is not an own picture, and it will not interfere in my future uploads. But if I would have to seek specific names for every single picture in a batch of, say, 600 pics from a same place (and that would not take just a bounch of seconds per picture), in 1 year I would never remember every single name and would cost me too much time and effort to understand if I already uploaded some specific image. Moreover I do not always knows exactly the proper name of everything I'm shooting. I'm not a botanist, not a zoologist, not an historian about south east Asia or Viking artwork and so on, I don't know the author of every single piece of decoration in every single church in the world... So if I shot a detail of a church, and I put the filename with tha specific church name in the specific location, I'm giving quite a good name according to Commons guidelines. Could be a little better (most of the time on Commons would be worst), but this would disrupt my ability to find it again easily and keep contributing to the topic. Honestly, if a name like "This specific church" confuses you because you do not see a bell tower or a door in the picture, the problem yet again is not in the file name. If the subject is not clear after checking description, categories or metadata, on the other hand, is something me or others can work about.

And there is nothing moot in my point. The software recognize if you try to upload exactly the same picture, but as I said I proces almost every single shot, so if I process the same image twice it would be different and I'll get no warning, apart of wasting my time working on my pics multiple times just for nothing. That's why I need to know in advance if I already uploaded them. To find my pics I combine their camera number, their names and their categorization in my personal categories. Giving them very specific names would disrupt my ability to search them, as I should have to browse in the miniatures of categories with hundreds and sometimes thousands of elements. So I hope is clear now, I need the file names to be precise, according to the guidelines, but to be a little general to allow me finding my personal uploads through time. Of course the many hundred thousands pictures in my personal archives have not specific names, I name them for Commons, is not an "author" thing that I'm too proud to change or I'm jealous about, is a "Commons user" thing that I need to work here.

One very last thing, really really off topic, about the "context where a file is used". What? Really? Files on Commons are free. There is no context, everybody is free to use them in the context they want, we have no clue about any context, and who use them can change the name at his convenience. The name is just a technical requirement of our software. I hope I misunderstand this point, because I would not like to see users thinking that images with names like this one should be renamed, just because "the context" of "everybody speak English and nobody speak Georgian" requires it. Commons is a collaborative project, not a militarily regimented unpaid job. --Phyrexian ɸ 12:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The standard for QI is higher than "non-disruptive."

If I run "გრემი - გრემის კომპლექსი" through Google Translate I get "Remi - Grammy Complex" (Google apparently tripped over "Gremi"), neither a great nor awful file name. I'll guess that most people dealing with material about a castle in Georgia read at least some Georgian. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

عراق بغداد

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

Continues to upload copyvios after final warning. Especially File:الشاعر التركماني الخالد فلك اوغلو.jpg is recreated time after time when deleted. All uploads should be gone through. Jonteemil (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a month and deleted all his/her uploads as likely copyvios. Taivo (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo Iraq-telafer has recreated all the files. Clear sockpuppet. Jonteemil (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Ben plc

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

After being told to stop after blanking a deletion request regarding images he uploaded, twice, he went ahead to edit my talk page to add two insults in an apparent personal attack. Jurta (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. No protest from me if someone thinks that's too lenient. GMG^talk 16:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)