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)

• 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)

User:Spectra321578

• Spectra321578 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Spectre321578 continues to upload files with questionable licensing and claims of "own work" despite the fact that many of their prior uploads have been deleted for such reasons. Moreover, their responses to their files being tagged or nominated for deletion seem to indicate a misunderstanding as to how Commons works, particularly important things like COM:Own work, COM:NETCOPYVIO, COM:PERSONAL and COM:L. While their intentions might be good, they might simply lack the competence to properly contribute to Commons, at least not without some sort of formal oversight. Comments like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this made over the past few months don't indicate any type of reflection on Spectra321578's part that they might be doing something wrong or might be learning from their previous mistakes; rather, they indicate a bit of hostility towards others and a tendency to blame others for their mistakes. On English Wikipedia, administrators have the ability to restrict an account's ability to upload files instead of simply blocking the account from all editing. I'm not sure if that's possible here on Commons, but it might be a reasonable alternative if it is. Perhaps there's a way to require Spectra321578 submit files for review by a license reviewer or an administrator before they can be uploaded. As it is, Spectra321578 seems to mistakenly think that being able to upload a file means it's automatically "approved" by Commons and doesn't seem to understand the COM:ONUS falls upon them to make sure whatever they want to upload is in accordance with Commons policies and guidelines. Making mistakes is understandable and mostly considered OK once or twice; making the same mistakes over and over again, however, isn't and instead is generally an indication that some kind of response from the Commons community is likely needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This user certainly deserves a block. I wonder if a short one is enough or not. Meanwhile I sent a strong warning, and tag some more files. Yann (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest a short block first to make an attempt at altering the users behavior, if that fails; escalation would be appropriate. Sev6nWiki (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I should sign a contract with you if you really want to block me, first you blocked me in ru Wiki and now here, that's enough already Spectra321578 (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Spectra321578: Why do you falsely claim "own work"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I just uploaded it and didn't think about it right away, please don't delete the work. Spectra321578 (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

If a file is in violation, we must delete it. Sev6nWiki (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, please leave at least some of them. Spectra321578 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Spectra321578 The time to think about whether a file is your own work or not, whether it would be licensed correctly, and whether it complies with our other policies and procedures, is before you upload it, not after. After would be too late, and could subject us to legal difficulties.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Spectra321578. Whatever happend on Russian Wikipedia is unrelated to what's being discussed above. Commons and Russian Wikipedia are separate projects with their own respecive policies and guidelines. If you were blocked on Russian Wikipedia for some reason, you will need to resolve that on Russian Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, you repeating behaviors that resulted in you getting blocked on Russian Wikipedia here on Commons, then that does become a Commons problem. As I pointed out above, the main issue with your uploads here on Commons has to do with COM:Own work, COM:NETCOPYVIO and COM:L. Have you read what's written on those pages because they've been pointed out to you before? If you sometimes have difficultly understanding English, those pages also have some non-English language versions. If you still don't understand what the issues are even after reading a non-English language version, you could always ask for help at COM:HD (you can even ask questions in languages other than English), or you can try seeking assistance from an administrator who speaks Russian or whichever language you understand best (see Commons:List of administrators by language). The mistakes you're making are fairly common. Making such mistakes once or maybe even twice is generally not a big deal; however, making the same mistakes over and over again, especially after be advised about them, isn't a good thing at all. Commons expects you to learn from your mistakes and understand why the community considers them to be mistakes, but you've shown no indication of being able to do this at all so far. This is why you've ended up being discussed here at AN/U, and this is the issue you need to address. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

With the block, this would appear to be  Done. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree that this probably can be closed, especially since the Spectra321578 has now been globally and indefinitely blocked for various reasons in addition to the uploading of files with questionable licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Sev6nWiki (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Minoo

• User: Minoo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after warning. Made a malformed deletion request: not including year, month, or day; not creating the subpage; and not transcluding. Considers warnings and notifications to be spam per Special:Diff/1057275899 and Special:Diff/1057283975.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it seems like they don't understand the situation and dismiss contact attempts as "spam" on their talk page.^[1][2] Would it be possible to have a German-speaking administrator explain the situation? Sev6nWiki (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC) Sev6nWiki (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone taking this on? - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Last deleted file was in April 2025. I won't block someone for a "malformed deletion request". Yann (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Well then let's just call it  Not done. - Jmabel ! talk 06:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Indiscriminate imports from en-wiki

I blocked User:Huyền Trang 1997 on en-wiki yesterday because they mass-exported hundreds of images to Commons – sometimes several within one minute – many of which lack a source or proper licensing data. That behavior has now continued here via the import feature. See their contributions here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

And now this editor is mass-removing old Flickr reviews from images. See, e.g., Special:Diff/1058681166, Special:Diff/1058676565, and Special:Diff/1058676909. All of those edits have since been reverted. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I see that User:Ziv, who is an admin, warned them on that and said, " Further editing of this kind could lead to a block." For the record: I would have blocked then and there, but I'm not overruling another admin. If anything at all of this sort happens further, please feel more then free to ping me. - Jmabel ! talk 03:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts, i reverted them all. @Jmabel, feel free to if you want. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to block them for an particular act after they were warned for that same act. But User:Huyền Trang 1997, if you are reading this, know that you are on the brink of being blocked if you continue this way. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Araz Yaquboglu

• User: Araz Yaquboglu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Ələmdar və Abbas 2025.06.21.jpg after final warning and 2 blocks for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I uploaded a photo I took myself. What's the problem here? Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I took the photo with my phone on June 21 and uploaded it to Commons on June 22. The photo also has metadata. On June 27, I sent the same work to one of the people in the photo. He shared the same file on his Instagram page. You cited the reason for that link and deleted it. Please restore the photo and close this discussion. This photo is my own work. Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Araz Yaquboglu: the photo is also at https://www.instagram.com/p/DLaooLwMADn/, differently attributed. Can you explain? - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: What do you mean by differently attributed? I don't see any attribution at all in the IG post. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Presumably an IG post is photographed by the holder of the account. When you post to IG you are granting Meta a license that you cannot readily grant for other people's work.

In any case, if we consider that unattributed, the issue is the same. If that is Araz Yaquboglu's own IG account, then the two accounts can be cross-linked. Otherwise, VRT is required. I'm not convinced yet that Araz Yaquboglu either is or isn't the photographer. Shouldn't have re-uploaded after deletion, but I'm much more interested in getting to the bottom of this than in taking major disciplinary action. Given prior history, this could be an indef-block, and I'd really rather see if this was just a process issue. - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

"Presumably an IG post is photographed by the holder of the account" - I think that is a poor assumption. In fact, because IG/FB do not ask the uploader to affirm that the photo is their own work (and we do), it is much less reliable than assuming that something uploaded to Commons as "own work" is, in fact, by the uploader. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Not a copyvio. I have restored File:Ələmdar və Abbas 2025.06.21.jpg as the EXIF and image quality are consistent with the user's other uploads like File:Sığırlı 2025.07.10.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Jmabel, the instagram photo literally includes Araz Yaguboglu himself in the photo (the 4th one). Toghrul R (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Toghrul R: So how is it his own work?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Jeff G., that is a completely different photo by another author. As can be seen, photo 1, 2 and others were taken with the same camera (phone camera), the quality shows it. And photo 3, 4, 5 and others were taken with a more professional camera, where Araz Yaquboglu is present. The reason for mentioning Araz Yaquboglu's photo was to prove that he was there in person. And his authorship on the file uploaded on Commons is not under question Toghrul R (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

user:Uncle EJ

User is uploading a lot of F10 photos. JayCubby (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby, the user stopped. I am rejecting this request now, but if they starts to upload images which are violates F10 policy, please feel free to ping me. Best. Kadı Message 12:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

DigitalpartnersDK

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

Promo-only account. Jonteemil (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Spammer blocked, files deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

APdodo

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

Reuploads File:Invitación al Conversatorio.png that was already deleted as copyvio after having gotten final warning by Yann. Jonteemil (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil, apreciate your note. APdodo (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@APdodo: please refrain from uploading any files other than your own photos (and not your photos of other people's artwork, either!) until you have a better understanding of copyright.

¿Eres hispanohablante? Unos lugares donde puedes empezar:

• Commons:Licencias
• es:Copyright
• (en inglés, falta traducción): COM:THIRD

Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: I'm inclined not to do anything further at this time, but feel free to keep an eye out and alert me if this doesn't stop now. - Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil thanks for your comments 2806:264:448A:287:C8AB:965B:8ACA:55D5 04:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel The file hasn't been deleted yet. Jonteemil (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Nor have you nominated it for deletion, but I'll go deal with it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Football Fanatic.sr

• Football Fanatic.sr (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Removes deletion templates, see here and also removes deletion notices from their user talk page. Clear vandalism. Jonteemil (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonteemil,  Done Kadı Message 12:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Claro Chile IP user actively making cryptic DRs

There seems to be a Chilean IP user actively filing DRs, usually for implied copyvio or for some sort of incomprehensible reason. They also tend to accuse the admins of things like 'revenge edits towards IPs that disturb you' as seen at Special:Diff/1059152619. Sometimes they file DRs for incomprehensible reasons like 'Il Padrino?' or 'Category:People lighting a pipe? - when questioned they usually reply from a different IP and ignores the question, see Special:Diff/1053418267 and Special:Diff/1059152619.
They all come from different IP addresses that keep changing, but from a bit of WHOIS-ing I can see that they all seem to come from the ISP Claro Chile. applecuckoo (he/him) 03:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked 186.173.128.0/17 and 186.174.0.0/16 for a year; looks like they're been active in those ranges for a while. Let me know if the disruption continues from other IPs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 they've returned from 186.175.108.232, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yann Hervis devant son œuvre.jpg. Seems to be the same snarky behavior, so  It looks like a duck to me. applecuckoo (he/him) 22:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Applecuckoo: Blocked 186.175.0.0/16 and 186.172.0.0/16 for one year, and widened 186.173.0.0/16 to the /16 range. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Fry72

• User: Fry72 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Anatomie oka s glaukom, Slezská nemocnice Opava, Opava, okres Opava.jpg after final warning for doing so, and malforming DRs.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

That was in May 2025. Was there any copyright violation after that? Yann (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yann: In a word, yes. Looking at the four most recently mentioned filenames on the user's talk page: File:Informační panel, Cedynia, gmina Cedynia, okres Gryfino, Západopomořanské vojvodství.jpg, File:Žerotínové, Svět Komenského Fulnek, Fulnek, okres Nový Jičín.jpg, File:Večeře Páně, Svět Komenského Fulnek, Fulnek, okres Nový Jičín.jpg were uploaded without permission on 18 July 2025, File:Sbor Církve bratrské v Ostravě-Porubě, sledování předávání medailí MS v hokeji 2024, Ostrava-Poruba.jpg was uploaded without permission on 2 June 2024, and you deleted the last of those 17:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I checked and validated these files, as they are OK with {{FoP-Czech Republic}}. I don't see any other violation after May. Yann (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Adding personal documents

Toni910et (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Their contribution consists of course certificates, ID cards, visting cards, marksheets etc which should not be here. Kindly look into this and remove them all if they violate Commons policy. Thank you. Agent 007 (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done User warned, all files deleted. @Agent VII: This is the right board for next time. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Vardito

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

Reuploads File:Photo 5449484810910299037 y.jpg a second time as File:Nare Gevorgyan portrait 2024.jpg (the previous time it was as File:Նարե Գևորգյան.jpg) and was warned with {{Dont recreate}} after the first occation. Jonteemil (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Yann warned the user against re-upload of deleted files – (s)he had no such warning before. All uploads are now deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Rendy.98

• Rendy.98 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Clear sock of Kodamkasuari. Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp	File	Uploader	Deleted file	Uploader
Jul 16 2025 07:52 AM	File:Pangdam18ksrACC.jpg	Rendy.98 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 2 edits)	File:Pangdam 18 Kasuari 2025.jpg (Und | Log)	Kodam18ksr (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 16 2025 07:52 AM	File:Pangdam18ksrACC.jpg	Rendy.98 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 2 edits)	File:Mayjen TNI Jimmy Ramoz Manalu foto terbaru.jpg (Und | Log)	Kodamkasuari (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 16 2025 07:52 AM	File:Pangdam18ksrACC.jpg	Rendy.98 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 2 edits)	File:Mayjen TNI Jimmy Ramoz Manalu ACC terbaru.jpg (Und | Log)	Kodam18kasuari (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jul 16 2025 07:52 AM	File:Pangdam18ksrACC.jpg	Rendy.98 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 2 edits)	File:ACSA Pangdam Kasuari terbaru 2025.jpg (Und | Log)	Pendam18kasuari (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Milwoman1

• Milwoman1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads copyvio, has been tagged with {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

About User:O'micron

Hello,

I came to notice that the uploads from this user O'micron (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user had, in their vast majority (I estimate: more that 75% of them), licensing, sourcing and copyright issues (see their talk page). What is better now? Nuking them all per COM:PRP or parsing them one-by-one? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to clarify that while I have uploaded many files, only a small number of them have encountered licensing or sourcing issues—mainly due to my still-developing familiarity with some of the Wikimedia Commons tools and templates.

For example, my most recent upload is actually free of any copyright concerns, but I simply didn’t manage to add the proper source information at the time of uploading. I’m currently working to correct such omissions as I review my contributions.

A mass deletion of all my uploads would unfortunately affect many files that are correctly licensed and valuable. I believe it would be more appropriate to address any remaining issues on a file-by-file basis, and I’m fully open to cooperating on that.--Omicroñ'R^Talk 10:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

About: "For example, my most recent upload is actually free of any copyright concerns, but I simply didn’t manage to add the proper source information at the time of uploading."... Well, the deletion log of this "most recent upload" of yours, File:Caucasian leopard in Ararat region, Armenia.png tells: "Copyright violation: Copyright holder of the original camera trap photo is Foundation for the Preservation of Wildlife and Cultural Assets https://www.asbarez.com/armenias-caucasus-wildlife-refuge-camera-traps-capture-footage-of-new-leopard/". The actual question would be: does or does Armenia not grant copyrights for automated operating imagery apparatuses?

You have to make a difference between sources (important especially for collages) and licenses (important every time: COM:Licensing). You're not allowed to, simply because you're saying "image XY is coming from source A", upload this image XY here. The licensing, the observance of moral author rights, has to be done in the right way - and yes, this precludes the uploading of a LARGE amount of data.

Going on, ripping illustrations from a book like you did for File:Artavasdes I-coin.jpg is problematic: see COM:Currency, such a depiction of a coin may not be a 2D replication of a work in the public domain, but a genuine photo of a 3D object, with all the licensing requirements this entails.

In my opinion, you should go the long way and familiarize yourself with the copyright guidelines under COM:CSM and COM:CRT.

You apparently do not have sufficient oversight and command over copyright-related subjects to get your uploads trusted at the moment, I, at least, do not. There may be files which are fine among Special:ListFiles/O'micron, but most of them do have "remaining issues", hence my nuking proposal. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

does or does Armenia not grant copyrights for automated operating imagery apparatuses?

I presume you are talking about PD automated Trade (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's the background, but {{PD-automated}} is IMHO something that isn't easy to claim or use, depending on the country of origin (somewhat similar to {{PD-anon-70-EU}} where the prerequisite of "[making] sure the author never claimed authorship." is something realistically unfulfillable). It's at least unsensible to use by someone who doesn't apparently even understand the difference between sourcing and licensing. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The text of PD Automated seems to imply that its valid worldwide eregardless of location. There is no mention of any jurisdictions where it does not fully apply

If my observation is wrong then it needs to be clearly areflected in the text of the template Trade (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Ain't that already the case? See: "[...]it is common property and contains no original authorship under the laws of its country of origin. Most jurisdictions do not have clear legal precedent on the copyright status of such works, see Threshold of originality § Pre-positioned recording devices for more information." and Template:PD-automated/doc. These are clear references to the necessity of being aware and respectful of local laws. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

So in other words the local laws against PD Automated are entirely hypothical, speculative and might not even exist in the first place Trade (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Nope, it's the opposite, IMHO. Per COM:PRP, I'd say that only in the jurisdictions where the laws put a strong emphasis on human authorship and ideally have statutes regulating automated devices (or, by logical expansion, at least AI generation), you're able to use PD-automated. Otherwise, I would recommend to abstain from that claim. But this is now too much off-topic, isn't it? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

PD-automated to me seems like an Amerocentric template that assumes the rest of the world follows our understanding that a human author is necessary for copyright when there are countries in which this is not the case (UK, China). It should be answered if Armenia requires a human author for a copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The US is actually more permissive towards corporate authors than many countries. I don't know of any country that permits non-human authors; the question is about what constitutes authorship.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, many files are at least derivative works: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by O'micron. Yann (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Omicroñ'R: There is also policy COM:EVID, which you keep violating with most of your uploads. Research first, document in an offline text editor, THEN upload.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear all (@Trade, @Grand-Duc, @User:Jeff G., Thank you again for the feedback and concerns.

Thank you again for the feedback and concerns.

I would like to confirm that I have now reviewed and corrected nearly all files that were flagged. Below is a list of files that have been fully updated and now follow Commons licensing and sourcing requirements:

User:Yuliadhi

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

Not urgent, but this account looks like a bad spambot or phishing account: it's randomly requesting users for their email with no context, including myself three times since December (, , , , , ). I tried one time to give them the benefit of the doubt and asked for clarification, with no response (). R Prazeres (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Looks like nothing but asking users for email addresses. I suggest blocking. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I reverted and blocked the user indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 16:47, 22 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)

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)

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)

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)

•  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)