Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 119

Category:Commons talk archives#Administrators'%20noticeboard/User%20problems

Baginda 480

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I have modified Baginda 480 (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@Baginda 480: What? How? Certainly not your attention to detail.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
See also User talk:Jeff G.#Hello.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I acknowledge that my initial claim of "Own Work" for this file was incorrect, and I apologize for this mistake. I have now updated the file description as per your feedback. The following changes have been made:
1. I removed the "Own Work" claim entirely.
2. I attributed the original publication to The Straits Times.
3. I provided a direct link to the source of the article on the National Library Board of Singapore's website.
4. I included a licensing rationale based on Singapore's **Copyright Act (Cap. 63)**, specifying that this work is now in the public domain because it was first published before **10 April 1987**, in accordance with the law.
Please let me know if further adjustments are needed. I value your guidance on ensuring compliance with Commons' copyright policies. Baginda 480 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. Considering large number of copyvios yesterday I decided to block Baginda for half of year (fourth block). Taivo (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Tissirtout

Tissirtout (talk · contribs) is the new identity of the banned user Simotissir (talk · contribs). He's uploading the same kind of useless crap again. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Simotissir. Edelseider (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Last file deleted. Yann (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Yann: thank you. Please have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tabonmohamed. It's clear now that this is again the same person. The names of the files are a giveaway. Edelseider (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Musichistory2009

Musichistory2009 is trying to implement this consensus by recreating from scratch categories for Romanian communes with the new name (and leaving them empty, so far) instead of following procedure and moving them from the former category names (Commons:Rename a category#Rename process). This is creating a lot of nonsensical issues, as, among others, "village categories" having no "village content" at all, since they are incorrectly equating the content of the categories of communes (wider) with the content of the categories of the homonymous villages (narrower), aside of creating dozens of empty categories and messing with the history of categories. They have been told the proper way to do this (User talk:Musichistory2009#Category renaming), but they keep insisting. Strakhov (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Your message is full of exaggerations and inaccuracies to the point that I'm beginning to doubt your good will. First of all, I'm leaving the new communes categories empty just for a short period of time, before I begin to populate them with the proper content (maps and coat of arms files, then the village categories which are administered by that commune). The old category (which was commune+village altogheter and was linked to the commune Wikidata) becomes the village category and will be linked properly with the village Wikidata. It looks nonsensical because you don't have the patience to wait until I finish the whole county. Take for example Communes/Villages in Botoșani County, which were made entirely by me and now are the best structured county localities categories. The history of all the old categories which have content is kept. The empty categories are deleted, obviously with their history. The new categories do not have history yet, obviously. By renaming the village category into the commune category, the only thing that you get is keeping the history to the commune and not the village, which is something quite minor. If you really want to help, you would try to understand the structure, which content is must have and then maybe you'll let me work in peace. The nonsensical issues are created by you by interfering with someone's else work in progress invoking some "holy procedure" (which I know, by the way). Musichistory2009 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I just want to underline: prior relevant discussion at User talk:Musichistory2009#Category renaming, referenced by Strakhov. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Musichistory2009: is there any particular reason not to start with a smaller number of these and carry them through to completion, rather than do preparatory work on such a broad collection of categories? - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Good question! Yes, there is one important reason: when I do a whole county with all the localities in it, I can keep track of the smoothing of the broad collection. If I do 2-3 communes, then other 2-3... the uniformization would be poorer. Musichistory2009 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Emerson Júnior GSF

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

Systematic violation of copyright and license laundering, falsely claiming freedom of panorama in a nonsensical and blatantly bad-faith manner. I stumbled upon this case by chance through this image, uploaded from the uploader's Flickr account. The description is almost comical: "Photo under Freedom of Panorama and edited by the uploader". The author, evidently, is not them. There are currently 211 images uploaded by the account from their Flickr, although some appear to be self-authored. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Silar

I recently encountered Silar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  when they made an edit without a summary to an image I uploaded removing two of the categories. I reverted them as I considered the categories valid, asking them to explain their rationale. They removed the categories again, providing no edit summary again. At that point I stopped editing the file page and instead left a note on their talk page asking again for an explanation. They did not reply, so after waiting more than a week, I reinstated the categories. You can guess what happened next.

I find this lack of communication unacceptable from an editor with more than 100,000 edits. And while I don't have time to dig into the rest of their contribution history, at a cursory glance I see several indications that this may not be an isolated incident. Sdkb talk 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Silar was blocked three times for edit warring and once for vandalism. The user page is also unusual, presenting various screenshots from Commons, including File:Macuser . Next may be indef. Yann.jpg. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
They have continued editing yesterday and today without coming here. Some (non-punitive) enforcement seems needed to get them to come to the table and start communicating. Sdkb talk 17:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I just pushed the button for six-months. I hardly think they'd respond. They have been blocked for similar issues in the past by 3 admins. If @Yann or other admins feel, they need an indef? I won't disagree but let's see if they get to take a look at their talk-page. Regards, Aafi (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Bedivere

Wrong forum. While there can be reasonable disagreement on whether the DR close was correct, it is at the very least not so obviously wrong as to call into question the judgment of the admin, so this is not an issue that AN/U can resolve. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

This user/admin has supported license laundering by ignoring the comments made in a deletion discussion about that very thing happening. They've closed a deletion discussion based on license laundering ignoring the fact that multiple users commented that license laundering was likely to happen in this case once Trump assumed office, and refuse to accept that those comments are at least, on their face, potentially valid. They've commented on their talk page that It is obvious to me they (Trump or his team) is the legitimate copyright owner even when the actual copyright holder has (as pointed out in the discussion) said they did not sign copyright over to Trump/his team.

Normally this would be able to be chalked up to a simple error. But this admin closed the deletion discussion 10 whole minutes before Trump was even officially inaugurated, and did so without addressing the concerns. I do not believe it is appropriate for an administrator to so blatantly engage in license laundering - to the point of using their administrative authority (by closing the discussion) to do so. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

EDIT: Adding this - not only has this user/admin shown a blatant disregard for COM:PRP and COM:LAUNDER, but they have now shown complete disregard for work for hire rights, claiming they definitely apply here even though there is no evidence this person is Trump's permanent employee and was likely just a contracted private photographer (as evidenced by the fact they still advertise their private photography services across the internet). Berchanhimez (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Not true, Trump was already inaugurated when the request was closed. Furthermore, the White House page states very clearly "third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". They certainly have a right to publish the official portrait of Trump, which was obviously commissioned by him or his team to serve as such. I can't think how this is license laundering but rather a very clear misunderstanding and wiki lawyering something that does not have to be. I recommended the user to renominate the files for deletion but they proceeded with this incorrect and unfair report. Bedivere (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Them having a right to publish it does not mean they have the right to license it. Please read COM:LAUNDER - it specifically addresses this circumstance where a non-copyright holder (Trump or his White House staff) publishes an image on a website with a purported license. This is not an unfair report - you ignored all the comments about license laundering in the discussion and closed it based on your own personal opinion. That is not an appropriate closure of a deletion request. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The photo was taken by a Trump staff member (chief photographer in his own words) before he took office. As a work for hire for then President-elect, it is pretty clear the now President or whatever LLC or representation he used, holds the rights to that photograph. Furthermore, the purpose of the photograph was to serve as the official portrait. It was obvious it was going to be reproduced on the White House website, which makes a clear exception by saying: "hey, our white house materials are PD but if for some reason we use third party content, unless stated otherwise, is CC BY". I don't see a reason why not to trust the White House they have the needed permissions to make such a release. Furthermore you only make this report and oppose the closure of the deletion request based on assumptions, not current, actual facts. Bedivere (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
That's simply untrue. He didn't contract the copyright over in 2017, there is no reason to assume he did too. The White House having the rights to publish an image does not mean they have the rights to release the copyright. The current, actual facts are:
  • Trump has engaged in license laundering on the White House website before, for the entirety of his first presidency (not just the inaugural photos)
  • The photographer here has told at least one user on Commons (via Twitter, presumably) that they did not release the copyright to Trump or the White House
  • You ignored all the comments in the deletion request and the prior deletion review of the 2017 images that explain why you should find a reason not to trust them.
  • You closed the deletion discussion based on your own personal opinion, rather than evaluating the consensus of users in the discussion.
That is inappropriate behavior, and amounts to you condoning license laundering, which is explicitly prohibited on Commons. An administrator condoning a prohibited behavior through supervoting on a deletion request without even addressing the comments is not appropriate behavior, hence why I brought it here as advised to by the page addressing administrator misconduct. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Hey, @Bedivere, can you add Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump (second presidency) to File:TrumpPortrait.jpg? Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Eh. If the official White House website says it's CC licensed, I think we've done our due diligence on Commons. It's not hard to believe that there was some arrangement whereby the image was to become PD and/or CC BY such that it's covered by the copyright statement on the site, so absent evidence to the contrary (the second-hand comment from Torok that implies a misunderstanding of what public domain means doesn't seem like great evidence, though it may be worth reaching out again), I'd assume it'd be kept. It's not like we're talking about a brand new Flickr account created just to falsely license an image. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: does your comment still hold when the photographer themselves stated they do not want it used for commercial purposes without permission (see: File talk:TrumpPortrait.jpg)? To me, that is more than enough (when combined with the 2017 images being "stolen" by the WH) to invoke the precautionary principle. Regardless, I still disagree that this was an appropriate closure of the discussion - we shouldn't have to rehash the arguments here, the administrator never should've closed the discussion early. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The photographer literally said on Twitter "Should be public domain on the 20th but with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval". Well, the WH released the file under a more liberal license. End of the discussion Bedivere (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
"Should be" is not confirmation that he signed the copyright over to the White House. As can be shown in the deletion discussion from 2017, there's many people who think the President can just "waive" copyright on something with a magic wand. There is no evidence that Mr. Torok didn't assume it would be public domain even if he didn't want it to be public domain. Commons requires a clear and irrevocable release of an image - this is neither of those things. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The photographer never said "they do not want it used for commercial purposes without permission" (as in, their , the photographer's, permission) as you have incorrectly and falsely even, implied. All we have is a clear and conundent release from the White House which you refuse to accept for no good reason. Bedivere (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
What do you call it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval? That's a statement that it cannot be used for commercial purposes without permission, lol. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
That's what the photographer said on Twitter, which I linked for you. "with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval" - the image was released under the more liberal CC BY license by the WH. Stop this nonsense. Bedivere (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
And there is no evidence that they had the right to do so. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
https://x.com/dto_rok/status/1880204839076167863?t=j4J8H9LDzItNspXOvLnfXA&s=19
This should be case closed, right? Buildershed (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
"OK to upload to Wikipedia" is not a clear and irrevocable release under an appropriate license. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding here over the meaning of "commercial purposes." Wikimedia Commons and Creative Commons make a significantly different use of the term "commercial" than applies to the restriction on use of presidential portraits. The "non-commercial" rule about presidential portraits (and other images of the president that count as creations by the federal government) relates more to personality rights than to copyright. It is perfectly OK to use a presidential portrait in a newspaper, in a book for sale, even on a postcard. What is not allowed is anything that implies some sort of endorsement. For example, you cannot use a picture of the president in an ad for an automobile, or a type of cereal, or a fighter plane. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: This was not a presidential portrait taken by a government employee. It was taken by a private photographer before he was even President again, possibly under contract from Mr. Trump, but there is no evidence that the photographer signed his copyright over to Mr. Trump. Work for hire is not universal in the US - if it's a contracted photographer for a one time photo/event, that must be explicitly signed over by the photographer in the contract, and most do not do so. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez: not a point I addressed in the positive or in the negative. I was just clarifying that in the relevant context "commercial" was far more likely to be the sense used for reproducing images of the U.S. president than in the Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons sense of the word. - Jmabel ! talk 21:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
My fault then, I thought you were implicitly identifying this as a "presidential portrait" which would be covered under {{PD-US-gov}}. Thanks for clarifying. I agree that it is unclear what Mr. Torok meant by "commercial", but I stand by my belief that it is unclear enough that PRP gets invoked (notwithstanding the other reasons PRP should be invoked). Berchanhimez (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Skipping past the specifics to the ANU issue of the closure, the DR looks like a close call. I wouldn't say that one side had a clearly stronger interpretation than the other, so I'm not inclined to think there's a noticeboard-level issue with Bevidere's close. The best course of action now is to reach back out to the photographer to clear things up and renominate if there's new information. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I have been calling it "early" based on this: Less clear cases should remain open for at least seven days. Complicated cases can remain open for weeks or even months. from COM:DR. The correct course of action would've been to not supervote and wait for more opinions, if anything. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, you've renominated to a near unanimous keep vote. If you haven't mentioned that already Bedivere (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
You know, this is why people don't like commons. You have an admin who closes a discussion that was contentious early (per COM:DR it should've remained open at least 7 days) based on a SUPERVOTE that ignores all the arguments made, and the result is that we are now violating the copyright of a private photographer just because people want the image to appear on Wikipedia. I'm shocked that there's such a blatant license laundering and precautionary principle violation being tolerated from an admin. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
You know what? I always err on the side of deleting files because it's so much easier and saves both the rights of the legitimate owners and saves us the time and hassle of hosting problematic content. But this one seems so crystal clear that I am shocked at your constant accusations of license laundering and the likes. Where have common sense and good faith gone? Bedivere (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not crystal clear. See Commons:Deletion requests/Some third-party images hosted on National Weather Service servers for a list of examples of other images that had many many keep votes initially because people didn't understand LAUNDER and PRP but were then deleted because common sense prevailed. You're an admin - you are expected to know and understand those two policies. There is no evidence that the photographer intended to give the White House total control of the copyright. And so per PRP, we must assume that he did not, until and unless proven otherwise. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
https://x.com/dto_rok/status/1880204839076167863?t=j4J8H9LDzItNspXOvLnfXA&s=19
Everyone is referring to the White House website and the other tweet but why are we ignoring that he is PERMITTING Wikimedia to use the images. Buildershed (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
That is not a valid release. Images released solely to Wikipedia are not acceptable. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Buildershed, can you quote him? I don't have a Twitter account. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
If anything, that's even more evidence that he does not intend for everyone to be able to use them for any use whatsoever. For @RodRabelo7: quoting: Sure. Thank you. But you should wait for the official downloadable WH versions. Color/contrast etc will be refined. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
"Downloadable WH versions"
They're already available I believe Buildershed (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
That does not mean they are freely licensed. He has not stated that he signed copyright over to the White House nor that he has freely licensed them. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Not true, that's not what the photographer said at all. Stop lying. Bedivere (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@RodRabelo7: fixing ping. Apparently {{Yo}} doesn't redirect to {{Ping}} here :P Berchanhimez (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
As much as I appreciate that everyone who shows up from enwiki, never edits Commons, and doesn't like something they see is obliged to say something like "this is why nobody likes you!", what you're seeing is exactly the opposite of the usual "nobody likes you" reason. We're usually the evil deletionists who remove Very Important Things That Must Be On Wikipedia. This might be a first where the "nobody likes you" is arguing that we keep things ... just so they can be used on Wikipedia. Frankly, I can see both sides of this issue, which makes it a hard thing to close. My advice to closing admins is usually to include a better explanation of their closure when it's likely to be controversial, and that could still be done here. Bevidere could also undo and wait for a stronger consensus to emerge, though it sure looks like it's trending towards keep (even if you discount the insubstantial !votes). But either way, I don't think Bevidere was out of line with this closure, and I don't know why it's worth arguing so much over an ambiguous comment by the photographer when someone could just reach back out and nominate (or not) based on that. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
My "nobody" was referring to people who publish images online and have them kept on Commons based on license laundering. Or because, as some are arguing at the new deletion request, he didn't publish them with a copyright notice or explicitly say "I have the copyright". That's extreme misunderstanding of both how copyright law works and Commons policies (such as COM:PRP and COM:LAUNDER). Berchanhimez (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Sanction per nom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
??? Bedivere (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
This is bordering on gaslighting of Bedivere I think. The White House's copyright policy, and the fact that multiple sources (eg the BBC) indicate that Torok is Trump's photographer, seem enough to put this to rest. I also think policy has been misquoted multiple times with wikilinks, eg here where Berchanhimez writes "The standard is reasonable doubt" yet following B's own hyperlink, it says: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt" (another example here). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Someone being a one-time or short term contracted photographer does not mean it is a work for hire. Work for hire in the US requires a permanent employment relationship (even if that relationship later ends). A one time or short term contract in the US does not create a "work for hire rights transfer" unless that is explicitly covered in the contract that the parties signed. There is no evidence that the contract signed includes such a rights transfer. In fact, per Torok's own comments and the 2017 case, there is ample evidence that it does not include a rights transfer. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Not true, not "ample evidence". Had a look at a contract or something? Absolutely no proof. Just your assumptions. Bedivere (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
We don't assume what's in a contract or not. There is no evidence the contract signed the copyright away, and there's ample historical evidence that Trump does not give a flying fuck whether it was signed over or not. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
See: the work for hire page on Wikipedia and its sources for any confusion on whether this is a "clear" work for hire as multiple people have said. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
If I look here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Donald_Trump_2025_inaugural_potrait.png the opinion is changed to "keep" Shadow4dark (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Nobody there addresses the license laundering concerns at all. But I guess that means I shouldn't be surprised that an admin is allowed to flagrantly ignore that policy, if people take !votes at face value and ignore it too when evaluating the "opinion is changed to keep". Berchanhimez (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
 Comment This user has now doubled down that it was "not a mistake" even after being advised by multiple users here that it was "borderline" at best (Rhododendrites) and by at least one admin (Infrogmation) commenting on the new DR that Bedivere's closure was not in line with policies. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
And they've followed me to enwiki and commented there in response to me, still refusing to accept that their view is, at best, not shared by everyone here and at worst is being considered blatantly wrong. All I ask is that Bedivere admits their closure of the DR was improper (too early, and was a supervote), and that their view on license laundering is not in line with Commons requirements - perhaps with a commitment to not close deletion requests that have an aspect of license laundering cited. Otherwise, I think the only solution is starting a deadminship request due to their failure to admit their mistake, refusal to follow Commons policy WRT license laundering/PRP, and their harassment of me for trying to get them to correct their mistake. Berchanhimez (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that you have made there some serious accusations against me, not mentioning me at all by name. All I did was putting my good name to rest. And I am not sure what are you trying to achieve with all of this escalation, drama-ing, etc.. If you are so sure the file needs deleting (I don't think so) an admin will take action later when closing one of the other deletion requests. What is the hurry? I don't know. What is the purpose of framing the whole situation to fit your point of view? I certainly don't know. I don't think I made a mistake but there are ways to challenge decisions and that is what is going on. I ask an admin to close this discussion and let the other discussions (DRs) continue if needed. Bedivere (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not about there being a hurry. I'll say it again, since you aren't listening. It's about you violating the deletion request policy which states that except in obvious cases it should be left open at least 7 days. You have ignored the license laundering policy when you ignored those comments at the DR you closed. You have accused me of lying because you don't like being called out for those mistakes you made. And ultimately, you've affected a likely copyright violation staying up based on an excuse that not only is condoning license laundering, but is you engaging in license laundering yourself - you used the link to the whitehouse.gov website (not the original copyright holder) to justify your keep closure. Such a blatant, and flagrant, disregard for Commons policies is not behavior one should expect from an administrator. Berchanhimez (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
None of these that you link are policies. The license laundering one is a guideline; there is a deletion policy (not the one that you linked though) which says that in general DRs should remain open for a week, or longer if more complicated. To me it was/is crystal clear, the photograph is freely licensed. To most in the ongoing DR for another such derivative of that portrait, it is freely licensed. Most of those in the English Wikipedia thread you called "harassing" also concur. The deletion requests page (not policy) says "the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of their ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept", and that's what I did. You disagree with my approach, fair enough. Let the parallel discussions continue then. Bedivere (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
If the best of your ability involves ignoring license laundering, assuming copyright ownership in the face of evidence, and then supervoting before it's even been 7 days... then your ability is not good enough to be an administrator, in my humble opinion. Berchanhimez (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, Berchanhimez, your apparent need to reply to each thing Bedivere says here is not helping your case at all. I see a lot of verbiage, and very little substantive addition to what you said in the first place. - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Sometimes you make the argument and the admin doesn't agree with you. That it should not have been closed as quickly is an argument, but the rest of this seems to be completely out of place on AN/U.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
BOOMERANG block the filer for incivility and harrasement of Bedivere. ( @Jeff G., Can you provide any explination of your !vote?) All the Best -- Chuck Talk 05:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
@Alachuckthebuck: In 2017, it was determined that Trump doesn't pay for the copyrights of portraits of himself, but uses them a lot in violation of federal law, and we can't host them. This year is no different. The allegations by Berchanhimez are serious, if true.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I would propose to close this discussion. The deletion discussion should take place at the new deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump 2025 inaugural potrait.png. I do not see a need to sanction User:Bedivere or someone else at the moment but something like this should definitely not happen again. GPSLeo (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
 Agree but still think a warning to Berchanhimez is a good idea. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I would like to apologize to Bedivere for getting scooped up in relitigating the arguments at the DR here. However, I came here per COM:DEADMIN which states In the rare case that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing their status... for individual grievances, please use Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems (links omitted). I still believe that there is a serious issue with Bedivere's closure of the DR early (making more work for users to renominate all the files) and lack of understanding of COM:LAUNDER in their closure and comments afterwords. I will no longer be contributing to this discussion, but I do not think that Bedivere's improper (time, and rationale or lack thereof) closure should go undiscussed. Admins are expected to know and understand policy and guidelines, and to follow them when they use their administrator role, such as when closing discussions. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shpah_elnour

See Special:Contributions/Shpah elnour. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by The Squirrel Conspiracy. Yann (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Diktator_Rom

See Special:Contributions/Diktator_Rom. Somebody please revert the problematic edits. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked, all reverted. Taivo (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

User Tullius Detritus

I came to harbour the suspicion that Tullius Detritus (talk · contributions · Statistics) is (at least) an accessory to conflicts fought on the Vietnamese Wikipedia and that he carried them over to Commons. I encountered three files authored by him (one, two and three) that are, in my opinion, used for a purpose that would be subsumed as COM:CSD G3, "content used for attacks". That would be likely a cross-wiki abuse, if I'm not mistaken. Additionally, his username may be borderline inappropriate - if it was only his nickname and otherwise unremarkable contributions, I'd say "bad taste", but combined with his obvious participation as creator of attacking media, the "Detritus" part becomes IMHO offensive. Grand-Duc (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

For a start, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tullius Detritus. Yann (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. Nominating the uploads for deletion is enough, because the user has not edited for 1½ years. Taivo (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Militum professio scriniarii

Militum professio scriniarii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • Obviously, トトト refuses to respect long-established Commons protocols by reporting me to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard - yet refused to notify me of such action! They seem to have a problem respecting other editors also. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Today Militum professio scriniarii did the same reverts again without responding to the discussions at talk pages (1, 2). The latter revert of the documentation is especially absurd, because there is only one parameter left ({{{4}}}) in the current template. I would like to request his block. --トトト (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • The user did the same reverts again today (, ), despite the warning by Yann, never responding to the talk pages cited above (1, 2). --トトト (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

User:ThePinkShoes

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

Massive number of censorious deletion nominations including basically any closeup of women wearing underwear and innocuous photos like this. Dronebogus (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Warned. Yann (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

User:115系好きな人

After receiving copyvio warnings, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio images. Netora (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Mysteryman316

Please check his talk page. Calling a user idiot, worm, taking the shit out of him... If an IP makes a third of this you block the IP immediately. Does he have a kind of immunity? 191.125.27.226 01:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I notified them for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 week, and while I was doing so they decided to make another personal attack. No objections to anyone else increasing the block length as they see fit. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
They doubled down.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't see any reason not to indef block a person who makes comments like these Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Neither can I.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Mysteryman316's talk page shows they don't belong here. I too would support an indef. Shaan SenguptaTalk 04:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Indef, TPA/email revoked. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

User:WeatherFollower

WeatherFollower (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  even after warnings, this users continues to upload numerus satellite photos claiming them is own work. Since satellite images comes from governmental agencies, he must specify the real source and author and they must be for GDFL sources. All non specified uploads should be deleted and he should be warned further. Pierre cb (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  •  Info We have a similar report against the same user in archives. Shaan SenguptaTalk 09:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Shaan Sengupta: Yes, that is indeed a shame. That report was not actioned, and was allowed to wither on the vine.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done blocked one month. If they continue, they will face a longer one. Bedivere (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've also deleted several images they claimed as own work, which obviously weren't. Bedivere (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Ghazipuriyaaa

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted, no useful edit. Yann (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Shāntián Tàiláng

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

Blocked for 3 months (was already blocked for one month) with the conditions set by Bastique below. I note that Shāntián Tàiláng has 157,284 edits on Commons, so may be a last chance could be given. Yann (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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

This user is importing discussion about his issues on en.wp to Commons and is posting on my talk page when I believe I have made it very clear I'm not on Commons to talk about en.wp. . He says his latest comment isn't about that, but it very clearly is. At this point I feel like we're moving into "cross wiki Harassment" territory. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: looks like you've tried to administer some clue to this user in the past. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like this is an ongoing issue with this user, he's been here before for similar reasons:. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
The more I look, the more I find: In fact-- cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye, I won't pester those en.WP editors anymore is from last month. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
He also elected to thank me for my edits trying to get him to leave me alone, which seems like he is quite deliberately trying to pester me . Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Look, Beeblebrox, I have no intention of pestering you. When I said "I won't pester those en.WP editors anymore", I meant if I were unblocked from en.WP. Simple as that. I wish you'd said "please leave me alone" in your talkpage edit summaries. I'm sorry, OK?! Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
This is the fourth time you've been brought to this board for the same behavior. Y edit summarries were perfectly clear, Your excuses and apologies are not believable at this point.
And you can stop pinging me as well. You exasperated some of the most patient people I know over at en.wp this same way, and did it to those same people again over here, and now you've moved on to doing the same with me. I think you are beyond help or hope at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
And @Jmabel: please understand that the only reason I've ever xwiki harassed those admins in the past is simply that they are the admin in charge of blocking me on their WMF project. Do you know of a proper way to resolve issues from a project where I've been indef-blocked??
No, Beeblebrox, I am not beyond help. If somebody suddenly unblocked me from en.WP (and en.WT) right now, do you really think my problematic behavior of harassing people would continue? You know I have ADHD and can't easily read the room! So I cannot tell if I'm wasting someone else's time unless they specifically tell me directly, "you are wasting my time". Is there any way I could possibly interact with you that is not wasting your time?! Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
We cannot help you resolve your enwiki problems on Commons. Period. I have autism and it's rather difficult for me to "read the room" and I can sympathize with your struggles, but your behavior is within your control, and you need to learn (which you can do) when to let a matter drop. Abzeronow (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
So frikkin' sorry. I'll let the matter drop, alright? And please tell Beeblebrox that I apologize for taking these matters out of hand. Honestly, I feel horrible. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, can somebody please strike out this whole section or something? (Well, maybe not strike it out, but just close it or whatever, I don't want to stain my reputation any more... *sighs*) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
@Blue-Sonnet: is there any way you can weigh in on this? I simply wanted to make sure Beeblebrox understood what you understood about me, and then I simply tried to ask him what he'd do instead of what I did. *hits self on head* Man, I would love CBT, but I can't really afford it right now (& not just 'cause of money). Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
And "NOPE" in an edit summary won't really cut it with me. But "NOPE. And don't you dare ever talk to me again on Commons" really will. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
So, I'm supposed to learn your personal rules for how you are to be interacted with, or your harassment of me is my fault? Classic gaslighting. Your failure to learn from your mistakes is the issue here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me try to put this as simply as I can: @Shāntián Tàiláng: I see that you were blocked on en-wiki, in part, for importing drama from one wiki to another. I see you had your talk page access revoked there after a couple of unsuccessful unblock requests. It looks like you painted yourself into enough of a corner on en-wiki that you are likely never to be unblocked there.

You can either let go of that (because it is pretty clear it will not change), not import any of the drama to Commons, try to do good work here, and be left alone, or you can continue import the drama and be just as firmly blocked on this wiki as well. - Jmabel ! talk 23:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Aw, man...Jmabel, why do I always seem to paint myself into a corner, no matter the WMF wiki? Am I just too incapable of leaving people alone until they fulfill my demands or something??
(Incidentally, were there any cross-wiki harassers on Commons who refused to quit importing their drama over here unless their block on some other wiki was lifted?)
Lastly, would any of you call me "determined as hell"? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
To answer the question about cross-wiki harassers, the answer is yes, there have been. I can think of one case that resulted in a global lock because of legal threats. So not discussing drama on other sites is definitely advisable. Abzeronow (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Are you allowed to name the offender in that case, or is that a privacy policy violation? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd rather not give that matter any more attention. So I could elaborate on it but I'm choosing not to. Abzeronow (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I am struggling to comprehend why this repeat offense for the same behavior as previous blocks is not enough for a block this time. I realize Commons plays by its own rules, but three other projects have already kicked this person out for this sort of thing, and as far as I can tell pretty much every single edit they have ever made at meta has been more of the same, and they've been here on this board four times already for the same behavior. And now their reply is more clueless, off-the-point questions and asking if anyone is impressed by their harassment. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Asking if anyone is impressed by [my] harassment? When did I ever ask that? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Lastly, would any of you call me "determined as hell"? Fishing for praise for acting the fool is not a good look. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox, in any of these discussions, have they been given an ultimatum regarding interactions with other editors, as well as using Commons to evade blocks from other projects? There's too much for me to go through to look right now. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 01:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Short version, as far as I can tell:
  • November 2019: Following several shorter blocks, indef blocked on en.wikt for "Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion: using IPs to evade block; continuing to ping other users to ask them make edits for them after request to stop pinging other editors" This is relevantas this is the initial block they can't seem to stop bringing up elsewhere.
  • April 2022: Blocked on en.wp for " Importing a dispute from Wiktionary, after a very clear warning to stop." I declined a later appeal of this block, and eventually revoked their talk page access a month ago for time wasting. That was my only involvement before they began pestering me about it today and wouldn't stop when I made it clear I wasn't interested.
  • February 2023:Partially blocked on Commons for importing the en.wikt dispute here.
  • April 2023: blocked on Commons for socking, but it is clear that importing the en.wikt business here was part of it per the unblock conditions set by @Taivo: :
"I will unblock you on three conditions:
  1. You will not create more accounts.
  2. You will not ping anybody.
  3. You will not speak about what happened or should happen on Wiktionary. You must pretend that Wiktionary does not exist and has never existed."
A week later they were temporarily blocked for violating those conditions.
  • (They are also blocked on el.wikt for "Annoying administrators with questions of inexact info and utter nonsense" but I'm not entirely sure if that is related to all this or just them being irritating in some other way.)
  • I would assert that as the en.wp block was for bringing the en.wikt dispute there and they were unblocked here on the condition that they not discuss the en.wikt block, it is essentially the same thing. It all stems from the Wiktionary block, and they've been warned again and again and again to stop it across three different WMF websites.
So yeah, they should have definitely known better than to start harassing me here about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
is a link to my talk page here from September 2022 where he makes it clear(ish) that he knows that he shouldn't be talking about his en.wikt block on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I just wanted to know about their behavior conditions on Commons. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 02:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright, here's what I think should happen. @Shāntián Tàiláng should be reblocked for pinging a user (in violation of their unblock conditions), and Beeblebrox should commended for his throughness when reporting this. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bastique: I feel like, if you read what I have posted, it is abundantly clear that they were told to drop this, and have refused to do so. I also feel like I have shown that this is a cross-wiki problem that they are deliberately and repeatedly bringing up here on Commons when it has nothing to do with Commons at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox, I agree with the importance of context that this is a cross-wiki problem, but I'm specifically asking for Commons conditions so I and other admins can adequately decide to handle the situation as need be. Because we can only rule based on what their behavior is on this project, as you yourself have said that you understand.
I and any other admin can see that Shantain Tailing has a problem with pestering people seemingly non-stop. I agree that this is a problem and needs to be specifically addressed. I have not seen that the pestering has crossed the line into harassment.
They are also contributing to the project as well. Which is an important consideration. Whether or not that began because they came to Commons in order to pester people into dealing with their blocks on other wikis or making changes on Wiktionary, the fact is they are currently an active editor here. I'm going to put down my recommendations below. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've been asked to weigh in but I'm not sure I can do much beyond give my perspective - I don't really use Commons and have only briefly skimmed over this conversation as I've just woken up.
I do really appreciate the difficulty that Shāntián Tàiláng has in interacting with others, and also believe that they genuinely don't understand what the problem is - but that doesn't change the effect it has on others.
If my ADHD causes a problem at work I expect patience & reasonable accommodations, but I'm still ultimately responsible for my own actions. If I cause to much disruption and stop others from being able to do their own jobs or cause them distress, then I'd expect to be let go.
Sadly, I saw a lot of patience and accomodations but little to no change from Shāntián Tàiláng. I'm incredibly sad to see that it's continuing here.
@Shāntián Tàiláng, I know you've got ADHD but you have to try to work with other people and respect their boundaries. ADHD an explanation for how we act, but it's not an excuse.
If someone asks you to stop doing something, you need to stop - you can't force other people to do things like explain how to act or respond, that's on you to find out outside here (CBT, counselling etc.) This is only a website and it's purpose isn't to teach you how to behave - it just can't do that. The users of this website are ordinary people who spend their own time working on it, it's not fair to ask them to spend it on you too, especially if they ask you to stop.
This is a collaborative project and if you can't collaborate (even for genuine medical reasons, like here) then the good of the overall project must come first. I'm really sorry that it's come to this point again, but it shows that this is a problem that you've got to get sorted out.
I know there might be parts of this post that you disagree with or that your instinct could be to correct or challenge. It might not be what you wanted to hear. Unless it's completely incorrect or egregious then I'd recommend that you leave it - some things aren't worth the bother and the general consensus is that you're having trouble dropping the stick so you don't want to do anything further to give that impression. That said, if I'm completely incorrect on something then please leave a (brief) correction below my post as it's hard to understand others online sometimes.
BTW If anyone is interested why I've been asked to post here, this is my original post on their en wiki Talk page - as per a discussion on my Commons Talk page I ultimately removed it, but I'm including here because it's relevant to this discussion and gives important context. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. Reported to Meta for a global indef block. 興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 16:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
@HingWahStreet I'm sorry the administrators aren't acting fast enough for you, but you can't close a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard because you are not an administrator. Also, you've chosen to take this off of Commons to deal with and create a global block, which is not under the auspices of the Commons. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I admit I looked into a global lock while writing up the timeline above, but it seems unlikely in this case. A global ban is another matter, I think they do qualify for that, having been blocked indef on three wikis, blocked a few times here and continuing the behavior that led to the previous blocks, and are using meta for the same purpose, but it's a crap shoot trying to get consensus for one.
As for warnings here on Commons, I believe I made the case with the above timeline that this is all one problem, and complaining here about their block on en.wp is the same issue as their complaining about the block on en.wikt, because transferring that issue to en.wp is what got them blocked there, and they were unblocked here with the explicit condition that they not discuss that here anymore.
I am concerned that "but they've made contribs here too" is considered sufficient to shield someone for consequences of years-long cross-wiki abuse and a complete failure to take on board any and all advice or criticism directed at them.
If we're going to talk about their contribs, let us start with the gallery on their user page and their uploads. Give those a good, hard look and ask yourself if there isn't maybe a problem of an entirely different kind strongly suggested there. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to recommend a block of 30 days because of multiple warnings and continuing behavior. I'm also going to recommend a clarification that Shāntián Tàiláng abide by the following rules:
  1. Do not use Commons as a means to discuss being unblocked on other wikis.
  2. Do not use Commons as a means to engage other users to perform edits at other wikis (this is meatpuppetery)
  3. Do not pester other users.
Blue-Sonnet has given some very good advice above. I will add that I have severe ADHD and on the Autism scale and I have learned to measure myself accordingly, as well as be accountable for my behavior on the occasions I fail to do so. If someone says leave them alone, or that you are pestering them, or harassing them, step back, log off, don't respond in any way shape manner or form. Go do something else.
I really think you have good intentions, and I think you can manage your difficulties, but the time spent on Commons in responding to consequences of your behavior is absolutely too much. If another uninvolved admin can follow through, please? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually, Bastique, pinging other users is not forbidden under my current unblock conditions. It may have been forbidden over a year ago, but Taivo already lifted that restriction several months ago. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel, do you have anything to add? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Any time someone's contributions are brought up as a reason to not block them means that they are on thin ice, and I think we all ignored the flagrant violation of their unblock conditions (as someone with ADHD, you can't blame others for not getting along with you.) All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I would ask why, after years of the same problems over and over and over, it is reasonable to assume that they will have fundamentally changed their entire personality thirty days from now? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Babu sayk

See Special:Contributions/Babu_sayk. Please also revert the problematic edits. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I did not see any acceptable edit, so I blocked Babu as vandalism-only account and will revert all his edits. Taivo (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Long-term abuse: French logos with nonsense names

I've recently noticed a pattern of abuse from multiple accounts, including:

All of these users have uploaded files with similar gibberish names. Most of the files are logos of French or European companies modified with small black dots to avoid duplicate file detection; a minority are product photos copied from Amazon or similar web sites (often a picture of an automotive "emergency kit"). None of these users have any activity outside Commons, so it's unclear what the purpose of this activity is.

Has anyone else seen this? Is this worth taking to CU? Omphalographer (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done All blocked, all files deleted. A CU is needed for the range block: Category:Sockpuppets of Patricmicloa. Yann (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
And created Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Patricmicloa. Omphalographer (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

User:HurricanesAreInteresting

HurricanesAreInteresting (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : this new user uploads satellite photos from unknown source and claims to be the author. He continues even after being warned. Satellite pictures are from governmental agencies and can be found on GDFL or copyrighted website. The uploader must indicate where he got them. Pierre cb (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. The user is warned and the uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
UPDATE:This user continues today, even after warning by administrator, to upload satellite pictures falsely claiming as his own work. Something should be done to force him to input the REAL source. Pierre cb (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Files deleted. User blocked three days. Bedivere (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

User:LeontinaVarlamonva and User:Salto Loco

This user, along with User Salto Loco, are both actively trying to push their political agenda onto several maps across Commons. While Salto Loco has engaged in discussion, LeontinaVarlamonva continues to edit war on File:Legality of Cannabis in Europe.svg insisting to insert a factuality dispute based on their political beliefs, despite being told numerous times that this is a map depicting de facto boundaries and de facto enforcement of law. I have been engaging in discussion with both users and other users have similarly responded to their comments as well explaining the use of de facto maps (, , , ). I will continue to engage in discussion, however reporting LeontinaVarlamonva specifically as they are continuing to edit war despite there being no ultimate consensus in the discussion to insert a factuality dispute, mimicking their actions from October of this year, aiming to tarnish the reputation of maps that don't align with their political preference. Revert 1 , Revert 2 and Revert 3 , the last of which specifically comes after a warning of a report and another point to turn to the discussion board. Ratherous (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ratherous: when you report a user's conduct on this page, you are required to inform them of that on their user talk page. You appear not to have done so. Further, by not linking their account in the above, you gave them virtually no chance of even finding your complaint against them. I will inform them on their user talk page, but you should have done this.
In general, if there is dispute over two versions of a map, each side should make their own map on a separate file page, citing their sources for their version of the map. Wikipedias, etc., can then choose between the maps. As a rule, the only basis to mark the map as factually disputed is if it does not accurately reflect the sources that it cites, or if it effectively makes uncited claims. - Jmabel ! talk 19:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I apologize for not linking the user, I rushed with making the report as they were actively edit warring. Your suggestion makes sense, however at the moment, user continues to edit war while a discussion is already taking place while the other use is globally replacing the map across several wikipedia projects without a discussion. I have engaged in all related discussions up to now and will continue to do so, but it is incredibly frustrating to do this while the user continues to make unilateral changes on Commons and other platforms. --Ratherous (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: , Now adding Salto Loco to this report after continuous edit warring despite ongoing discussion on File:Eurozone Internal.svg (1, 2 and 3). I felt as though we finally reached some common ground, but user went ahead with his version despite objections from myself and Abzeronow and an ongoing discussion. His final response to the request to stop edit warring was "no, that's you who have to STOP EDIT WARRING. i reverted both maps as it is the same situation." While I am trying to stay engaged in all ongoing discussions the continuous edit warring prior to any reaching of consensus after being asked to stop is ridiculous. User informed of report on talk page. --Ratherous (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

As I stated before, your de facto maps are also incorrect because they don't reflect de facto reality. You do not have right to remove this disclaimer just because you don't like it. So your argument that you are making de facto maps, rather than what's recognized in international law, is hollow because you maps don't reflect de facto reality either. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I have already responded to this in the discussion page of the map and my reasoning was echoed by Abzeronow (). Your reinstatement of the Factuality dispute once again reiterates that the map should otherwise follow de jure boundaries, which was clearly outlined by Jmabel not to be necessary for de facto maps. If you would like to argue for the inclusion of all of occupied Ukraine, that is a different issue - but that is not what you have been advocating for in the talk page of the map. --Ratherous (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Ratherous

Hello, I am reporting a concern regarding the actions of user Ratherous related to edits involving maps that misrepresent internationally recognized borders. This user has repeatedly engaged in edits that align with Russian disinformation narratives by including occupied territories as part of Russia, despite these areas being internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. When challenged on this, they dismissed concerns and refused to acknowledge established facts under international law. Violations of Wikipedia Policies WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) – The user’s edits fail to adhere to Wikipedia’s neutral stance by promoting the perspective of an aggressor state rather than the widely accepted legal reality. WP:V (Verifiability) – The current representation contradicts verifiable sources, including UN resolutions and the positions of most recognized international bodies. WP:DISRUPT (Disruptive Editing) – Instead of engaging in a constructive discussion, the user has repeatedly dismissed concerns and undermined efforts to maintain accuracy. I have engaged in discussions with this user, attempting to clarify why Wikipedia should not reflect the territorial claims of an occupying force. However, they continue to insist that the issue is “not about sovereignty” and refuse to acknowledge the broader implications of their edits. They have also responded dismissively to multiple editors raising similar concerns. Request for Action I request that administrators review this case and take appropriate action to prevent further dissemination of misleading information. This may include: Instructing the user to adhere to Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and verifiability. Reverting their edits that violate international law and established Wikipedia standards. If necessary, implementing restrictions to prevent further disruptive editing on politically sensitive topics. I appreciate your time in reviewing this issue and look forward to a resolution that upholds Wikipedia’s credibility and commitment to factual accuracy. Salto Loco (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read COM:NPOV, there is no requirement for media on Commons to be politically neutral. Abzeronow (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm also not the only user outlining this position to Salto Loco - several other users have as well (, , , ). Him painting me as some kind of Kremlin-propagandist for adhering to de facto maps for de facto situations, as maps depicting law generally do, and claiming I am being paid by Russia () I think clearly demonstrate that he's here political goals rather than constructive editing. --Ratherous (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
No, most maps do not reflect the de facto situation, and you know this very well, we discussed it with you. If you do it for free, then I don't understand you at all. Salto Loco (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
You've been given several examples of maps that do in fact depict de facto borders when appropriate and you yourself began posting on discussion pages for each one with the same message. You've also been explained why certain situations based on context of the map opt for the use of de jure maps while others de facto maps. "If you do it for free" - I'm not even going to entertain this comment. --Ratherous (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
If I send you all the maps showing sovereign Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia now, you won’t have enough time to review them before the year ends. Salto Loco (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Salto Loco: given that Ratherous already reported that he is having a conflict with you, it is pretty out of line to make a report against them as if it were a separate matter. I have indented the section level here to make it clear that this is part of the same dispute. - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

We're just going in circles now from one discussion page to another. Salto Loco, it's not about how many maps you can dig up. Many maps that I personally edit also have de jure borders as it is appropriate for the context (Examples: Maps of international organizations, UN Treaties, inter-governmental agreements), however the maps you have been globally replacing with your versions all depict enforced laws, which is why the occupied regions were presented differently, as myself and several other users have repeatedly explained to you. I included you on the report because you continued to edit war even after a discussion was taking place and after you were directly advised against unilaterally changing the maps without consensus. --Ratherous (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the edit warring, user has also continuously demonstrated uncivil behaviour.

1. Accusing me of being paid by Russia () for which he has already received a warning ()
2. In response to being asked not to edit war user wrote - "no, that's you who have to STOP EDIT WARRING." () despite him being the one overwriting the original file
3. When shown examples of other widely-used de facto maps depicting laws, user responded "I don't care about your two propagandistic temporary exceptions."

While I am trying to stay active and engaged in the ongoing discussions, comments such as those make it almost impossible to achieve a constructive consensus with the user. --Ratherous (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Ratherous,
I understand your concerns regarding this discussion, but the fundamental issue remains unresolved: the depiction of internationally recognized borders versus de facto control.
You state that the maps I have modified depict enforced laws, but international law remains the primary framework that Wikipedia should follow, not the temporary control of an occupying force. The United Nations, the vast majority of countries, and authoritative legal bodies recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. By altering maps to reflect occupation rather than legality, we risk normalizing unlawful territorial claims, which contradicts Wikipedia's principles of neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V).
I have not engaged in an "edit war" but attempted to correct misleading representations that undermine international law. If consensus is required to modify these maps, then it should also be required for the existing versions, ensuring that Wikipedia maintains a consistent and balanced approach based on verifiable, authoritative sources.
If necessary, I am open to a formal request for comment (RfC) so that the broader community can determine the best approach. However, I strongly believe that Wikipedia should reflect internationally recognized legal standards, not de facto control imposed by military force. Salto Loco (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I would like to clarify my position regarding these concerns. My primary goal has always been to ensure that Wikipedia reflects internationally recognized legal standards and does not unintentionally legitimize unlawful territorial claims.
I acknowledge that discussions on sensitive topics can become tense, and I regret if any of my responses were perceived as uncivil. However, my concerns about the integrity of Wikipedia’s maps are made in good faith, based on international law and Wikipedia’s core principles of neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V).
Regarding the specific points raised:
I should not have implied financial motivations, and I recognize that such statements do not contribute to a constructive discussion. I will ensure that my arguments remain focused solely on policy and verifiable sources moving forward.
On the issue of edit warring, I acted with the intention of correcting what I believed to be misinformation. However, I understand that such actions should be pursued through discussion rather than repeated edits. I am open to further dialogue and formal dispute resolution if necessary.
Regarding the discussion of de facto maps, my concern is that the use of certain exceptions could create an inconsistency in how territorial disputes are represented. While I may have expressed this frustration too bluntly, my underlying argument remains that Wikipedia should uphold the highest standards of accuracy and neutrality.
I remain committed to resolving this dispute through proper channels and constructive discussion. My priority is ensuring that Wikipedia does not unintentionally contribute to misinformation or narratives that contradict international law. Salto Loco (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
As was previously brought to your attention, this is not Wikipedia, it's Commons. You very clearly did engage in an edit war with 3 back-to-back reversion as I have previously noted. As for Wikipedia, there is no requirement that all maps must follow international law, but again this is not the space to discuss Wikipedia policy, if you would like to start a community-wide discussion about that, then do so on Wikipedia. --Ratherous (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I share concerns expressed by Salto Loco regarding behavior of Ratherous. Also I will insist to repeat this: what Ratherous claims to be de facto borders are not true. So even from Russian or separatist perspective, his de facto maps are highly inaccurate. The whole argument that we should not care about international law because these maps claim de facto control is irrelevant because like I said they don't reflect de facto reality either. They only reflect preferences of one person, Ratherous, who for some reason created them as they are.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
You keep bringing this up entirely ignoring the responses you've received on several discussion pages you've left this comment on (, , , ). The decision not to include all of occupied Ukraine is based on the fact those territories do not have a stable consistent border and instead change on a daily basis - this would require the map to be updated constantly despite the fact that the subject matter is not related to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict in any capacity. It was already clearly explained on this noticeboard that de facto and de jure maps are allowed to be hosted on Commons. If you really want to argue for the inclusion of all of occupied Ukraine, you can make that claim on the talk page of the map, but that's not what you have been doing thus far. The map just being a de facto map does not consitute the basis for a factuality concern regardless of your and Salto Loco's personal objections to the representation of de facto boundaries. I would like to once again reiterate that multiple users have provided you and Salto Loco with the same responses to this issue with the absolute majority of those maps not being my uploads, your claim that I am the only person doing so is blatantly false (, , , ). --Ratherous (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Moreover, the decision not to include all of occupied Ukraine is consistent with the template - File:Blank map of Europe (with disputed regions).svg. Most de facto maps of Europe on Commons have not made this adjustment as of yet, this would mean every single one of them would require a factuality dispute according to your logic. If you want to argue for the inclusion of all occupied territories then the talk page of the template map would be the most appropriate place to do so. --Ratherous (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Some basics about maps on Commons

  • Commons does not require reaching a consensus about a map. If there is a disagreement about a map, typically the correct answer as far as Commons is concerned, is for us to host both versions. It is up to reusers, including the various Wikipedias, to choose which they prefer.
  • Yes, Commons hosts both de jure and de facto maps.
  • Ideally, especially if any matter is likely to be in dispute, maps should cite their sources.
  • If you believe that a map does not accurately reflect its own cited sources, or if you have sources that disagree about a factual matter, it may be appropriate to place {{Fact disputed}} or another similar template on a file page. Note, however, that "this accurate statement of de facto control does not show de jure control" is not a factual dispute, as long as the map is represented as showing de facto control. A factual dispute would be "this is not an accurate representation of who has de facto control."
Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

User:副代表

After receiving the copyvio warning, this user mass-uploaded the copyvio photos. Netora (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. That's true. One week block and I will investigate remaining uploads. Taivo (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Again User:Finoskov

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

After the end of his first blocking he continued his behavior, to a greater extent than before. I think he has not recognized his mistakes. He wrote a comment with his signature in a template. See here.

Last weekend I spent many hours correcting errors which he made in the Mulhouse Museum categories. I only did the decades from 1870 to 1930. This week he ruined the work. Of course, he did not engage in any discussion on any of the points.

Now he obviously tried to solve one of the problems with "of the Musée" instead of "in the Musée". But he still put these categories under categories "in museum". That cannot be right!

Two points:

  1. 20 Reverts. Last weekend I had made changes (from wrong to right) and written edit comments. He made reverts (from right to wrong) without comments. That doesn't work! Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. With a closer look: Often I removed the category in this museum. Sometimes he made exact revert, ignoring that some pictures were not made in this museum. Sometimes he added the category of the museum, ignoring that (example) Category:1920s automobiles of the Musée National de l'Automobile cannot be a subcategory of Category:1920s automobiles in museums because some pictures were not made in museums. I don't know if it's okay to press the revert button to make a hidden change. It looks like an attempt at deception for me. This must be multiple misuse of revert.
  2. He didn't move categories properly. He created new ones, moved the content from the old ones to the new ones, and made quick deleting requests on the old ones. Example: old Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) and new Category:Panhard & Levassor 20 CV Sport Type X29 Labourdette torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30. He also simply blanked the category discussion page, see here. This carries the risk that the discussion page will be deleted together with the category. This must be misuse of blanking talk page and misuse of Commons:Rename a category. Other examples: 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s.

I request: A block for a longer period than the first time. If possible and usual on Commons: A ban for specific areas for a long time. Perhaps for the areas of creating categories, moving categories, renaming categories, emptying categories, suggesting for quick category deletions, changing main categories or subcategories, and reverts. Or generally for everything to do with vehicles or vehicle museums. Buch-t (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Buch-t: I am sympathetic, but not all of the above edits look at all obviously wrong. For example, at : what exactly is wrong with adding each of the following to Category:Alfa-Romeo type 8C 2,9 B biplace course (M.N.A. 1118)? Please reply under the respective bullet points for any where you think I have it wrong.
So for this edit, I see one pretty obviously correct change, one other that looks correct, one other that is not a well-named category but looks otherwise correct, and one that is, indeed COM:OVERCAT. If that is typical, this does not suggest high competence on Finoskov's part, but is not usually the sort of thing over which someone gets blocked.
It is really hard to go through a laundry list like the one you posted above and try to work out whether someone's edits or good, bad, or (as it appears from this one) somewhere in between. This took me over 5 minutes just to evaluate on edit in an area where I don't normally work and it came up "not great, not awful." I would much rather see you take 3-5 specific edits of his that you think are wrong and break them down like I did above. In other words: if this is what you want us to look at, please do the heavy lifting yourself instead of making an admin spend an hour on working out whether you are correct.
As for the category moves: yes, that is very wrong, and might merit a block all on its own, especially if he won't promise to stop. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I followed up on that last (about the category moves) at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Finoskov&diff=prev&oldid=973625389. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I will give more details of 3-5 specific edits tomorrow (European time). --Buch-t (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
More details to the first 5 reverts.
I have visited the museum in Mulhouse and also the 3-month-exhibition in the museum in Kassel, Germany.
Remember: I wrote edit comments when I deleted wrong categories. He wrote nothing when he reverted me. --Buch-t (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
@Finoskov: all of this looks very wrong on your part, especially putting way too broad categories under particular museums that might have an exemplar.
Blocks are intended to be preventive, rather than punitive. If you promise to stop this now, and you do stop, I see no need for a block. If you persist, I would advocate either a 3-month block now, to be turned into a year-long block if you come back and do this again, or a complete topic ban from anything about automobiles. - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Finoskov wrote on his talk page that he cannot understand your English words. --Buch-t (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Apparently Finoskov feels competent to override others' decisions about prepositions in English, but does not understand enough English to follow what I'm saying. Also apparently, he believes that the overhead of a cat redirect is something comparable to, for example, downloading images.
French is about my fifth or sixth language, which is to say I can read it moderately well, but certainly cannot express myself in it significantly better than a Google Translate rendition of my English. @Ruthven: I know you are quite comfortable in both English and French, can you possibly take over this situation, or let me know that you can't so I can look for someone else to ask? - Jmabel ! talk 08:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I translated your message. Hopefully, the pretext of not understanding English won't be used now. Yann (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Yann for the translation. I find worrisome that Finoskov sees your message as an "attack", when it's just a warning about a behaviour. Jmabel, would a partial block on the categories ns suffice? Ruthven (msg) 14:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@Ruthven and Yann: do what you think best. My request to bring in another admin was not strictly a language issue. After my entirely appropriate warning was described as vos attaques, and after what I agree was almost certainly a "pretense" of not understanding me, I was livid enough to impose a long, long block. I figured it should be left to someone else to handle this, because acting out of anger is not generally a great thing to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't look into the details of the case. I will do it later unless someone else block Finoskov first. Yann (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Instead of moving categories Finoskov creates new ones tagging the old ones for deletion (I didn't count exactly, it might have been about 4000 categories). That is massive disruptive behavior because a) one cannot move the cat back if necessary and b) links pointing there from other projects are broken. Therefore I asked Finoskov in 2019 and again in 2023 to refrain from that, but they ignored it. Therefore I herewith request a block only for category namespace for one year. --Achim55 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: , and this also goes for any other admin: it's two days later, obviously no one else is taking this on, and I'm tired of it dragging on. If it is left to me—and if this sits another 24 hours, I'm going to consider it left to me—it is going to be an indefinite block from category namespace. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Finoskov has not edited since December 23rd, so I don't know if he deliberately ignored our messages, or just took off some vacation. Yann (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: does that mean you are definitely taking this on, and I can "safely" let go? - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Finoskov had the opportunity to write here, but did not use it. He wrote on his talk page. He did not write that he will be offline from ... to ... --Buch-t (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Minor edit because of the ArchiverBot. --Buch-t (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) (mentioned above) was deleted yesterday by User:Krd. 4 week after the deletion of Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) by User:Yann. The new category Category:Panhard & Levassor 20 CV Sport Type X29 Labourdette torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 is similar. This is a late consequence of Finoskov's incorrect approach in creating new categories, although the category already exists under a different name. --Buch-t (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No edits by Finoskov since nearly 4 weeks. --Buch-t (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
 Info Finoskov was active on Tuesday. Some reverts (not to my edits). Some changes in categories. No edit comments. Nothing on talk pages. Nothing here on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. No reaction to Yann's words in French on his talk page. --Buch-t (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It's true, Finoskov (talk · contribs) does not learn! He's immune to the difference between "from" and "in", and reverted my edits, which were 100% correct. Example: . --Edelseider (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. The rope is long enough... Yann (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast! I do hope that he comes back with a more subtle approach. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I started with the corrections. It also affects other projects like wikidata. We will see what will happen. --Buch-t (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Obedyadzo

See Special:Contributions/Obedyadzo; please bulk-revert these – I don't know how to bulk revert all the edits. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done looks like Pi.1415926535 has already done this. - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Wemerson Inácio da Silva

Sock puppet of Emerson Júnior GSF (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  to evade a block. It (the sock puppet) should be blocked indefinitely. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Emerson Júnior GSF is my boyfriend, we live together and of course we will have the same IP address. Also, it's not like I've uploaded some irregular file. --Wemerson Inácio da Silva (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Boyfriend with the same name but with a W in front, and whose account was created the day after he was blocked? Strange to say the least. And of course the IP is the same! RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Indeffed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Should we lengthen Wemerson Inácio da Silva's block for this? - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Jmabel, did you perhaps named the wrong account? "Wemerson" is already blocked as DUCK, you may have meant to ask about Emerson Júnior GSF. About lengthening his block of 3 months: unsure. "Pro" because the user has shown quite the disdain for our rules, "against" because there may still be a good chance to educate him in ways to contribute conforming to copyright regulations (I got this opinion after the exchange here). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I meant Emerson Júnior GSF. Difficult to keep track of these similarly named sock accounts. - Jmabel ! talk
I won't pursue this further myself, but the suggestion stands. - Jmabel ! talk 17:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

2806:101E:D:5FFF:297E:1CF1:62F7:80

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  •  Not done Exactly 3 nominations, one of them almost certainly correct. I think a block would be at least premature, but @Jeff G., feel free to warn them about what was inappropriate about the inappropriate nominations of the two maps. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: So warned.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I just deleted the one that was appropriately nominated (montage making two teenagers appear to kiss), and it leads me to wonder: do people think any of the uploads of Emilio9564 are in scope? (I'll notify them of the mention here.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: No. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Emilio9564.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
    One more warning to Emilio9564. Yann (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

User:TK2264

After receiving copyvio warnings, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio logos and restoring. See the history of ja:小嶋屋総本店. Netora (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I found and deleted speedily one more copyvio and blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Violentsia

0x0a (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. All uploads are either deleted or nominated for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

User:الشيخ ياسر الدوسري

0x0a (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. All copyvios and useless files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

FireBreathMan

FireBreathMan (talk · contribs) has consistently shown to not be here to improve Commons. Nearly all of their edits have been disrupting very contentious topics; many of these including mass-reverting files to reflect their own personal views, and in general just here to what enwiki would call trying to right great wrongs. This had already been brought up here, but it never received a response. The disruption has continued since then. I think this is clearly a pattern of not being here to build a free media repository. CutlassCiera 18:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on Flag Map of Europe in regards to Kosovo. Abzeronow (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of banned user Simotissir

Abdelalimd (talk · contribs) is Simotissir (talk · contribs). Even the shortest glance at his uploads will reveal it. Edelseider (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged

Online translation: I ask you to block the participant for many offensive edits in the Category:Orthodox Church in America. --Ыфь77 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ыфь77, could you provide more information about your request? Kadı Message 22:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I would assume this is regarding redirecting the category to Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate), and the subsequent edits they made there. I'm not expert but I do think those edits were incorrect. The Orthodox Church in America is not under the authority of the Russian Patriarch. Their headquarters is in Virginia and their leader is from Boston.They split with the main church after the Bolshevik Revolution and were formally granted autocephaly in 1970.
For what it's worth, which I know is not much, there was substantial religious category-related disruption by this same user on en.wp . Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: Beeblebrox is absolutely right. The Orthodox Church in America is autocephalous, recognized by 5 other autocephalous churches. And then Laurel Lodged comes along and adds the outdated, non-neutral and derogatory clarification of "Moscow Pariarchate". If you insult one person, you can demand a global block, but here an entire church with over 70,000 followers is insulted. Inciter of religious hatred - is this the kind of glory that Wikimedia Commons needs? Оригинал: Beeblebrox абсолютно прав. Православная церковь в Америке автокефальна, её признают 5 других автокефальных церквей. И тут появляется Laurel Lodged и добавляет устаревшее, ненейтральное и уничижительное уточнение "Московский патриархат". Если вы оскорбите 1 человека, то для вас можно требовать глобальной блокировки, но в данном случае оскорбляется целая церковь, насчитывающая более 70 000 последователей. Разжигатель религиозной розни - это та слава, которая нужна Викискладу? Ыфь77 (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

 Info: This is the 7th time Laurel Lodged is reported on ANU: 1 2 3 4 5 6 --Achim55 (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I highly doubt LL meant anything by this edit. Saying a church is under the wrong patriarch is not inciting religious hatred, User:Ыфь77. Most of the previous incidents seem to be petty spats over pedantic category issues, so I don’t see any point in bringing it up except to give unneeded credibility to a clearly vexatious ANU filing. No action is needed here. Dronebogus (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: Action is required: it is necessary to rename the categories that humiliate the followers of the Orthodox Church in America. Moreover, @Laurel Lodged: itself must do this or oblige it not to interfere with the renaming. 2) It is advisable to explain to Laurel Lodge at the administrative level that he is wrong and to limit him in religious categorization, since he himself does not feel where he rules. Ыфь77 (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
By comparison, if he had renamed "India" to "India (British Empire)", would you also have written that no action was required? Ыфь77 (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
You mean like the longstanding Category:British Raj? It would depend on the intended scope.
That said: yes, the top-level category for the Church should reflect its current name and status. If it is now autocephalous, its former subordination to a particular patriarchate does not belong as part of that name. @Laurel Lodged: do you disagree with that? If not, could you explain why you moved the category?
In general, I recommend strongly against moving longstanding categories unilaterally unless the move is obviously uncontroversial (e.g. fix spelling or capitalization; make it uniform with a well-established pattern; etc.), and clearly this was not "obviously uncontroversial." Even as an admin, I don't do that. - Jmabel ! talk 05:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: No, in the example I was referring to modern India in what I wrote. Ыфь77 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ыфь77: it looks like you started this discussion without informing Laurel Lodged. When you bring a complaint to COM:AN/U, you are required to notify the user in question on their user talk page. I have now notified them. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Online translation: It's not my fault that Template:User3 doesn't notify the mentioned user. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Ыфь77: but it is your fault that you did not notify them on their user talk page, as the instructions at the top of this page explicitly say you must do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal Thanks to @Jmabel: for bringing this to my attention. To @Achim55: I don't think that our paths have crossed, but you seem to have done some digging. This it is very bad form. In a court of law, it is usual for the Judge to pronounce his judgement in a case before the Prosecutor is permitted to adduce evidence of previous wrongdoing that would permit the Judge to impose an appropriate sentence. In Achim's contribution, he has dispensed with the niceties of trial and judgement and gone directly to sentencing. But since the dirty laundry has been displayed for all to see...In the case of no. 6, the final contribution was "Maybe the perceived harassment is in the mass pinging through multiple nominations... it seems to be a technical issue.". Which was exactly what had happened. No case to answer. Just a trigger-happy complainant. In the case of No. 5, that's just the usual Azeri crew miffed that I've pointed out that there is No-FOP in Azerbaijan. It was blown up out of all proportion. A small problem with a category template. They can lodge no such complaint now that I have switched tactics from nominating whole categories of pics of the President of Azerbaijan opening new buildings to nominating (many many many) individual images. They squeal, but the majority will be deleted. A lot of wiki-lawyering will save some of them no doubt. In the case of no. 4, it's the same Azeri crew complaining that the victory of Azeri forces over the Republic of Artsakh is not recognized in the wholesale renaming of Armenian places to Azeri names. The nomination has not succeeded. I think that everyone (bar the Azeris) recognizes that the mass expulsion of an ethnic group from a city (Stepanakert) does not mean that their heritage disappeared overnight. In the case of no. 3, that was raised by the nominator in this case. As one of the admins in that case opined, "I’m afraid there needs to be restrictions placed on Ыфь77 from making changes to categories related to Christian denominations.". It's a shame that that did not happen. In the case of no. 2, that was just embarrassing - for the nominator. He failed utterly to define his complaint, let alone make a case for any wrongdoing. In the case of no. 1, it was - yet again - the usual Azeri crew annoyed that I would not admit the Artsakh never existed and should just submit to its eradication from the history books. The things complained of then were while the 2nd war was on-going and the situation was still fluid. The Azeri victory in the war has made the matters moot. In summary, these cases show that the AN/U process has been abused for POV-pushing of the worst kind. I advise all to ignore them as they are irrelevant to the current complaint.

I see no evidence adduced of "offensive" behaviour. The complainant is not entitled to make a complaint on behalf of the Orthodox Church in America or the Russian Orthodox Church. He has no standing to make such a complaint. Let the OCA / ROC bring it's own complaint if it wants. The complainant can only complain about behaviour that was offensive to himself. That is, I used language or engaged in behaviour that was personally defamatory, untrue, abusive etc. about him. No such evidence was adduced because there is none. It never happened.

What then? Perhaps he meant that the edits were acts of vandalism, designed to ruin Commons. His English is not so good, so perhaps that's what he meant. There are four responses to this charge: (A) Autocephaly is disputed in definition and in practical operation; (B) The granting of autocephaly to the OCA in particular is disputed. The Wiki article on autocephaly specifically says: "... the main opponents in the dispute being the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which claims this right as its prerogative, and the Russian Orthodox Church (the Moscow Patriarchate), which insists that one autocephalous jurisdiction has the right to grant independence to one of its components. Thus, the Orthodox Church in America was granted autocephaly in 1970 by the Moscow Patriarchate, but this new status was not recognized by most patriarchates. It's also notable that the OCA did not attend the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council. (C) Even if a chuch body or ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be affirmed to be truly autocephalic, it is still in a fraternal relationship with the body that granted the autocephaly in the first place. In the case of the five ancient jurisdictions of the Church (Pentarchy), the daughter churches still recognise the authority of one of the five. And of course the Ecumenical Patriarch himself is always acknowledged as the Primus inter pares within the Eastern Orthodox communion. In the chart to the right, it specifically calls out the seven churches that are listed as being "Autonomous under Russia". (D) Even if the OCA does not directly "report" to the Patriarch of Moscow, it is still a useful disambiguator to have for Eastern Orthodox church bodies in North America. The situation is very confused in North America. There are many churches that are daughters of many of the pentarchy and many metropolitans who all claim roughly the same name. It gets even more confused when there are splits and each calls the other schismatic or heretical. Ordinary readers cannot be expected to know this involved history. Some assistance is needed in navigation space. Lesser navigational assistance is needed in article space since there is so much more room to tease out subtle differences. In category space, all we have is parentheses and a lot of information has to be crammed into a small space. Consider Category:Eastern Orthodoxy in North America or better still, Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in North America. Look at what is listed here:

  1. Category:Orthodox Church in America (originally called "Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate)" in my edits
  2. Category:Archdiocese of America (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
  3. Category:Archdiocese of North America (Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch)
  4. Category:Metropolis of the Americas (Romanian Orthodox church)

Don't they all look very samey? And that's just the Eastern Orthodox Church. Seriously, without the disambiguator, how could the average reader possibly tell them apart? I'll rest for the moment. This is already looking like a wall of words. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I’m going to informally recommend some kind of boomerang for Ыфь77. Declaring yourself a representative of a large demographic and getting offended for them is bad; accusing another user of inciting religious hatred is worse. I don’t think it should be serious, just an narrow interaction/topic ban +/- a formal warning. But their conduct against LL here seems plainly abusive even if, for the sake of the argument, we assume they’re actually right. Dronebogus (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    Online translation: In short, is humiliating a church organization a good thing, but standing up for them a bad thing? Is that your opinion? Ыфь77 (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m not even going to try and explain why that argument is bad. It should be blatantly obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Laurel Lodged: given that you say there is dispute here about autocephalous status, why does that parenthetical (which effectively takes sides in said dispute) need to be in the category name? Is there some other "Orthodox Church in America" with which this could be confused? - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Reply I think that the parenthetical differentiation is necessary to disambiguate for the general reader between churches in North America that have very similar names. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to separate them given the closeness of the names. In article space, it's possible to get around this problem since you can write notes and have "See also" sections. This is much more difficult to achieve in categorical space. There is little room available in the name to contain the information that would not result in an unwieldy title. So while a few extra bytes are acceptable, it cannot to too long. In the case of the category name for the OCA, how do describe that it was started by Russian emigrees, came under the Russian Orthodox Church, disassociated from the ROC after its subversion by Bolsheviks, amalgamation with Romanian and other Orthodox churches, independence as the ROC Outside Russia, re-absorption by the ROC. It's complicated. How could one phrase in parentheses hope to convey all that history? I don't think that it's too mush of a divergence from canonical accuracy to say that it has always been in Eastern Orthodoxy and always within the "family" of the "Patriarchate of Moscow". It's a matter of politics as to whether members of the OCA would regard the patriarchal throne as having been in a state of sede vacante for significant periods of the 20th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: (1) what is the "very similar name"? (2) Why are {{Cat see also}} or {{Distinguish}} any less useful on Commons than in Wikipedia? - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Reply to @Jmabel: The similar names are listed in numbers 1 to 4 above.
  1. Category:Orthodox Church in America (originally called "Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate)" in my edits
  2. Category:Archdiocese of America (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
  3. Category:Archdiocese of North America (Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch)
  4. Category:Metropolis of the Americas (Romanian Orthodox church)
While {{Cat see also}} and {{Distinguish}} are useful, they don't appear in the suggestions or the search box when one begins to type in things like "Orthodox Church in America". Again, looking at an article or even a category when it gets selected is all very well, but it does not assist in the first level of the dropdown box of the navigation. Categories are primarily about ease of navigation. Providing relevant information at the first point of contact is better than many re-directs and false navigations. In many cases, you could be at a depth of 4 layers of a tree structure of the OCA before you would begin to suspect that it is affiliated to the Moscow patriarchate rather than the Constantinople patriarchate. That's just a bad navigation experience and there is no need for it to happen when minimal parenthetical disambiguation solves the problem. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
To illustrate the point that there are many strains of Russian Orthodoxy, I have created Category:Russian Orthodoxy. See also here. All are affiliated to Russian Orthodoxy, some more loosely than others. Of course the ROC would claim that any ecclesial body in the category that is not in communion with the Patriarch is uncanonical or schismatic or heretical or all three. And the True Believers would probably say the same about the ROC adding that it is an agent of Russian Security Forces. So as a compromise, I could live with a rename of the OCA to Category:Orthodox Church in America (Russian Orthodoxy). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: I'm against it again. The Orthodox Church in America is a multinational denomination (including Bulgarians, Romanians, and Albanians) and primarily an American Church. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: those other names are not nearly similar enough to create a need for a parenthetical disambiguation in the category name. I hope you are not being disingenuous here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
The point was not to show that the names were similar. It was to show that there are many entities within the family of Russian Orthodoxy. The previous point listed the similar names. Imagine what they would be like without their parenthetical disambiguators. Who would know what family / patriarchate they were in? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: "Who would know what family / patriarchate they were in?" Someone who looks at parent categories, or reads hat text, or looks at the corresponding Wikipedia article (or possibly Wikidata, which should have such information but may not). This is not normally information we carry in category names. We don't have "Category:Karaism (Judaism)" or "Category:Church of Sweden (Lutheran)". It's not how we name things. - Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
For the sake of a few extra bytes, why send people down rabbit holes? Isn't it better that the first click gets them to where they want to be? This is categorical space where ease of navigation and predictability of navigation is more important than a strict adherence to the official name of an entity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: Is the purpose of categorization to inform people? And do people need such at least non-neutral, and at most offensive information? Ыфь77 (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: I repeat: Laurel Lodging believes that it understands the structure of the Orthodox Church better than the 5 autocephalous churches. Can you see the documents confirming that he is an EXPERT in Orthodoxy? Ыфь77 (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Ыфь77: if you continue to insult the user with whom you are in dispute, and to say you know what they believe rather than sticking to the conduct at hand, I will support Dronebogus's suggestion of a boomerang block, which up to now I had not been considering. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: I will remain silent, but you will also make a decision. Past experience has shown that there may not be a decision despite all the arguments. Ыфь77 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: This is written by a man who separated the Church of Crete from the Patriarchate of Constantinople (although it is part of it), but for some reason joined the Church in America to the Moscow Patriarchate (although it is not part of it). I see either a biased attitude or an absolute lack of mastery of the subject of categorization. Ыфь77 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
This is written by a man who denies that the Archdiocese of Crete is an Archdiocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Perhaps his mastery of the subject of categorization is less absolute than he imagines. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: There is nothing denied in this edit, take a closer look. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Formal request for a w:WP:BOOMERANG against Ыфь77

This user has continued picking on LL after being warned about it and saying they would stop. I would like to formally suggest they are sanctioned for this behavior, esp. since I noticed they’ve already been blocked once before and generally appear to have a history of disrupting this topic area. Dronebogus (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Online translation: Is it an insult to point out that LL puts his opinion above the opinion of the 5 autocephalous Orthodox churches, without being an expert in Orthodoxy? This is just a statement of fact. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
You are not alleging that; you are alleging LL is promoting religious intolerance and hatred. That is clearly an insult against one’s character. Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: This is a logical conclusion from my previous message. If you can ignore the opinion of a religious organization, then you should not consider the organization itself. So much for religious intolerance. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ыфь77 should certainly calm down instead of escalating this conflict. As pointed out, they've already been blocked before. --Bedivere (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Kieronoldham's "public domain" uploads

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

I discovered an issue when reading Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Kent State LIFE May 1970. Kieronoldham uploaded these images claiming that they were in the public domain because the publisher had not included a valid copyright notice. Someone pointed out in the deletion discussion that there was a valid copyright notice (as would be expected from LIFE magazine at that time). Kieronoldham has uploaded dozens of images with similar claims. I attempted to discuss this with them on their talk page but I found their responses unsatisfying.

As I see it, there are three issues with Kieronoldham's "public domain" uploads. First, the claim of public domain based on lack of copyright notice may be false or incorrect. Although Kieroldham never told me why they claimed the LIFE magazine images were in the public domain, they did say that they were unable to see all pages of that particular issue. In other words, they would not have been able to determine if there was a valid copyright notice. After we had our discussion, I took a closer look at their most recent upload File:John Joubert Lincoln Journal Star July 4 1984.jpg. Although they claimed that they had looked for a copyright notice, I immediately found one on the first page in the banner. It says "© 1984 Journal-Star Printing Co.".

The second issue is that the image is not the work of the Lincoln Journal Star, but is credited to the Associated Press. The credit is directly under the image where it would have been impossible to miss. Even if the newspaper did not have a valid copyright notice, the image would not be in the public domain. (The AP held the copyright. If a newspapaper published an AP photo without a copyright notice in 1984, the newspaper has lost the copyright to their own work but the AP has not lost their copyright to the image. I think this is sometimes misunderstood on Commons.)

The third issue is that some of the images uploaded by Kieronoldham come from somewhere other than the sources given. For example, File:Denise Naslund Ted Bundy Longview Daily News 17 July 1974.jpg is sourced to the Longview Daily News, but it is obvious that the image uploaded to Commons is from a different source. Notice that this is an AP story, so the images are likely also AP supplied and AP copyright. That might be noted in the actual source, so having those sources can be helpful to determine copyright.

I suggest that all of Kieronoldham's uploads be reviewed, if not deleted as a precaution. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, but the normal procedure for something is to list all their uploads in a deletion request. I appreciate you attempting to discuss this on their talk page before taking this here. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 01:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
@Alachuckthebuck Sorry, I'm not going to take the time to list dozens, possibly hundreds, of their "public domain" uploads only to have someone else inevitably say that it can't be handled as a single deletion discussion.
Some of these may very well be in the public domain due to a lack of a valid copyright notice. It appears to me that Kieronoldham did not do an adequate job of establishing that but I am not assuming they are wrong in every case. Ideally, each of the images should be checked. If that's not going to happen, just delete them all. Since Kieronoldham mentioned it on their talk page, I want to clarify that I am only speaking about their claimed "public domain" uploads from newspapers and magazines. I have no reason to doubt any of their other uploads. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Incidentally, the rule in the US is that "published with a copyright" means "first published with a copyright." The Lincoln Journal Star had permission to publish the photograph, but it did not own the copyright therefore it did not have to publish a copyright mark. AP owns the copyright, and I assure you, they are, and have been for a long time, very good about keeping their intellectual property copyrighted. You should file a deletion request for John Joubert Lincoln picture and anything else uploaded under the auspices of a Lincoln Nebraska newspaper. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 05:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • You wrote that "I assure you, they are, and have been for a long time, very good about keeping their intellectual property copyrighted" but the Library of Congress concluded the exact opposite. That the AP rarely copyrighted even their most iconic images and the few that they did copyright, they didn't bother to renew them. See: https://guides.loc.gov/p-and-p-rights-and-restrictions/rights#155_wide.html --RAN (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Bastique You're opening up a can of worms there. I think Commons is overdue for a serious discussion about this, but it would endanger an awful lot of images that have been uploaded as "public domain" so I doubt the community is willing to have it. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I think you seriously underestimate this community's willingness to delete images 😂Bastique ☎ let's talk! 02:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Counterfeit Purses, license review is basically trying to find a reason to delete the file that isn't PCP. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Alachuckthebuck @Bastique I have started deletion discussions for two images. These are both images supplied by AP and clearly marked as such.
I don't think doing these individually is a sensible way to go about this and I have reservations about Kieronoldham's judgment in assessing their own uploads. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Individually doing DRs for this many files is definitely a bad idea, I would recommend doing DRs by source, i.e images from the AP, etc. this will make the DR's easy to close, even with 100 files. If they all are copyvios for the same reason, it's not that bad to check, or if they were gathered with an automated tool, only spot checks are needed. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
There is no way of determining if these images are from the AP or elsewhere without checking each image source individually. Notice that one of the files I nominated for deletion today is called "Jackie Doris Gilliam San Bernardino County Sun 16 fEBRUARY" but is sourced to the Nashua Telegraph of 18 February (and the actual image uploaded comes from an unknown source but neither of the two newspapers). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Yikes. Honestly, Just doing a mass delete is looking like a good option right now. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Alachuckthebuck: I disagree strongly. Kieronoldham seems reasonably willing to go back and do the legwork to get this right, and there is no reason to think they are not capable of that. Obviously, anyone else can take some of this on themselves, and there may be some clearcut cases (like things that clearly come from AP). But I don't think this calls for a blanket deletion. In particular, most of the content before 1963 will almost certainly either be without notice or not renewed. I would certainly not want to see a mass deletion of that content. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel Kieronoldham may be willing, but I have no confidence that they can do this properly. See their comments here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think a mass deletion is required at this stage. First, obvious cases (AP, etc.) could be deleted without much controversies. Then let's see how many are left, and how much work is needed to clear the rest. Yann (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Yann How do we find these "obvious cases" without going through each individual image and source? Who is going to do that? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Counterfeit Purses: You asked for administrative action here and you got it, even if not the same action you personally might have taken if you were an admin yourself. You are welcome to continue to comment, but do be aware that not every user is required to have your confidence. I can't stop you from requesting a mass deletion of everything involved, but I can vote against it if you do. I'd have no problem with you nominating anything that is clearly AP (or some other wire service), and I'd say that if even one issue of a particular newspaper has a copyright notice on its front page or masthead, that makes every issue of that paper suspect. - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I am trying to dispel the notion that there is an easy "fix" for this. There isn't. Admins can choose not to act on the information I have provided here but that means ignoring that Commons is hosting copyright violations. Not probably hosting copyright violations, but definitely, knowingly hosting copyright violations since I have already identified some. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Counterfeit Purses: Please assume good faith. I think that Kieronoldham uploaded these files genuinely thinking that the lack of copyright notice in a newspaper made all the content in the public domain. This is the logical understanding, unless you read the fine prints. However, only the first publication needs a copyright notice to be still under a copyright. Yann (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Yann I am assuming good faith. I believe that Kieronoldham uploaded the images believing that they were in the public domain. I think that they possibly had a misunderstanding about a copyright notice being on the specific page or attached to the image so they did not do a proper check for copyright notices. The issue of other parties copyrights (eg AP) doesn't seem to be sinking in yet. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I nominated some files where 1. 1964-1989 pictures (pre-1964 pictures need a copyright renewal, so they are a different issue); 2. a link to the source is available; 3. it is not behind a paywall; 4. the source says API/UPI, etc. That's what I call obvious cases. Yann (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Kieronoldham: I hope you understand the extend of the issue, and you can help us solve it. Some of these images may be uploaded in English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. Please do that if you think it is useful. Yann (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
 Question BTW when does the copyright expire in this case, as the photographer is still alive? Is it 95 after publication or 70 years after the author's death? Yann (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Was it a work for Hire? (I'm leaning towards 70 PMA unless made as a work for hire, in witch case it's 95 years. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): As you support keeping some of the files I nominated for deletion, could you please explain in more details here why do you think these files should be kept, in view of others' opinions above? Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Relevant: The Forgotten Technology that Changed the News Forever - The official blog of Newspapers.com. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Someone above wrote: "I assure you, [the Associated Press] are, and have been for a long time, very good about keeping their intellectual property copyrighted" but the Library of Congress concluded the exact opposite. That the AP rarely copyrighted even their most iconic images and the few that they did copyright, they didn't bother to renew them. See: https://guides.loc.gov/p-and-p-rights-and-restrictions/rights#155_wide.html Someone else wrote that only the original publication is required to conform with copyright formalities, but USCO requires all "perceivable copies" to be compliant. We encountered this problem previously where record companies used the copyrighted image from an album cover (conforming with USCO formalities) in their ad for the album in Billboard magazine (non-conforming with USCO formalities), and we host the image.

--RAN (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  • RAN is correct here. There is some tolerance for mistakes, but virtually all works needed notice. If you licensed your work to someone, it's your job to exert enough control to protect your copyright by having that notice added. Given the nature of the business, I could even accept one newspaper doing this for a while, but multiple newspapers doing this for years is AP allowing their work to reproduced without copyright notices, which would lose them the copyright. I doubt the AP could win in a court of law versus a zealous defendant on just about anything old enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Prosfilaes Let's pretend that we're somewhere in the US and it's before 1978. Let's say that Alice has a news photo service. Alice takes a picture and publishes it with a valid copyright notice. Who holds the copyright? Alice. Let's say that Bob has a newspaper. Bob publishes his own unpublished photo in his newspaper. Bob does not include a copyright notice. Who holds the copyright to Bob's photo? It has become public domain. Now let's say that Bob pays Alice to use her copyrighted photo in his newspaper. Again, no copyright notice. Who holds the copyright? Still Alice. Bob did not "lose" something because he was never the copyright holder.
    Alice stipulated that Bob credit Alice when he published the photo. Anyone who uses the photo does so knowing that it wasn't Bob's. It would be reasonable for them to expect that Alice would want to be credited and/or paid for it. Alice has no reason to insist that Bob include a copyright notice in his newspaper since she knows that her work is copyrighted and she has been paid by Bob to use it. Anyone using it without her permission is violating her rights, which is the same whether or not Bob has included a copyright notice.
    Although I have heard that things like trademarks can be lost if they are not defended, I am not aware of any similar way to lose a copyright. Do you any pointers to sources? Where do you think I am wrong in my theoretical example? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    In that example, Alice published the photo through Bob. If she did not take steps to ensure a copyright notice was included on the publication, I think copyright was lost. Asking for a credit is different than specifying a notice be there, and would have no bearing on the copyright itself. If Alice sold the photo to 1000 newspapers, and only one did not have a notice, I don't think she lost copyright. If Alice had explicit instructions for Bob to include the copyright notice, and he didn't, I could see that saving the copyright in court (though may also make anyone else using it an innocent infringer). I'm not sure if there was a ruling to that effect or not. If the photo was used as a derivative work, that does change things -- the copyright status of the original is not changed by forgetting a copyright notice on the derivative work. Only the new expression in the derivative work is lost. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    That you don't cite anything. We could work it from another direction; lawmakers make a law insuring that anyone can look at a copyrighted work and see who copyrighted it and when the copyright started, or else it's not copyrighted. Why would they support someone licensing a work for profit and letting it be published, and then suing someone who trusted that the lack of notice meant no copyright, like the lawmaker intended?
    https://chart.copyrightdata.com/c03A.html#sc03A.1 offers National Comics Publications vs Fawcett Publications (1951), where Superman comic strips lost copyright because they lacked proper copyright notice. https://chart.copyrightdata.com/c10B.html#s279 offers Sieff, et al., dba S & M Tire & Auto Supply Co. vs Continental Auto Supply, et al (1941) where works properly published in their first edition were reprinted without a notice, and lost copyright in them. Unlike Clindberg, I think that pre-1978 photos published in newspapers that AP should have known didn't have copyright notice are public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Prosfilaes The National Comics case involves assignment of copyright to Fawcett Publications, who published the works without copyright notice. Fawcett was the copyright holder at that time, not National Comics. The copyright was theirs to lose.
    S&M Tire involves seasonal catalogues, each of which received a new copyright as a new work. Material copied by Continental had been published in S&M Tire catalogue which did not have a copyright notice. Although the catalogues were apparently pretty similar from season to season, S&M was determined to have put the material in the public domain by publishing catalogues without a copyright notice. There's a quotation in the decision of Section 6 of Title 17, U.S.C.A which seems relevant to the situation we are discussing:

    Copyright on compilations of works in public domain or of copyrighted works; subsisting copyrights not affected. Compilations or abridgments, adaptations, arrangements, dramatizations, translations, or other versions of works in the public domain, or of copyrighted works when produced with the consent of the proprietor of the copyright in such works, or works republished with new matter, shall be regarded as new works subject to copyright under the provisions of this title; but the publication of any such new works shall not affect the force or validity of any subsisting copyright upon the matter employed or any part thereof, or be construed to imply an exclusive right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original works.

  • This was used by S&M Tire to argue that their copyright on earlier material should have continued when copied into newer catalogues. They lost, but I think that the wording of that passage neatly describes what we are dealing here - an existing copyrighted work included with the consent of the copyright holder and not implying an exclusive right to use the original work. If the Lincoln Journal Star published their newspaper without copyright notice, they put their material into the public domain. The AP image is a subsisting copyright by the language of that quoted passage.
    I take your point about the obligation to inform people about copyright. I think that by crediting AP, the newspaper has told people "this is AP's, not mine". I assume that was what was required by AP and if AP felt it necessary they would have required a copyright notice instead. I think that remains to be seen. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) When you use the phrase "perceivable copies" do you mean "visually perceptible copies"? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Not sure I have time to read through all of this, but there can be several considerations here. First, it is true that *all* copies needed a notice. If notices were on initial publications, but then lots of later copies lacked it, it would become public domain then. You did not have to register a copyright for the first 28 years; a notice alone was enough to secure copyright after publication. You did need to renew a copyright after 28 years, but that only applies to works published before 1964 and it sounds like most of these are not. It is indeed far safer to host works from before that. UPenn did say that no newspaper outside of New York City renewed issues from before 1945, but it became more and more common after that.
    Another consideration is that the law allowed a "relatively small number" of copies to be distributed without notice but without losing the copyright. If the initial publication lacked a notice though, even that may be hard to claim, no matter how small that run was. I believe court cases have put that number to be up to maybe 2% of all copies. When it comes to newspapers without notice, elements authored by that newspaper's staff should be OK. But when it comes to AP or UPI or other stuff reprinted in many newspapers, it's not clear at all that lack of notice on one newspaper would invalidate the copyright. Secondly, if AP etc. had express instructions to put a notice there, and that was not complied with, it maybe similar. It's usually more about the actions of the copyright holder, and how much they tried to protect it. AP may not have renewed much, but it's probably dangerous to assume PD status on works of theirs since 1964, unless we are pretty sure we are looking at a representative publication. Lastly, since 1978, works without notice could be "rescued" by registering them within five years (which would be available online at copyright.gov) and taking other steps. The lack of registration is usually the easiest to find out.
    Another part is that pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works did not need the year specified before 1978. After 1978, it did not need it when part of "useful articles" like greeting cards etc. The notice on the newspaper should have a year. And while the law specifies the allowable forms of the notice, the guidelines in the Copyright Compendium II (section 1005) goes into considerably more detail on what marks were OK and what were not. A usage like "(c)" was enough, for example. An incorrect name would not lose copyright (though an entirely missing name can). That version of the Compendium is for situations since 1978; there was a Compendium I which had guidelines under the older laws.
    When it comes to placement, some types of works had fairly prescribed places to put it. That is section 1013 of the Compendium II linked above. Books seemed to have to be at the beginning or end of the book, up to the first (or last) page of main body. Periodicals could be in any of those places, plus 1) as part of, or adjacent to, the masthead, or on the page containing the masthead: or 2) adjacent to a prominent heading, appearing at or near the front of the issue, containing the title of the periodical or other serial and any combination of the volume and issue number and date of the issue. I also tend to look at the section with the publisher information. It can't necessarily be anywhere but it does help to be able to see all pages, particularly for smaller newspapers. A notice did not need to be on every page; one notice on the newspaper (even if the wrong name) would cover any contained work. (Except for advertisements -- those needed individual notices.)
    For other elements, taking images that are not from the source without notice could also be a problem -- if there is expression not visible in the source without notice, but does exist elsewhere (such as maybe a wider crop, or color versus grayscale, etc.), the other copy may still have some of its copyright.
    The fact that these are (1964+) AP photos bothers me the most. To me it's pretty thin relying on lack of notice in one particular newspaper for those -- and then copying from a different source has further risks. Works authored by that newspaper on the other hand should be fine, *if* there is no notice, and it can take more than a cursory glance to really look. There can be a lot of nuance in this stuff, and courts looking for reasons to preserve copyright if the copyright owner was trying -- a number of technical mistakes were allowed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) the link you provided states that, "works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office." The images in question are entirely published after 1963. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 05:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The key phrase is "may be protected" which requires compliance with the copyright notice. As shown above it requires checking the masthead of the issue in question. --RAN (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    Again: the newspaper doesn't hold the copyright so it doesn't matter whether it's in the masthead or not. AP has the copyright, whether registered or not. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 18:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    Also, if by virtue of publishing the picture carries copyright, if one single newspaper that carries the picture has the copyright notice in its masthead, then it is an infringement of copyright. Have all the newspapers that carry the photo been checked? No, it's the first publisher, e.g. AP. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 18:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    The Copyright Office Reference Guide says https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap2200/ch2200-notice.pdf "Prior to March 1, 1989, when a copyrighted work was published with the authority of the copyright owner in the United States or elsewhere, the copyright law generally required that a notice be placed “on all publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived.”". It gives some exceptions for 1978 on, but if you dig around, you'll find the older rules tacked on as Appendix A: https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap2100/doc/appendixA-noticerequirements.pdf for pre-1978 works. It says
    a. If the Office is informed that the great bulk of the published copies of a work bore an appropriate notice, but that the notice was accidentally omitted from a very few of the published copies, registration may be made. In such cases, if the deposit copies do not bear the notice, copies with the notice will be requested.
    b. If a considerable number of copies have been published without notice, registration will be denied.
    c. If the entire first edition of a work was published without notice, registration will be denied even if the first edition consisted of a relatively small number of copies.
    There's no way that "one single newspaper" counts as "the great bulk". Even if the AP is the "first publisher", it seems clear that all the published copies count, not just the first edition, and these were generally published within 30 days of each other, which is usually considered simultaneously for copyright purposes. I'd say that the requirement that the notice be "accidentally omitted" is problematic for AP, as well; they knew or should have known that certain newspapers didn't have a copyright notice, and continued to license material to them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    Except the published copies in that statement refer to the same publisher. A newapsper in Nebraska is not AP and does not count as a publication by the AP, therefore it doesn't count. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    Let's take it to COM:VPC.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of globally locked User:Wave of Pandas

All these accounts upload useless images of Hong Kong at night. Krok6kola (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

(I also flagged this a few hours ago at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Star Avenue 2018 sock - User:Star Avenue 2018 is an older account than Wave of Pandas, I don't know if it's the oldest.) Belbury (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done McDull Avenue HK blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Wave of Pandas is actually a new account here. What's the oldest account? Yann (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Checking the older accounts that I'm aware of, User:Zestsees is the oldest:
Belbury (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done I deleted all files. Yann (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Poig97

Poig97 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

all files the have upload by above named user are under copyright violation - needs admin attention [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

They probably have had more problematic uploads than most, and warning (and explanation to them) would be fine, but there is a large group of files that have not been discussed, and some of which do not immediately strike my eye as likely copyright violations. They may be, but there is nothing here that an admin can investigate more easily than anyone else. - Jmabel ! talk 23:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
@Modern Sciences: I see you did not inform this user that you have started this discussion. I will do that now for you, but that is required when opening a discussion on COM:AN/U. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thanks, but user undo your last tagging by IP address.[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done IP blocked, more warnings to Poig97, files deleted and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Poig97. Yann (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]]: Could you please check all files by this user (including the ones claimed to be from Mehrnews, etc.)? Yann (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: checked and tag added [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Please forgive me for contributing to the wiki without the permission of the administrators
Next time, I will ask your permission for any contribution
@Modern Sciences @Jmabel @Yann Poig97 (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
@Poig97: don't be silly. The issue isn't lack of prior permission from us. The issue is that you are uploading materials where other people own the copyrights and have not provided a free license. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Editorfree1011

0x0a (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef. for uploading files. They can be unblocked once they have fixed all their files. Yann (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Yann: or at least promised to do so?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

please delete all this files non of them are uploader own work and block the account[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

WarringAngelsIronBeam

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done indef-blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Mark Smithie

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

Mass deletion requests (and nothing more) with completely nonsensical reasons given, such as a lack of permission, even though the ticket is clearly stated on the pages. Please terminate all requests immediately and block the user. Nothing good can be expected from this. Marcus Cyron (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

أحمد 04

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. That's true. 12 months ago I would block him, but now he has worked 12 months without uploading copyvios. Taivo (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Jacsal2244

Vandalism/F10 images. JayCubby (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks.
I found this through NewFiles, which is polluted with legitimate uploads such as Flickr dumps and the hewiki collaboration. Is there a filtered tool I'm missing out on? JayCubby (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, the best tool is eyes and the refresh button. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
There used to be one, the Newbie uploads tool but I'm not sure what happened to it. --Ratekreel (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@JayCubby, I use toolforge:nfp, which filters out uploads by autopatrolled users (so hopefully most of the mass Flickr uploads). Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, @Queen of Hearts! JayCubby (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio again

Газовщик (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) recent blatant copyvios after the last warning. Komarof (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Please take this into account, probably created for further violations. Komarof (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked three months. Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

User:副代表

Soon after releasing from a short block, this user restarted mass-uploading copyvio portraits. Netora (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef-blocked. Nuked. Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

SDVBou

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked one week. Bedivere (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

User Harnessed2346

Harnessed2346 (talk · contribs) has uploaded a fair number of copyrighted images of animated characters that need to be deleted. Would an admin review and delete as needed? Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I mass deleted them. Taivo (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Felipe Fidelis Tobias

Por favor necesito que algún administrador que se detenga o bloqueé a este usuario (este usuario violó los derechos de autor). AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

No sabía que estos logotipos tenían derechos de autor. Felipe Fidelis Tobias (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
@Felipe Fidelis Tobias:Cada sitio web aparece "All rights reserved" en la parte abajo de cada sitio web, debes tener mas cuidado con ese simbolo del copyright o "all right reserved" como este "©️". AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Pero con o sín una noticia explícita, es casi universal que lo que puede ser protegido en el alcance de derechos de autor es protegido. Vea Commons:Reglas de derechos de autor por tema#Imágenes provenientes de internet. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
@Abzeronow@Bedivere@Taivo:any opinion? (google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Noahbug05

✓ Done. I warned the user. A lot of uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmd5i

AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

 No action needed for now. If there continues a disagreement, regarding the correct placement of the eagle's head, then you could come and report again. Right now I don't think there's any administrative action to be taken other than warning the user. Bedivere (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

User uploading own pictures over multiple usernames

I have noticed a user uploading its own photos using multiple strange usernames like FlaumeSteeIronm yrrou (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , ZEWIA dumlwp TELEAM (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and RENMIN Leei 2025 HUA (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  over the past few years. Most of these user pages appeared as galleries of the user uploaded using that account and most of these usernames have only less than 500 edits like this and this. Almost all files are named with HK XXX XXX ...(example) with metadata almost from the same device. These usernames were quickly abandoned and then a new strange username was created for the same purpose.

I found it very annoying and difficult to track how these accounts are doing. Can a user upload or edit like this? If not, it should be regarded as sockpuppetry and be banned.

More bunch of these:

興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 06:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a link but I remember that this has already been discussed years ago. IIRC it wasn't treated as abusive behavior. --Achim55 (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, such a large number of accounts by the same user is a problem. I propose blocking them all, except the oldest account. Yann (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
We have category:Sockpuppets of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1. Blocking makes no sense, he never reuses old accounts, always creates new one. Taivo (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Meaning that searching and tagging all users with this kind and after a while, indefinitely repeated. Simply doing this can't solve the sockpuppetry issue. May have to consider giving him a warning or else block his IP. Also, though not damaging the overall reputation of Commons, the use of multiple accounts to do any edits on Commons is both questionable and is a loophole for all Wikis (since a Wikimedia account can be used on all Wikis unless blocked). 興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 13:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
While it's certainly very odd behavior, the photos uploaded are always high-quality, in project scope, with good descriptions, are geotagged and have very good categorisation. So I don't see any problem here. I'm sure they have their reasons for doing that & oppose taking any action againest them, as the contributions are very good. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I concur. As weird as it may be, using multiple accounts in itself is not explicitly disallowed; using them abusively (such as evading blocks) is, but I don’t see that here. Since the user hasn’t done anything out of line, I don’t see any harm in letting them be and treating them as separate accounts altogether. S5A-0043🚎(Leave a message here) 03:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I opened a request for comment on Meta for further discussion. 興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 09:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Maybe this is a completely stupid idea, but I wonder whether it is possible that the user has some good reason for this behaviour. Could it be that they use these “disposable accounts” in order to escape Chinese surveillance measures? If that, or something simular, would be possible we should accept the behaviour inspite of the little bit of trouble it causes for us. I would not call the quality of the images “high”, but they are reasonable everyday photos with clear documentary value and sometimes certainly very useful. – Aristeas (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

User:TK2264

Soon after releasing from a short block, this user restarted uploading unfree copyvio logos. Netora (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. One month block (second block). Taivo (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged

Online translation: I ask you to block the participant for many offensive edits in the Category:Orthodox Church in America. --Ыфь77 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ыфь77, could you provide more information about your request? Kadı Message 22:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I would assume this is regarding redirecting the category to Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate), and the subsequent edits they made there. I'm not expert but I do think those edits were incorrect. The Orthodox Church in America is not under the authority of the Russian Patriarch. Their headquarters is in Virginia and their leader is from Boston.They split with the main church after the Bolshevik Revolution and were formally granted autocephaly in 1970.
For what it's worth, which I know is not much, there was substantial religious category-related disruption by this same user on en.wp . Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: Beeblebrox is absolutely right. The Orthodox Church in America is autocephalous, recognized by 5 other autocephalous churches. And then Laurel Lodged comes along and adds the outdated, non-neutral and derogatory clarification of "Moscow Pariarchate". If you insult one person, you can demand a global block, but here an entire church with over 70,000 followers is insulted. Inciter of religious hatred - is this the kind of glory that Wikimedia Commons needs? Оригинал: Beeblebrox абсолютно прав. Православная церковь в Америке автокефальна, её признают 5 других автокефальных церквей. И тут появляется Laurel Lodged и добавляет устаревшее, ненейтральное и уничижительное уточнение "Московский патриархат". Если вы оскорбите 1 человека, то для вас можно требовать глобальной блокировки, но в данном случае оскорбляется целая церковь, насчитывающая более 70 000 последователей. Разжигатель религиозной розни - это та слава, которая нужна Викискладу? Ыфь77 (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

 Info: This is the 7th time Laurel Lodged is reported on ANU: 1 2 3 4 5 6 --Achim55 (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I highly doubt LL meant anything by this edit. Saying a church is under the wrong patriarch is not inciting religious hatred, User:Ыфь77. Most of the previous incidents seem to be petty spats over pedantic category issues, so I don’t see any point in bringing it up except to give unneeded credibility to a clearly vexatious ANU filing. No action is needed here. Dronebogus (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: Action is required: it is necessary to rename the categories that humiliate the followers of the Orthodox Church in America. Moreover, @Laurel Lodged: itself must do this or oblige it not to interfere with the renaming. 2) It is advisable to explain to Laurel Lodge at the administrative level that he is wrong and to limit him in religious categorization, since he himself does not feel where he rules. Ыфь77 (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
By comparison, if he had renamed "India" to "India (British Empire)", would you also have written that no action was required? Ыфь77 (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
You mean like the longstanding Category:British Raj? It would depend on the intended scope.
That said: yes, the top-level category for the Church should reflect its current name and status. If it is now autocephalous, its former subordination to a particular patriarchate does not belong as part of that name. @Laurel Lodged: do you disagree with that? If not, could you explain why you moved the category?
In general, I recommend strongly against moving longstanding categories unilaterally unless the move is obviously uncontroversial (e.g. fix spelling or capitalization; make it uniform with a well-established pattern; etc.), and clearly this was not "obviously uncontroversial." Even as an admin, I don't do that. - Jmabel ! talk 05:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: No, in the example I was referring to modern India in what I wrote. Ыфь77 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ыфь77: it looks like you started this discussion without informing Laurel Lodged. When you bring a complaint to COM:AN/U, you are required to notify the user in question on their user talk page. I have now notified them. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Online translation: It's not my fault that Template:User3 doesn't notify the mentioned user. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Ыфь77: but it is your fault that you did not notify them on their user talk page, as the instructions at the top of this page explicitly say you must do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal Thanks to @Jmabel: for bringing this to my attention. To @Achim55: I don't think that our paths have crossed, but you seem to have done some digging. This it is very bad form. In a court of law, it is usual for the Judge to pronounce his judgement in a case before the Prosecutor is permitted to adduce evidence of previous wrongdoing that would permit the Judge to impose an appropriate sentence. In Achim's contribution, he has dispensed with the niceties of trial and judgement and gone directly to sentencing. But since the dirty laundry has been displayed for all to see...In the case of no. 6, the final contribution was "Maybe the perceived harassment is in the mass pinging through multiple nominations... it seems to be a technical issue.". Which was exactly what had happened. No case to answer. Just a trigger-happy complainant. In the case of No. 5, that's just the usual Azeri crew miffed that I've pointed out that there is No-FOP in Azerbaijan. It was blown up out of all proportion. A small problem with a category template. They can lodge no such complaint now that I have switched tactics from nominating whole categories of pics of the President of Azerbaijan opening new buildings to nominating (many many many) individual images. They squeal, but the majority will be deleted. A lot of wiki-lawyering will save some of them no doubt. In the case of no. 4, it's the same Azeri crew complaining that the victory of Azeri forces over the Republic of Artsakh is not recognized in the wholesale renaming of Armenian places to Azeri names. The nomination has not succeeded. I think that everyone (bar the Azeris) recognizes that the mass expulsion of an ethnic group from a city (Stepanakert) does not mean that their heritage disappeared overnight. In the case of no. 3, that was raised by the nominator in this case. As one of the admins in that case opined, "I’m afraid there needs to be restrictions placed on Ыфь77 from making changes to categories related to Christian denominations.". It's a shame that that did not happen. In the case of no. 2, that was just embarrassing - for the nominator. He failed utterly to define his complaint, let alone make a case for any wrongdoing. In the case of no. 1, it was - yet again - the usual Azeri crew annoyed that I would not admit the Artsakh never existed and should just submit to its eradication from the history books. The things complained of then were while the 2nd war was on-going and the situation was still fluid. The Azeri victory in the war has made the matters moot. In summary, these cases show that the AN/U process has been abused for POV-pushing of the worst kind. I advise all to ignore them as they are irrelevant to the current complaint.

I see no evidence adduced of "offensive" behaviour. The complainant is not entitled to make a complaint on behalf of the Orthodox Church in America or the Russian Orthodox Church. He has no standing to make such a complaint. Let the OCA / ROC bring it's own complaint if it wants. The complainant can only complain about behaviour that was offensive to himself. That is, I used language or engaged in behaviour that was personally defamatory, untrue, abusive etc. about him. No such evidence was adduced because there is none. It never happened.

What then? Perhaps he meant that the edits were acts of vandalism, designed to ruin Commons. His English is not so good, so perhaps that's what he meant. There are four responses to this charge: (A) Autocephaly is disputed in definition and in practical operation; (B) The granting of autocephaly to the OCA in particular is disputed. The Wiki article on autocephaly specifically says: "... the main opponents in the dispute being the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which claims this right as its prerogative, and the Russian Orthodox Church (the Moscow Patriarchate), which insists that one autocephalous jurisdiction has the right to grant independence to one of its components. Thus, the Orthodox Church in America was granted autocephaly in 1970 by the Moscow Patriarchate, but this new status was not recognized by most patriarchates. It's also notable that the OCA did not attend the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council. (C) Even if a chuch body or ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be affirmed to be truly autocephalic, it is still in a fraternal relationship with the body that granted the autocephaly in the first place. In the case of the five ancient jurisdictions of the Church (Pentarchy), the daughter churches still recognise the authority of one of the five. And of course the Ecumenical Patriarch himself is always acknowledged as the Primus inter pares within the Eastern Orthodox communion. In the chart to the right, it specifically calls out the seven churches that are listed as being "Autonomous under Russia". (D) Even if the OCA does not directly "report" to the Patriarch of Moscow, it is still a useful disambiguator to have for Eastern Orthodox church bodies in North America. The situation is very confused in North America. There are many churches that are daughters of many of the pentarchy and many metropolitans who all claim roughly the same name. It gets even more confused when there are splits and each calls the other schismatic or heretical. Ordinary readers cannot be expected to know this involved history. Some assistance is needed in navigation space. Lesser navigational assistance is needed in article space since there is so much more room to tease out subtle differences. In category space, all we have is parentheses and a lot of information has to be crammed into a small space. Consider Category:Eastern Orthodoxy in North America or better still, Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in North America. Look at what is listed here:

  1. Category:Orthodox Church in America (originally called "Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate)" in my edits
  2. Category:Archdiocese of America (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
  3. Category:Archdiocese of North America (Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch)
  4. Category:Metropolis of the Americas (Romanian Orthodox church)

Don't they all look very samey? And that's just the Eastern Orthodox Church. Seriously, without the disambiguator, how could the average reader possibly tell them apart? I'll rest for the moment. This is already looking like a wall of words. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I’m going to informally recommend some kind of boomerang for Ыфь77. Declaring yourself a representative of a large demographic and getting offended for them is bad; accusing another user of inciting religious hatred is worse. I don’t think it should be serious, just an narrow interaction/topic ban +/- a formal warning. But their conduct against LL here seems plainly abusive even if, for the sake of the argument, we assume they’re actually right. Dronebogus (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    Online translation: In short, is humiliating a church organization a good thing, but standing up for them a bad thing? Is that your opinion? Ыфь77 (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m not even going to try and explain why that argument is bad. It should be blatantly obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Laurel Lodged: given that you say there is dispute here about autocephalous status, why does that parenthetical (which effectively takes sides in said dispute) need to be in the category name? Is there some other "Orthodox Church in America" with which this could be confused? - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Reply I think that the parenthetical differentiation is necessary to disambiguate for the general reader between churches in North America that have very similar names. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to separate them given the closeness of the names. In article space, it's possible to get around this problem since you can write notes and have "See also" sections. This is much more difficult to achieve in categorical space. There is little room available in the name to contain the information that would not result in an unwieldy title. So while a few extra bytes are acceptable, it cannot to too long. In the case of the category name for the OCA, how do describe that it was started by Russian emigrees, came under the Russian Orthodox Church, disassociated from the ROC after its subversion by Bolsheviks, amalgamation with Romanian and other Orthodox churches, independence as the ROC Outside Russia, re-absorption by the ROC. It's complicated. How could one phrase in parentheses hope to convey all that history? I don't think that it's too mush of a divergence from canonical accuracy to say that it has always been in Eastern Orthodoxy and always within the "family" of the "Patriarchate of Moscow". It's a matter of politics as to whether members of the OCA would regard the patriarchal throne as having been in a state of sede vacante for significant periods of the 20th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: (1) what is the "very similar name"? (2) Why are {{Cat see also}} or {{Distinguish}} any less useful on Commons than in Wikipedia? - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Reply to @Jmabel: The similar names are listed in numbers 1 to 4 above.
  1. Category:Orthodox Church in America (originally called "Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate)" in my edits
  2. Category:Archdiocese of America (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
  3. Category:Archdiocese of North America (Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch)
  4. Category:Metropolis of the Americas (Romanian Orthodox church)
While {{Cat see also}} and {{Distinguish}} are useful, they don't appear in the suggestions or the search box when one begins to type in things like "Orthodox Church in America". Again, looking at an article or even a category when it gets selected is all very well, but it does not assist in the first level of the dropdown box of the navigation. Categories are primarily about ease of navigation. Providing relevant information at the first point of contact is better than many re-directs and false navigations. In many cases, you could be at a depth of 4 layers of a tree structure of the OCA before you would begin to suspect that it is affiliated to the Moscow patriarchate rather than the Constantinople patriarchate. That's just a bad navigation experience and there is no need for it to happen when minimal parenthetical disambiguation solves the problem. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
To illustrate the point that there are many strains of Russian Orthodoxy, I have created Category:Russian Orthodoxy. See also here. All are affiliated to Russian Orthodoxy, some more loosely than others. Of course the ROC would claim that any ecclesial body in the category that is not in communion with the Patriarch is uncanonical or schismatic or heretical or all three. And the True Believers would probably say the same about the ROC adding that it is an agent of Russian Security Forces. So as a compromise, I could live with a rename of the OCA to Category:Orthodox Church in America (Russian Orthodoxy). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: I'm against it again. The Orthodox Church in America is a multinational denomination (including Bulgarians, Romanians, and Albanians) and primarily an American Church. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: those other names are not nearly similar enough to create a need for a parenthetical disambiguation in the category name. I hope you are not being disingenuous here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
The point was not to show that the names were similar. It was to show that there are many entities within the family of Russian Orthodoxy. The previous point listed the similar names. Imagine what they would be like without their parenthetical disambiguators. Who would know what family / patriarchate they were in? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: "Who would know what family / patriarchate they were in?" Someone who looks at parent categories, or reads hat text, or looks at the corresponding Wikipedia article (or possibly Wikidata, which should have such information but may not). This is not normally information we carry in category names. We don't have "Category:Karaism (Judaism)" or "Category:Church of Sweden (Lutheran)". It's not how we name things. - Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
For the sake of a few extra bytes, why send people down rabbit holes? Isn't it better that the first click gets them to where they want to be? This is categorical space where ease of navigation and predictability of navigation is more important than a strict adherence to the official name of an entity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: Is the purpose of categorization to inform people? And do people need such at least non-neutral, and at most offensive information? Ыфь77 (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: I repeat: Laurel Lodging believes that it understands the structure of the Orthodox Church better than the 5 autocephalous churches. Can you see the documents confirming that he is an EXPERT in Orthodoxy? Ыфь77 (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Ыфь77: if you continue to insult the user with whom you are in dispute, and to say you know what they believe rather than sticking to the conduct at hand, I will support Dronebogus's suggestion of a boomerang block, which up to now I had not been considering. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: I will remain silent, but you will also make a decision. Past experience has shown that there may not be a decision despite all the arguments. Ыфь77 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: This is written by a man who separated the Church of Crete from the Patriarchate of Constantinople (although it is part of it), but for some reason joined the Church in America to the Moscow Patriarchate (although it is not part of it). I see either a biased attitude or an absolute lack of mastery of the subject of categorization. Ыфь77 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
This is written by a man who denies that the Archdiocese of Crete is an Archdiocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Perhaps his mastery of the subject of categorization is less absolute than he imagines. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: There is nothing denied in this edit, take a closer look. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Online translation: Will there be a solution?--Ыфь77 (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ыфь77: The solution is for you to calm down. Please do that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: I got the impression that "Wikimedia Commons is a place where anyone can insult." Ыфь77 (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
... --Ыфь77 (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Formal request for a w:WP:BOOMERANG against Ыфь77

This user has continued picking on LL after being warned about it and saying they would stop. I would like to formally suggest they are sanctioned for this behavior, esp. since I noticed they’ve already been blocked once before and generally appear to have a history of disrupting this topic area. Dronebogus (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Online translation: Is it an insult to point out that LL puts his opinion above the opinion of the 5 autocephalous Orthodox churches, without being an expert in Orthodoxy? This is just a statement of fact. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
You are not alleging that; you are alleging LL is promoting religious intolerance and hatred. That is clearly an insult against one’s character. Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: This is a logical conclusion from my previous message. If you can ignore the opinion of a religious organization, then you should not consider the organization itself. So much for religious intolerance. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ыфь77 should certainly calm down instead of escalating this conflict. As pointed out, they've already been blocked before. --Bedivere (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. No consensus to sanction either user. Bedivere (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Unionofpeopleni

Copyvio after copyvio, has been warned before. Needs latest uploads nuked. JayCubby (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Exactly two recent uploads, both copyrighted images linking explicit sources that give no indication of the claimed license. Yes, those should be deleted.
@Unionofpeopleni: I'm not sure you even understand what is wrong with doing this. If you respond here within 48 hours and discuss why you thought these were OK, we can explain the issue to you. Otherwise, I'm going to have to block your account so that you cannot proceed without that discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Category:Commons talk archives