Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~13
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-04: ~26

Other:

• Duplicates: ~2
• Advertisements/spam: ~2
• Personal photos/selfies: ~7
• Other speedy deletions: ~18
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~11

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~55
• Interface admin: ~18
• Technical: ~2
• Template protection: ~37
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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

---

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

---

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

Note

• Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
• Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
• It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Veggies

User Veggies has been making some very unfriendly remarks during a deletion request ([1]). I told them to follow the English Wikipedia etiquette only to receive more unfriendly comments. Not taking action since I'm involved. Bedivere (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

When did 'friendliness' become a requirement on editing here? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not want to use the word "impolite" to describe their expressions, but it seems better suited in the sense I meant. Bedivere (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

They were somewhat impolite, but at no point did Veggies make a personal attack. Veggies called the argument “risible nonsense” and consistently attacked the argument. Their use of emotive and inflammatory language was probably a bit uncalled for, but in this case they were addressing the arguments and not the person. I wouldn’t go about things this way (or I would hope I wouldn’t) but at no point did they attack another editor directly.

What I see is robust debate, what you see is impoliteness. Veggies seems to be in the clear. If veggies attacked the person, then I would agree that there is a problem but he didn’t so there isn’t. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but from when does Commons community need to follow enwiki rules? Just asking so I won't be the problem in the future (/s). A09 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

They are regularly sited in Commons pages. COM:TALK for instance is an official guideline of Commons and includes a whole section on using proper communication etiquette. While it is true we don't have a Etiquette guideline, it is recommended by that guideline to follow the English Wikipedia one. Bedivere (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Don’t quote English Wikipedia policies and guidelines on Commons. Firstly, the English Wikipedia is a cesspool. Secondly, the English Wikipedia is not Commons. Thirdly, we have contributors from all over the world here, so you prioritising an English project tangentially related to Commons is odd. Why aren’t you quoting the German Wikipedia? Or the French Wikipedia? It’s absurd. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Told you already it's even cited by local guidelines. But sure, there are etiquette policies in each of those projects. Bedivere (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like it needs to be removed, or at least discussed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No etiquette in Commons? That's common sense. The English Wikipedia policy is common sense too. There are more important problems out here. Bedivere (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I never said there isn’t etiquette on commons. However, I was on the receiving end of abuse at Wikipedia and frankly, I don’t hold their guidelines and policies as necessarily applicable to this project. On top of this, if they make a change to their guideline, it means Commmons editors would have to wade into that cesspool.

Perhaps a compromise might be to copy over the guideline to Commons directly and modify it to be specific to Commons. Dismissing my concerns as unimportant, incidentally, is not really very civil either. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I never meant to dismiss your concerns, but rather, I think it's not such a big deal to have a local guideline and just directing to the en.wiki one seems fine. But it could help given your concerns, which I can agree with, it does make sense to have a local guideline. Thanks for your further input. Bedivere (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - so we don’t upset the apple cart, should this be proposed somewhere first? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose any administrative action. No ad-hominem involved, but I agree that the emotive language was uncalled for. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Pdanese

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am quite concerned with the behavior of this user, he has created an entire page to attack a fairly important photographer within the Featured Pictures community. The page is created in a humorous tone with the aim of ridiculing the other user. The user seems to ignore this situation on the deletion nomination page he made. I would like someone objective and impartial to take a look at it. Thanks in advance Wilfredor (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done @Wilfredor I just deleted this piece of crap. ─ Aafī (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Was the page specifically attacking a person or their actions? --SHB2000 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There were satirical comments on some of Charlesjsharps' FPC reviews, which is IMO within the freedom of usernamespace: FPC comments are public comments and it is allowed to comment on them anyway, as long as there are no insults etc., be it on FPC or on a userpage. In any event, speedy deletion was not in place and a regular DR should be run for 7 days. --A.Savin 12:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with A.Savin. Furthermore, I told the user to request the deletion by themselves since they accepted it was an attack page, in order to avoid a block. Because they haven't edited since, I haven't taken action. Bedivere (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

My action was pretty much based on this @Bedivere. Meanwhile, if any admin thinks of this as an obvious error of mine, please feel free to restore it & allow the DR to go through its course of 7 days. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what is more absurd, the action itself or only listening to the opinion of an administrator. I did not ask for the page to be speedy deletion but rather to take actions that guarantee that this situation is not repeated. Wilfredor (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor, @A.Savin and others. I had some other thoughts, however, I perhaps agree that this was somewhat a premature closure/action. I have restored the page and reverted my closure of the DR. However, my own inclination is towards speedy-deletion (as an opnion, still) but I'd want @Wilfredor's question to be answered, ...but rather to take actions that guarantee that this situation is not repeated. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• I cannot believe what some of you are writing. See new section below. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Pdanese/The Art of Criticism

This is a nasty personal attack on me. I ask that the page is removed and that User:Pdanese is banned for an appropriate period. I also request that a full apology from Pdanese is posted on his user page. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Pdanese's writing is not nice, but your reviews are often not nice either. If you don't want to be attacked, do not attack others. Yann (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I make harsh criticisms of images, not the photographer. Why can't you tell the difference? Also, you should not be involved here as you and I have history. I need independent admins please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I would place an interaction ban between you and Pdanese, to be honest. Bedivere (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

What on earth makes you say that Bedivere? What have I done relative to Pdanese for you do conclude mutual blame? So you think him creating that article just about me is OK behaviour do you? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: I wrote on the deletion request that your comments are not grounds for Pdanese to create an attack page. I adhere to Yann's statements in the sense that harsh criticism seems to have created bad feelings. You should put some effort on your side too to avoid that. That does not mean Pdanese's behavior is good. Bedivere (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban seems premature. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Bedivere, the problem does not seem to be just between the two of them but rather repetitive behavior in FPC, see the entry below. The mutual ban is carried out when two users behave in the same negative way towards each other but here we are seeing destructive and troll behavior from only one side of the parties, let's not try to equal this Wilfredor (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Your reviews go much beyond "criticisms of images". While you may not cross the limit, they are often borderline. Even negative criticism should make the receiver feel that something has to be learnt from the critics. But your critics often create bad feelings. If you make them without that intent, then you have a problem. Yann (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If I don't 'cross the limit' then there is no issue. So please take your pre-conceived bias away from this page. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are a true expert at keeping your acidic reviews just on the right side of what is possible without getting yourself reported, but your reviews and comments nevertheless create a toxic atmosphere on FPC. I'm not surprised that someone finally had enough. Unfortunately, when someone has "had enough" it's easy to get carried away by that emotion, and it will blow back at them instead. --Cart (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You might like to consider why a page worth of pithy comments about yourself is considered an attack on yourself. If you are offended by this page, then you might want to seriously think about your own pithy comments and how they would potentially be seen as attacks on those your comments are directed towards. You might open yourself to scrutiny. Obviously the page should be deleted, but a bit of self reflection might show your own behaviour is at times problematic. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 to Chris' comments. You have half standards for yourself, but double standards for everyone else's nominations. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A ban can only be for indefinite period and only following a consensus on Meta, or by the WMF Office. There are no bans "for an appropriate period" on Commons, and an apology can only be voluntarily, never imposed by an admin or anyone else. The deletion request is pending, I guess we can close here. Thanks --A.Savin 01:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the intention, creating a page all about the behavior of another user is generally not a good idea. If that user takes it poorly (seeing it as an insult, etc.), refusing to remove it ventures into attacks/harassment. As far as that goes, whether Charles "deserves" it is irrelevant. We shouldn't be hosting such pages about our users. As I wrote at the DR, perhaps Pdanese might be interested in a collection of reviews at QIC/FPC that he sees as especially cutting/brutal/critical (from many people). If folks want to take issue with Charles' participation at FPC, I'd recommend a separate subsection but I don't think that should be relevant here. Creating attack pages (or whatever we want to call this) isn't how we deal with problematic behavior. As for a block (or ban), no, I don't see a need for that. The page is definitely inappropriate, but not such an egregious attack that it demands such action. A clear warning will suffice unless we find ourselves back here. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree Bedivere (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. The deletion request for the userpage in question is pending and probably going to be closed as deleted. A ban of Pdanese is not possible merely on a COM:ANU request (see my comment). A temporary block (if that's what Charlesj means) would be possible, but I don't see consensus here for that. Result: nothing to be done here, please move on. Thanks --A.Savin 16:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User talk:Basile Morin/Nice messages written with chatGPT or with adorably cute kittens

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Basile Morin has the same problem that the other entry above this, the user has also been harassing a group of Brazilians in a xenophobic manner [2][3], and finally a personal revenge with me [4]. In advance I would like to thank whoever is in charge of this case for the time and dedication. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

What specifically was xenophobic? I see two links as evidence, but it’s not at all clear how they support claims of xenophobia. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Wilfredor, can you explain this comment?

It’s largely a garbage comment, and part of it reads “The strategically positioned boats moored on the lake add a touch of human activity to the serene natural backdrop. Notably, one of the boats displays a Toyota emblem on its window, a contemporary marker juxtaposed with the timeless environment, hinting at a blend of tradition and modernity in this locale.” There is no Toyota emblem that I can see in this image.

it does look like you are using ChatGPT to comment on featured image requests. Not only is it causing a lot of noise, it’s giving wrong information and it is unacceptable behaviour from any user. Could you please explain this edit and how it came about? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Wilfredor has been using ChatGPT to generate texts on many occasions, for file pages, FPC reviews (2, 3, 4) and discussions for a while now. This has been discussed several times on the FP project. These days it's hard to know whether it's Wilfredor or ChatGPT doing the editing, since there is also a mix of languages and other translation programs. --Cart (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't do it to be annoying, English is not my native language, so I always use tools to better communicate what I'm trying to say. Wilfredor (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but it’s not working. The example I asked about above was complete nonsense. I can understand that you might perhaps use Google translate, but your use of ChatGPT is producing unhelpful and nonsensical text that is entirely unreadable. Please stop doing this, we do not need a English as She Is Spoke in featured images, or anywhere else for that matter. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I remember that the prompt was something like "translate the following message in a friendly and polite way: <My original message in Spanish>", it may be that the generated text was something aberrant but it was not my intention to ever do that Wilfredor (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Think about that all these programs are just tools. You need to select the right tool for whatever you want do do. Using ChatGPT for this, was like using a chainsaw at an operating table. It didn't have the desired effect. ;-) --Cart (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If I may say, DeepL is a much better tool for European languages than ChatGPT or Google Translate. SHB2000 (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

🩺 Basile Morin has no problem. Basile Morin is quietly reviewing FP candidates at the COM:FPC section and is helping in maintenance. Basile Morin is not a "xenophobe". Basile Morin has created and uploaded content related to Brazil and likes this country like others. Basile Morin is not in the "revenge", Basile Morin puts things in context. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I think the only solution is an interaction ban between Basile Morin, Wilfredor and possibly ArionStar. Such discussions have only gone in circles with no hope of any resolution.

Though Wilfredor, I would retract your statements of xenophobia since there is no evidence of xenophobia present and would suggest you apologise to Basile Morin for the frivolous accusations. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

And Basile, I would avoid illeism as it comes out pretty passive aggressive in this context. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove my username from this discussion, please. ★ 12:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Going to leave a very similar comment to the one I left about Pdanese/Charlesjsharp above: we should not be hosting pages about an individual user which can be construed as offensive to that user. Wilfredor clearly doesn't like this page. I can't say I understand all of it (or Basile's responses), but I have trouble thinking it's entirely in good faith. Likewise overtly trying to poison the well by starting a subsection about issues that Wilfredor has already been raked over the coals for [months ago] is not helpful. Please just blank the page (or integrate it into normal archiving) and let's just move on. If anyone wants to open a section about Wilfredor's behavior, they certainly can. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

When you don't have arguments, the best way is always to use fallacies like "Tu quoque", the fact that my behavior 10 years ago was not good does not make what these users are doing now a good thing. Wilfredor (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Wilfredor's problems

Read Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Wilfredor's undeclared manipulations if you're interested in FPC / Picture Of The Year competition / Picture of the Day. There are more -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No faith in IBAN

SHB200's idea of IBAN is not good, in my opinion, sorry. Will not participate at all if I have to read all the signatures of all the participants before reviewing at COM:FPC. More agree with Cmao20 writing: "Suggesting that Basile Morin take a break from FPC was bound to provoke a negative reaction."

Note that I am not alimenting anything as long as I am not notified. But if you come to my space, or call me to accuse me of "xenophobia" or other insults with impunity, there are fair reasons to bring legitimate comments.

Moreover, we are free to sort the way we like personal archives. Sometimes I receive very weird mails. Pure deletion is also allowed as long as it's read. But we can respond. Politely. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

An IBAN would probably be difficult for people who frequently participate on the same pages. But it could work if it's an IBAN that specifically prevents addressing one another or voting on each other's nominations. i.e. just don't respond to Wilfredor directly or vote on his noms (and vice versa for Wilfredor. [This is not an endorsement of an IBAN -- just noting that a standard IBAN would indeed be challenging]. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I am committed to doing this and in fact I am doing it, although I suspect that it is not a behavior unique to me, remembering that all this began with the attacks on the Brazilian user group Wilfredor (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It's still possible. Both users can still participate in FP nominations but not comment on each other's nominations nor each other's reviews, if that was your concern, Basile. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

But yes, I do agree that Wilfredor should retract their frivolous accusations of xenophobia and apologise ASAP. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for having accused Basile of Xenophobia, I also apologize for having used chatgpt to write him a friendly message due to my limitations in writing in English, I also apologize for having made a retouch of a false image from 10 years ago cited above. Let me know if you need any other excuses. Wilfredor (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Fixed Noticed Wilfredor apologies. Moved content to User talk:Basile Morin/Content to move to appropriate locations -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Cool – I'm guessing we can close this thread and move on once you've cleaned up that page? --SHB2000 (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think not, IMHO simply moving the content from one place to another does not change the passive aggressive response and mocking tone, I feel that here there was a great lack of respect towards me in which incredibly I had to apologize Wilfredor (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you should feel singled out; you are hardly alone. There are plenty of users who Basile has mocked and used his passive aggressive methods on. Irritating as it is, that is the way he argues. I have even withdrawn FP nominations, just to not have to read the fruits of his debate style. The best way, as you yourself has pointed out, is to simply not connect with such baiting verbal barbs. Every reaction and answer you give, will only serve as fuel for his rantings. Cut your losses and run while you can. Basile takes really good photos, he has an exceptional memory and attention to details, and because of that he is a valuable member of Commons. I only wish his debating was on the same level. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, and I appreciate your perspective. It's clear that dealing with Basile's behavior has been a challenge not just for me, but for many within the community. His talent and contributions in photography are impressive. However, it's regrettable that his behavior is of such a low standard. I've seen this before, and I hope it doesn't end with administrative action that prevents him from uploading his work. Thank you for the support and for sharing your own experiences. It's a relief to know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Wilfredor (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• As far as the page itself goes, it's resolved. If someone wants to compile evidence of misbehavior by Basile, IMO that's best for a new section. This section concerned an instance where Basile extracted content from his talk page and created a new page devoted to it. That was inappropriate, and it no longer exists [Adding: Sigh. I thought it no longer existed. I see now that Basile prefers to retain the page with a picture of a sphinx cat. As the page served absolutely no purpose other than to highlight an interaction with Wilfredor, keeping the page but repurposing with a cryptic message is not a good look.]
  The only other thing I'd add is I wouldn't call Wilfredor's use of "xenophobic" frivolous. Basile noticed some possible canvassing on the part of 2-3 specific users and generalized that it was "Brazilian" issue of Brazilians voting for Brazilian friends. Making the canvassing about their ethnicity rather than focusing on specific people is awfully easy to take as [something like xenophobic]. There was some behavior that could be viewed as canvassing, and there was a common theme in Brazil (we eventually learned it was connected to photographic events related to Brazil or run by Wikimedians in Brazil, which seemed like a plausible explanation), but if there were two Americans who appeared to be canvassing, which had nothing to do with me, I might look sideways at someone ranting about "American canvassing" too. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, if you look more carefully, you'll see that the text also exists, it has only been moved to a new page. This is why I said, 'disengage and just drop it'. He will never give up, he'll just keep playing these little games for his own amusement. --Cart (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• IMO there is a big difference between a [take your pick: sarcastic/patronizing/obnoxious/suspiciously friendly/odd] reply on a talk page which is then archived and highlighting that exchange on its own page. The creation of pages to belittle another user (and the creation of pages for a strange reason other than belittling which has the effect of belittling that user) is unambiguously inappropriate. Replying to someone in the style Basile often does could be seen as inappropriate, but there's a lot of leeway for that sort of thing on one's own user talk page. It could be used as evidence of a pattern of behavior by Basile but is not, on its own, something I think needs any action. Basile's manner of interaction seems to be getting to many people at this point, so perhaps it's time to do that exercise of compiling diffs to present a pattern. But, again, IMO that's a separate "case" than dealing with an inappropriate user page. Given Basile's taunting responses at the DR, however, I'm more inclined to consider an IBAN if formally proposed but I think I'd rather see this closed with a clear warning instead of any formal action at this stage. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected about the moved text. I wasn't aware of it but thank you for alerting me to it, Cart. If Basile will never give up, should we proceed with an IBAN? --SHB2000 (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

An IBAN is typically instituted in situations where both parties are engaged in ongoing conflicts, frequent confrontations, and discussions at the same tone and level, not when one user intimidates another. It should also be taken into account that this should apply to several users with whom there have been previous issues, as the situation is not exclusive to me. From my perspective, I trust in my ability to ignore any future comments from the user. My proposal not only helps to calm the situation but also signals to the other party the need to end their contentious behavior. I hope it is enough for the user, I am not looking for any sanctions to be applied but I would like respect to be applied. not only to me but to any interaction with user in the future Wilfredor (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you kinda are in conflict too with using ChatGPT to write messages. I'm glad you've apologised for it, but using it to write messages is still pretty rude. It will take time to calm the waters down, but it can be fastracked with a 2-week IBAN. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to express my apologies once again for resorting to ChatGPT to improve my communication, considering that English is not my first language. I recognize that my way of acting might not have been the most appropriate. I wonder if, perhaps, there's an attempt to protect the user by directing attention towards my intentions, mistakenly perceived as malicious, in using ChatGPT. With this in mind, I choose to withdraw from the discussion at this time. Wilfredor (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Info Just for the record, the user appears to be trying to evade the deletion resolution, first he deleted this page here, then the user moved the content to this other page and now he has finally moved the content here again, which does not address the underlying issue. The problem does not lie with the page itself but with its passive-aggressive content. The user has been previously alerted by an administrator regarding their conduct, with a clear indication that further infractions could lead to a block. It is my sincere hope that such behavior will not persist. On a personal note, I believe the individual brings significant value to our community and it would be beneficial for all if we could move past these issues. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• So all those edits are now deleted. Just as a precaution, keep an eye on his other account too, User:Subsidiary account. He is declaring the account as his on the second account's page, but I can't find any similar links on his regular user page, so people might not know he has it. With all the trickery going on, you never know where texts might pop up next. --Cart (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  If it helps, it could appear on User talk:Basile Morin/Humour if it is intended as humorous, but I'm going to AGF and assume that the text may not pop up anywhere after the result of this discussion. SHB2000 (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Intimidation and mockery is not humor but a lack of respect. I find the double standard of assuming good faith with the user but blaming me for the use of ChatGPT amusing. I, too, am eager to resolve the issue, but it must all begin with respect. Ignoring or justifying disrespectful behavior will only exacerbate the situation in the future. Wilfredor (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

☯ Thanks, Wikimedia Commons. There's always something to learn. Like in the yin and yang, something good is coming from something bad. Really appreciate.

 Info Administrator Bedivere deleted at the same time the original post by Wilfredor, with my response. Then hide the edit, so that nobody can see it and verify. There might be a reason for hiding this, I suppose. -- Basile Morin (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason is clearly stated. Purely disruptive material + deleted by community consensus Bedivere (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wilfredor's message was disruptive, then, according to your action. Because it cannot be found in the history of my talk page, on 19 March 2024 at 17:32. No problem. Don't restore it. It's fine without. Just important to notify this fact, in my opinion. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Think whatever you want. You should not restore it again Bedivere (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that in the page you have deleted, there was 90% of precious archives. Those ones have been restored -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Now move on Bedivere (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

👍 -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(Sorry for rollbacking your last emoji, I misclicked) Bedivere (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Cool, are we good to close this thread now that most things have been resolved? --SHB2000 (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Last thing, maybe. Anyone here will have the proof soon that my personal strategy for success will be totally revised, for the most astonishing upheaval. All the best, -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  That’s tangential for this discussion. SHB2000 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The DR has been speedy closed by user Bedivere after two days (instead of seven, per COM:D#Closure) with the officiel result: 1 Keep + 2 Delete. All the edits have been hidden "behind the carpet" (locked carpet), both Wilfredor's message left on my talk page with the enigmatic summary "‎Maybe time to a little break" (that's still verifiable in the history), and the whole content of my polite response (verifiable on the archived version, outside Commons, direct link welcome).

Very good. Fair grateful message has been dropped on this page. Stay positive . Bedivere invited me to "move on". Yes, I agree ☸. At this stage, my thumb up showing good will has been reverted, and then restored. Awesome. Things are fine now, in my view.

In order to dispel any ambiguity, it is important to emphasize that Wikimedia Commons has been a great opportunity, and that my thanks are very sincere. Got a lot of rewards, and even money (150 euros, included 100 euros from the Wikimedia foundation after a competition). Famous journalists displayed my works on their websites, and fertile encounters have multiplied during the years. Fantastic people have been met here, with many names that could pop up on request. Exciting discussions, with most often polite and intelligent participants. I wish them all the best in the future. Life is awesome and full of chances. We, humans, are atoms in an infinitely small and infinitely large universe. It seems logical to me to pursue successes, wherever they may be found.

Turn the page 📖. Kind regards, -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done Page speedily deleted COM:CSD - U3. Restorations by Morin were deleted and revdell'd to prevent further harassment. Warned not to restore the thread again. Now, move on. Thanks. --Bedivere (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Promotional/ POV user name

Could you please check if the user name 11tes-gebot.de is in compliance with the policy that promotional user names are not acceptable? The user name was obviously chosen to promote his website 11tes-gebot.de, which happens to be the website of the artist whose work is depicted in most of the photos.
This is a strongly POV website, and the user apparently tries to use Commons to place his POV. I don't care what his personal opinion is, and it doesn't matter in the least if I agree or disagree with him. But when it comes to stating as a fact that something is unconstitutional, that's for the courts to decide, not for him. And it's certainly not for an image description on Wikimedia Commons to proclaim this message. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F11:2F00:B9D5:AFB6:24AC:AD3A 22:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That is definitely a username violation. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done: Softblocked. --Achim55 (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

TaurusEmerald

• TaurusEmerald (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reason: User keep on violating COM:OW policy despite multiple notices (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The policy stated that substantial changes, i.e. a radical crop such as close-up on a person, should be uploaded in a separate file. However, the user seems to ignore the notices and still overwrite a file with a radical crop.

A1Cafel (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• What you have hidden from telling us here is that they're cropping their own uploads, shortly after upload. This is entirely permissible.

Once again, you're stalking other editors and appointing yourself as wikicop against their 'crimes'. We've had to impose blocks and bans to stop you doing this before, are more needed? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Policy you linked literally says "Unedited versions may be replaced by their uploader shortly after they are uploaded" so no policy violation?? A09 (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

When you say “constantly”, your evidence includes an upload from three years ago! It almost seems like you are going through there entire history, and yet as has been pointed out to you the latest warning you provided is one for which their upload is well within the guidelines. I don’t think this is a very productive or civil way of going about things. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Ready Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:DINMING

DINMING (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Upload advertising files. メイド理世 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Piggy983

Piggy983 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Upload copyvio files. also File:Avatar The Way of Water poster.jpg deleted has re-uploading. メイド理世 (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:我是一隻北極熊

我是一隻北極熊 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, despite reported and blocked once, still continued to upload copyrighted images. Also I found another user, Charkie's Picture (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploaded several copyrighted images as well, since both are from zhWiki and Cambrian topic maybe those users can be sockpuppet? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I blocked 我是一隻北極熊 for a month. Copyvios deleted. For "Charkie's Picture" we need a check user. Yann (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Togohack

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

single-purpose account that adds unnecessary, redundant, or inaccurate categories to files Dronebogus (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days + 2 warnings. Yann (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Indef. Probably a sock of the account reported below. Yann (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Preservativeuse

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

Only uploads low quality/useless files and puts files in nonsense categories. Dronebogus (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, everything deleted. Probably master account of Togohack reported above. Yann (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Atlantis7807

Atlantis7807 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

The user continues uploading copyvio picture of a person, even after having being warned. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. More files need review. Yann (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:CINEFRICAMAG

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

The user continues uploading copyvio picture of a person, even after having being warned. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CINEFRICAMAG. Yann (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Code of Conduct Violations: 3.1 Harassment & 3.2 Abuse of Power

A user intends to delete all of my images which are being used by external media to illustrate results of CLIMATE CHANGE on societal behavior. E.g., see story about Canadian Forest Fire at JournalKentucky online. See Skynet dot Press's Links page.

My images are also displayed in other art galleries online and two news outlets. Yet the purported reason for deleting ALL my assets is "non-educational" "low resolution."

The images are sufficient resolution to display high quality on cell phones and PCs.

The request to delete ALL my portfolio is ABUSE OF POWER because it appears to be an act of MISANDRY AND HOMOPHOBIA and BECAUSE it attempts to ERASE ME AS A USER. One of my images has been onsite here for years.

I submit that such abuse of power should not be permitted, especially when the requester has publicly posted personal medical information (about themself) that should operate as an automatic disqualification in judging the quality of photos.

I challenge such vandalism as a direct violation of CODE OF CONDUCT Sec. 3.1 Harassment, intimidation, outrage, upset AND Sec. 3.2 Abuse of power / psychological.

I am requesting an Administrator to protect my uploads, user page, and suspend the abuser's account in accord with best practices.

I notified that deletion requester that I view the request to delete as a violation of Code of Conduct; however, I do not know what other type of notice may be preferred by wiki practices bc the rules are way to difficult to plow through when we have limited time. IF ANYONE HAS ANY OTHER ADVICE OR HELP, plz reply. BEST REGARDS, Xfileexpert

Xfileexpert (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. These images are out of scope and have been deleted. Bedivere (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Good call, Bedivere. Convenience link: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Xfileexpert. DMacks (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think Xfileexpert just needs to take a step back. Xfileexpert, I understand that it can be very frustrating to have all your work deleted within a moment's notice, but this is a collaborative wiki where all of us have to abide by such policies. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

MATEO HILARES

MATEO HILARES (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has continued uploading non-free images despite the warning, one of these images similar to another that was deleted less than 24 hours ago, from a user with three blocks. This user could also have used the Mateo HIL. (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) account, both created on the same day and uploaded images with similar names, but different extensions (see 1 and 2) --Ovruni (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support 1-week block at minimum due to the repeated copyvios plus potential socking (we'd need a CU to check that, though). --SHB2000 (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Due to big number of copyvios I blocked Mateo for a month. The rest of his uploads are likely copyvios as well. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

user:188.170.86.237

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

Anon IP is mass tagging random files for deletion. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Yann for 3 days. ─ Aafī (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Finlands län

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

User is uploading unsourced edits of flag and coat of arms files, overwriting the official versions with their own. User is already banned for sockpuppeting on the Finnish Wikipedia side, being linked to a well-known sockpuppeteer and vandal account. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user indefinitely. Greetings from south! Taivo (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Amaterasu 1-1

• Amaterasu 1-1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user is short blocked due to mis-using license tags and lacking eligible license proofing. There are some similar behaviors with already indef blocked Japanese logo socks; User:Cobalt_1031, User:Ramsal18.

1. Amaterasu and Ramsal have uploaded Olympic Game logos and both some ones are deleted due to copyvio.
2. Ramsal uploaded the 47th G7 summit logo File:G7_Cornwall_logo.svg ja:Special:Diff/93809768. After removed it by copyvio and indef blocking, Amaterasu also tried uploading the same logo in jawp. ja:Special:Diff/99249865 ja:Special:Log/Amaterasu 1-1 ja:File:Logo G7 Cornwall.svg.
In File:MHLW logo.svg and ja:Special:Diff/99101757, both users tried uploading copyvio logo as well.
3. talk page laundering? Netora (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Netora: You may wish to report such actions to m:srg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

User:FrDr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit waring and vandalism by User:Микола Василечко

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:The patriarchy are emasculated

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

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

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

User:XitZ2012

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

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

User:The Squirrel Conspiracy and DR procedure

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

1 Requests the image's deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like this one? [9], removal from fr.wiktionary (5:31), DR creating (5:34). ----Benoît (d) 13:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPA User:Crispybcritters

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

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

Today Crispybcritters made a third nonsensical nomination.

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

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

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