Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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}

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.

User:EugeneZelenko[edit]

This guy is such an avid deletionist that he appears to never do the easiest possible kind of checking before jumping to the conclusion that, for example, the logo of a company or publication with a Wikipedia article on it.wikipedia is an "Unused trivial logo" that should be deleted, even nominating logos that are COM:INUSE for deletion that way, and he never responds to discussion threads about his lazy, wrong deletion requests. Some examples: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo rivista il Mulino.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo GZ su 2 linee.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhongtianbiao.png (deleted for not having a license, without the deleter addressing COM:TOO), Commons:Deletion requests/File:Casdapro (logo).png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Society6-logo.png (required just slightly more research), Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheOleRazzleDazzle (somewhat less obvious, but "Unused charts. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful." is not a deletion reason and the claim of "Out of scope" was lazy). I also point you to Commons:Deletion requests/File:2018최광모(사복) choi kwang-mo(suit).jpg, in which he lectures a user with thousands of uploads that "Commons is not private photo album." I think it's important for him to be warned that if he does not start doing even the most obvious due diligence before giving false stock deletion reasons for files that are in use, are logos of companies or organizations that have Wikipedia articles about them or are personal photos of users in good standing with hundreds of contributions or more, he risks being suspended from making deletion requests. And the fact that he's a bureaucrat should mean that he's held to a higher, not lower standard. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also note Commons:Deletion requests/File:Treble clef and Bass clef.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:20181028 vinstrekord danska foretag (44870929734).jpg. And before someone argues that I'm not "assuming good faith," this is a pattern of behavior, ignoring responses to his deletion requests and blindly assuming he knows that files are useless without understanding what they are (which I assume must be the case with the treble and bass clefs) or checking whether a company or organization is actually notable. There is no basis for assuming good faith here. There are other users whose good faith is obvious because they withdraw deletion requests when shown to have goofed. Everyone goofs; that's not the issue here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see people use the whole "Should be in SVG if useful" thing in deletion requests for logos quite a lot. IMO it's not a valid reason to nominate a logo for deletion. Although the guidelines should probably clarified to reflect the fact that images of logos that aren't in SVG are fine if people are going to called out or reported for using that as a delete reason. Since right or wrong I can see why they would have the impression that SVGs are the "preferred" file format for logos. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If all these logos are so useful and in scope, why they are not used? If uploaders didn't find usage, somebody else need to do so. Please suggest better procedure to solve this problem. Or authors of above comment could take care about uploaded and abandoned files themselves for benefit of project. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only 20% of all files at Commons are ever in use. We store them for third parties to use, including Fandom, the for-profit Wiki offshoot. We could delete 80% of all images if our only goal was to store images for internal WikiUniverse use. --RAN (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EugeneZelenko: There's a project called the name-suggestion-index that uses images of logos that are hosted on Commons. I've uploaded a few images of logos for the project myself in the past. Just because something isn't being used directly on a Wikimedia project doesn't mean it's not being used or isn't in scope. Anyway, like Ikan Kekek said "not in use" isn't a valid deletion reason anyway. It's ridiculous that you don't know that. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How are you a bureaucrat here without knowing that "not in use" is not a deletion reason? Unbelievable! Are you trying to argue that every file that's not currently in use on another wiki should be deleted? Shaking my head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support some sort of action, whether it be a firm warning or a temporary block or ban (there's nothing stating that bureaucrats or admins are exempt from blocks or bans). Like Ikan Kekek, I too am suprised that EugeneZelenko thinks "not in use" is a deletion reason, and their inability to comprehend that it is not does not convince me that their behaviour will change. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I've always found his comment "Should be in SVG if useful" a bit weird and not really relevant to why an image should be deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Controversial user. He had previously used nss in cases where it was a derivative or de minimis work - where there was often no flagrant copyright violations but a matter for discussion. Example. Matlin (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I think that what Ikan Kekek said above very much applies here: "the fact that he's a bureaucrat should mean that he's held to a higher, not lower standard." Some of the DR nominations by EugeneZelenko show a miscomprehension of the project scope and are concerning for a user with such amount of privileges (administrator and bureaucrat). Specifically for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo rivista il Mulino.jpg, IMO none of the arguments by EugeneZelenko are valid. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that «the fact that he's a bureaucrat should mean that he's held to a higher, not lower standard», and indded I may have stated something to that effect before. In practice, however, regular users are terrified of admins for those hold the power to block us. The only defense is other admins, of course, and sometimes happens that some admins do make the effort to discipline one of their own (and often rightly so), but it’s also often that an admin action, by virtue of being one, is by default presumed correct — and no regular user wants to be on the wrong side of this trouble.

So, do I think that this o.p. is worth following and supporting? Yes, I do. Would I have said as much had the agreeing repliers in this thread so far not included a couple of other admins? Nopes, I’d have not risked it.

As for the matter at hand — yes:

D.R.s should not be misused to “fix” uploaders’ carefulness. If it’s lacking a license, then add one, when it’s something obvious like {{PD-old}}, or use {{Wrong license}} as approprate. That’s what we do for a file whose uploader neglect to properly categorise or otherwise curate: This is a wiki, after all, and we are all expected to work on the whole of the repository. Expecting a careless, inexperienced user to get the details right in “their” filepages, and punish them with a D.R. when not, goes against several basic principles of Commons, including COM:OWN.
The mantra «Should be in SVG if useful» used as deletion rationale is a bad idea and I’d be happy to see it gone: JPEG logos (and maps, diagrams, etc — unless photos are heavily included) should be tagged with {{Badjpg}}, not sent to the shredder through a D.R., for they can be in scope. Properly exported or drawn PNG (or even GIF) logos etc. are perfectly fine and there should not be a demand to “convert” them to SVG, which often backfires (cf. the many instances of {{Badsvg}} and {{Fakesvg}} caused by clueless people hurrying to obey this unreasonable demand).

We also need the original file to compare to the svg. We have corporate logos and coats-of-arms and flags, where the svg color is slightly off, and you would only know if you compared it to the original file.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for an example. File:SCP-173 Proposal.jpg and File:Class-D Orientation Leaflet.jpg. Two are two images from a CC-BY-SA video game that were proposed deleted for being "corporate documents". Yet he never admitted any wrongdoing on his part for this ridiculous deletion reason. --Trade (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support some sort of action against user like a warning.

Exhibit A: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RalphE from 2018, files DR when they could have did 5 minutes of clean up work on public domain files.
Exhibit B: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sdunham6 from 2019. They nominated two files that were {{PD-US-no notice}}.
Exhibit C: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dick clark productions logo.jpg from 2019. A pretty egregious DR. Dick Clark Productions is quite notable.
Exhibit D: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Front of St Dunstan's College in early 1900..jpg, from 2022. This was an early 1900s autochrome. They put a "no license" because the uploader used default settings.
Exhibit E: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Augusto Leopoldo Principe do Brasil 02.jpg, 19th Century carte de visite from Brazil that never should have had a "no license" tag put on it because the uploader used default settings (also uploader failed to notice the photographer's credit on it)

I could find other examples but I wanted to show that there is a pattern to how they would rather put a speedy deletion tag or file a DR than fix newbie mistakes by uploaders. Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please explain how newbies will learn to be careful, if somebody else will clean up after them? After all claiming copyrights over public domain works is violation of author right for name (at least in post-USSR copyrights laws). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO it is possible to warn a user without nominating of the files for deletion. Don't we have a procedure for that? {{Wrong license}}? Yann (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is proper process in such situations, it'll be good idea to add support for it into MediaWiki:Gadget-QuickDelete.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-VisualFileChange.js. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Deletion request is a sledge hammer, that's used to scare off trolls, but that's counterproductive for users, that make small mistakes because they are new. If you want to retain users, that make beginners faults, this method is probably the worst thinkable. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 18:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EugeneZelenko, you think it's worthwhile to hide PD images because someone didn't include the right license for them? Is being dedicated to removing the largest possible number of useful, usable images on the site not incompatible with being an admin/bureaucrat here? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Each public domain media must have proper license and source according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory and Commons:Essential information. File tagging and deletion requests are not end of the world, but tools that provide time to fix problems. What is right procedure for that and how to integrate it into existing tools are subjects for constructive discussion. For your reference, originator of this thread uses deletion requests in non-obvious cases and some people tag problematic media with {{No source since}}. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagging a file with the extreme insult of a deletion request is something to be avoided, at least for new uploaders. That's one of the biggest shows of assumption of bad faith towards the uploader possible, AGF is the very opposite of such behavior.

You should help those uplo0aders to licence them properly by giving them hints about what to do, not by slamming them in the face with a deletion request. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 15:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion request or tag explains what is wrong with media and what need to be fixed. How about copyrights violations tagging and deletions for new users: are these also manifestation of assumption of bad faith? Same question for cases involved Commons:Freedom of panorama and Commons:Derivative works. If not, what is principal difference with moral rights (part of copyrights) violations for public domain media? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A real copyvio and a wrong attribution of a PD-file (probably because the upload interface suggested this) are in different universes, they are not comparable at all.

No real harm is done, if a new uploader just took the suggestions of the interface for uploading as fine, had no interest in diving deep into uncharted territory of licencing legalese, and attributed a PD-file with CC4, an innocent error nearly everyone could make, something that should be resolved by friendly hints and help.

If someone really uploaded a copyvio (see for example here) that's something different, that should be dealt with with more oomph and less friendliness.

A DR is utter unfriendliness, it's a slap in the face, it has absolutely nothing in common with helping but with frightening. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 17:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A lot of files seem to get deleted simply because the uploader used CC4 instead of PD-file when they uploaded the image. It's kind of a ridiculous way to handle things. There should really be an across the board guideline/policy that people should just change the license on a file if it's possible to instead of nominating the image for deletion. Especially in cases where the copyright is clearly expired. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: what do you mean by "CC4", that's not the name of any license I'm familiar with. Do you mean {{Cc-0}}, or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 02:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presumably CC-BY-SA-4.0, which I've been seeing a lot lately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bingo. I've been seeing it a lot lately to. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eugene, if you think stating that I also make errors in deletion requests is relevant to your case, let's stipulate: like everyone else, I am human and make errors. However, I pay attention to discussion in the response threads to my deletion requests and have withdrawn several DRs that have been shown to be erroneous. So far, I've never seen you reply to any response thread to any of your deletion requests, let alone admit to error or withdraw any DRs. Moreover, you are a bureaucrat who's been on Commons since 2004 without somehow knowing basic guidelines, such as that "not in use" is not by itself a deletion reason and files that are obviously PD should not be deleted just because of erroneous information on the file page (I at least hope the latter is a guideline); I started paying attention to COM:DR only because a couple of years ago, loads of files in use on Wikivoyage, where I am a bureaucrat/admin, were being deleted without notice and then with sporadic notice before notifications improved. I plead guilty to being a non-expert on Commons deletion policies and practices and copyright laws. But what's your excuse for bullheadedly engaging in destructive, disrespectful behavior that violates policies you should know like the back of your hand? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked about constructive discussion above of procedure, not personalities, so please try to do so. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were the one who opened this line of discussion by stating that "For your reference, originator of this thread uses deletion requests in non-obvious cases". If you think I deserve a warning for my deletion requests, start a new thread. The constructive discussion of procedure in this thread has included suggestions for you to stop requesting the deletion of PD files, do at least basic searches to see if the subject of a prospective deletion request is covered by an article on any Wikimedia site, stop routinely using stock reasons for deletion that are irrelevant ("Should be in SVG if useful") or potentially insulting (lecturing a user with thousands of good uploads that "Commons is not private photo album"), pay attention to and sometimes reply to comments in response threads for your deletion requests, and withdraw ones that are clearly erroneous. Speaking of which, I call everyone's attention to Commons:Deletion requests/File:2021-01-15 12-37-54 ILCE-7C DSC01514 DxO (50962597091).jpg. At least you replied to the discussion thread this time, but will you withdraw the DR now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that unbelievable DR, that's pure vandalism. Did EugeneZelenko even spend a single second with this file before making this completely bogus DR? There is no valid reason given, it's pure and simple vandalism to nominate that file for deletion. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 07:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files had and still have multiple issues: meaningless name, no reasonable description, no categories and no {{FoP-Belgium}}. Sorry, I did not notice coordinates. But may be critics here would say something about quality of mass import in this particular case? Or why nothing was done for almost two years to avoid any possible confusions? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those issues could have been solved by other means than deletion request. And those issues are now being addressed as they should have been by other users. And it usually doesn't take much time to categorize a file imported from Flickr, I do that as part of my routine maintenance work. You could even be bold and improve the files yourself. Abzeronow (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing of those is by far a reason for deletion, why did you use a DR as first contact? Why do you want to deter users witrh such extreme measures instead of trying to help them? Why do you so desperately want to shove users away? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 17:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You repeated word lecturing for second time. Please try to read you own statements here and think that may be you are doing the same? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're talking to me, you deserve lectures because you are persisting in acting in bad faith and giving inappropriate excuses for non-constructive behavior. A user who's uploaded thousands of good images does not deserve to be suddenly subjected to a scolding lecture that "Commons is not private photo album" because of one selfie that's not currently in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please point to list of approved and only allowed deletion request messages that do not hurt anybody feelings? If there are no such list, it should be created, discussed and agreed on. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm aware of the policy. You think it's completely acceptable to ignore the context of every file, right? So it's acceptable to tell someone who's uploaded thousands of useful photos that Commons is "not your personal free web host" instead of proposing the deletion of one selfie not in use as a "personal image not in use"? No, it's not acceptable. Respect valuable users. And furthermore, when a personal image is not in use, regardless of whether the uploader is valuable or not, "personal image not in use" is all you need to give as a deletion reason. But that's somehow too hard for you... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even valuable user may forget to request deletion of unused selfie. Or if selfie was forgotten, deletion request provides enough time to use it, what may be not a case of Category:Personal files for speedy deletion process. Sorry, but without standardization of deletion request messages, variant proposed by you is not better/more correct than variants used by other people. Is policy wording shows any disrespect to valuable users? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just don't see the point of insisting that personal images of established users must be in use on a userpage in order to qualify for the exemption, as long as they are not excessive. Otherwise it leads to silly situations like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Last night in Sweden.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, but my objection isn't even to the deletion request but to the language used in it. If that's not clear, I'd recommend for Eugene to reread my suggestion, but I can elaborate a little. I think "personal image not in use" is a good deletion reason, even if inessential in cases when a user has hundreds of good edits or more, and if it's in use on the user page of someone with 2 Wikimedia edits or something, "personal image of user with very few edits" is also a good deletion reason. There's no need to lecture people that "Commons is not your personal free web host" by default, and when that's your default language and gets used in a deletion thread for a selfie of a user with thousands of good uploads, it's offensive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please point to rule that formalize ranking of users and differentiate application of other policies to them. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you familiar with the phrase "tone deaf"? First, the way someone chooses to phrase a deletion reason doesn't have to involve a change in policy (and shouldn't), but can be about caring about how someone might react to the phrasing, as we should want to avoid insulting and possibly chasing valuable users away from the project, so why do you think it's good to seem to be claiming that someone with thousands of good uploads might be using Commons as a "personal free web host" because one selfie isn't currently in use? Second, there is no policy difference between requesting deletion of a file because it is a "personal image not in use" than because "Commons is not your personal web host." Third, if you look at COM:SELFIE, you see the following language: An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace), but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed. In practice, that means that someone who is obviously not a fly-by-night uploader with 2 contributions to Commons in 2015 and no other contributions to Wikimedia sites but a valuable Commons user with thousands of uploads is allowed to upload small numbers of personal images. But since you're a bureaucrat, of course you knew that, right? Why do I have to tell you things you should be telling me? And why is your response to everything in this thread to make excuses and shift blame instead of ever admitting that you make mistakes or might be able to do x, y and z better by taking some suggestions? We all know there are loads of files that need to be deleted from this site, and it's important for people to spend time requesting deletion of files. But we need to be better at requesting the deletion of the right files and working together respectfully. I wish you would have taken some of the feedback you had gotten before I started this thread to heart, but now that we have this thread, I wish you'd take the feedback you've gotten from multiple users to heart. Your response is disturbing and seems similar to the tone of the responses the former admin gave in the de-admin thread linked by King of Hearts in this thread. Do you really want to end up de-sysopped, or might you consider accepting your humanness and making some corrections before we get to the point of proposing for such a step to be taken? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not making excuses. I'd like to see arguments based on something other than personal opinion, subjective by definition. Unfortunately everything subjective is prone to misinterpretations. With enough imagination even Personal photo by non-contributors (F10) (one of standard reason in deletion form) may be viewed as offense of planetary scale.

Nobody disallow this particular user to keep personal photos by simple way of using them on user page and deletion request closed after that.

You are absolutely right, there too much on maintenance work in this project, so it's bad idea to waste time for conflicts. Please don't take this sentence as offense, but could you please try to make simple exercise: read this thread, but swap source of messages mentally - may be there is something for you to think about too?

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gave you an evidence-based argument, criticizing the language you used (but not necessarily the deletion request, which I have not opposed), but you don't recognize it as such. So let me ask you a question: What are the chances that a user who's uploaded thousands of their own photographs, one of which is a selfie that's not currently in use, is using Commons as a personal web host? If your argument is that it's possible, the answer is that you didn't look at what they've uploaded at all. That's not a call for subjectivity; it's a call for evidence-based work. Secondarily, I called for the use of more sensitive language, and stating that any form of words might cause offense is precisely an excuse, and really a cop-out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not Ikan's personal opinion, it's literally what the policy says. smh... SHB2000 (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case of these particular files policy is clear and deletion request did not affect thousands other files. Please explain why user could not be reminded of policies in particular cases. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They aren't the ones who's behavior this report is about. Instead of deflecting you should answer Ikan Kekek's question "What are the chances that a user who's uploaded thousands of their own photographs, one of which is a selfie that's not currently in use, is using Commons as a personal web host?" Otherwise I don't see anyone can seriously argue that you shouldn't be blocked from doing DRs or making speedy deletion requests. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eugene, I realise that English isn't your native language, but it's very common phrase in English to use "thousands" or even "millions" as a synonym for "many" (it depends on context). Nitpicking on another user's comment (in this case, Ikan Kekek's) because of a minor phrasing issue that's idiomatic is what I'd call a "politician's answer" – it doesn't address the concerns raised about your behaviour. SHB2000 (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disclaimer: next text is not in defence of myself, just reflection on situation. In some ways origin of this thread may be also viewed as politician's. Wasn't single message was picked too? Was accusition based on something else than subjective opinion (I asked several times to point to rules which were used as basis for that)? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's pretty annoying, to say the least, that you continue to pretend that no policy-based arguments have been given to you. Would you like to tell Yann that his decision in Commons:Deletion requests/File:2018최광모(사복) choi kwang-mo(suit).jpg was purely subjective and not policy-based? Or is it that only when users are not admins do you think that it's OK to treat them and their arguments dismissively for no reason? (And for the record, the user whose selfie was the subject of that deletion request quite literally has uploaded thousands of photos, including the one selfie Eugene thought it was reasonable to call out as if the user might be using Commons as his "personal web host.") -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was only responding to you about that specific comment, Eugene. SHB2000 (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, if I was not clear. My reflections were not about your comment, but about origins of whole thread about comment of deletion request message. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Each public domain media must have proper license and source"

No, this is not a simple absolute truth, it's just one of many convenient falsehoods that you peddle in order to keep deleting stuff, simply because you like deleting stuff.

PD media needs to demonstrate that it's PD. That's all.

PD media does not have a licence. WTF do you even mean, "a proper licence"? Do you understand anything about copyright? We even have an ongoing DR now where some PD material is up for deletion because it has a licence (old PD art has been photographed and the photographer mistakenly(?) assumed that they needed to license their photography of it, when nearly always they don't).

PD material is mostly PD because of age. Demonstrating that it's PD may require demonstrating that age, that age may require authorship, authorship may require a source. So often we do need a source. Sources are good. But in some cases, the artwork is demonstrably old (such that PD is clear) and we can demonstrate this without needing the full source information. Yet you still want to delete anyway. Just because you like deleting stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support some kind of action. Per the comments already made about why there needs to be something done here. I'm not a big supporter of how EugeneZelenko responded to Ikan Kekek in his last message either and the DR that Ikan Kekek linked to is a complete train wreck. I make mistakes myself sometimes. Especially with making bad deletion requests since it's not a super clear cut thing to begin with, but it seems like there's seriously chronic problems with how EugeneZelenko handles them and I haven't any attempt on their part to even admit the errors. So screw it. Sanction them and move on. If this was a normal user they probably would have received a warning and been blocked by now, at least temporarily if not perma. This level of incompetence from an administrator/bureaucrat/longtime user is just inexcusable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Based on the recent answers by EugeneZelenko ("well they also make mistakes so why shouldn't I") I approve action. The behavior in DRs that lead to this discussion and the answers provided have shown that EugeneZelenko is not trustworthy and should not be a bureaucrat or administrator. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does "de-admin" even works on Commons? Shouldn't the vote be in a seperate thread? Trade (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Commons:Administrators/De-adminship which points to discussing the issue here. But to be fair, the policy only mentions removing adminship "as a result of abuse of power". I don't think this quite applies here. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO a desysop is still premature at the moment, and I would rather they take all the feedback above seriously and be more careful in their deletions and deletion nominations going forward. But in practice, an RFDA can happen any time the community believes an admin falls short of the standard required. This is an example where the chief allegation was simply that the admin was bad at their job. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support a warning of some sort. I don't know if a ban on proposing deletions makes sense and I don't know if de-adminship would pass but the overall conduct is heavily problematic and the refusal to respond to any of the discussions and withdraw nominations that are blatantly incorrect is not helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - warning only, EZ has been around for a long time so was bound to make mistakes, atleast he nominated images he wasn't sure of instead of just deleting them, also i find it odd we still delete image based on their format, why? just because one format apparently supersedes another, doesn't make the previous format irrelevant, we can have different formats of the same image you know? they are not taking up space anyways. Also whoever wants a de-adminship because of this is not fit to be on this project. We want admins de-sysopped here for only one reason alone, abuse and nothing more. i see no abuse here...--Ste moc 20:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where do we draw the line between admin abuse and simply being a bad admin? Trade (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've proposed only for him to be warned at this point, but a warning has to carry with it the threat that compliance with the terms of the warning will be checked in x amount of time and continued bad behavior will result in some kind of a block, or it's toothless. And I think we do see behavior unbecoming of a bureaucrat/admin in this thread several times. The self-justifications, blame-shifting and refusal to admit to error are big red flags. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can propose it and I'm iffy on where I would go at the moment but I don't think it would pass and I think it would end up with a lot of people voting down a warning because of the proposal itself. While wasting a lot of time proposing bad DRs, are there examples of actual harm by bad closings? It is very odd to make so many wild DRs but to never act upon it with the tools. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So far, you're the only one who's defended him in this thread, and your defense seems quite weak to me. Wasting a lot of time with bad DRs is bad, but the worst part is Eugene's lack of admission of error. But if it were up to you, I would have to spend a lot of time looking through past deletion requests by Eugene that I didn't participate in, somehow determine that a now-deleted file that he had marked as "trivial" was in use, or that it was a textlogo of a company with a Chinese Wikipedia article about it or something? First, I'm not an admin, so I can't see files that have been deleted. Second, though I do know a few languages, there are a heck of a lot of Wikipedias I can't read. Third, the idea that I would spend lots of extra time doing the kind of investigation you are suggesting is completely absurd. Do you think I have nothing else to do with my life? I can only complain about DRs I have seen, as have various other users in this thread, and if the fact that I've flagged them as bad leads to the files being kept and therefore avoiding the worst result is somehow a defense of them, you have created a Catch 22. I hope no-one else has the viewpoint you've expressed. I'd further state that many users have been banned for wasting volunteers' time, such as by vandalizing, edit warring or creating totally off-topic articles. I'm a bureaucrat/admin on Wikivoyage, and I can tell you that wasting volunteers' time is a major reason for blocks on that site, and one possible way to do that would be to create lots of frivolous deletion nominations that then have to be discussed unnecessarily. That isn't a common reason for a block on Wikivoyage, but I can assure you, if anyone were doing that, we would explain to them why their deletion nominations were not warranted, ask them to desist, and then start with a 3-day block if they persisted. Were they admins, we would have a discussion and would definitely broach the idea of desysopping at least temporarily if the problematic behavior continued. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can propose it....I think it would end up with a lot of people voting down a warning Essentially everyone here except you agrees that he should receive one at the minimum, if not something harsher. So what exactly would Ikan Kekek have to do a proposal for? We already think he should be warned. Your the only one who doesn't. If anything it's on you to provide a good reason why a warning isn't justified. I don't see you doing that though. Like Ikan Kekek says, everything you've said so far to defend him is quite weak. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not defending him. I said I support a warning which is what I presume this discussion is about. Tell me how I can be more clear than that. I don't think a ban on making DR makes sense. RAN brings up inappropriate speedy deletion reasonings but is Eugene actively speedy deleting images on his own without any other admin involvement? Both are bad and both are enough to consider for de-adminship but the second is much, much worse. Again, a failure to follow the conduct becoming of an admin is enough. If you want to propose de-adminship, start a separate section and propose it. Else, don't just badger me because I'm saying I wouldn't start a de-adminship but don't surprised if half of this thread becomes mess of strikeouts and rewrites because of the proposal. The attitude is terrible and an utter waste of people's time but you give people more choices, they will rewrite their prior thoughts. It's not that complicated a point. Still, to summarize, (1) warning, yes; (2) don't know if a restriction on proposing DRs makes sense; (3) do whatever you want if you want something more. If that is defending him, I don't want to know what supporting him looks like. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ricky81682, thanks for clarifying your position. What caused confusion is that your reply immediately below my remark that began with "I've proposed only for him to be warned at this point" was "You can propose it and I'm iffy on where I would go at the moment but I don't think it would pass and I think it would end up with a lot of people voting down a warning because of the proposal itself." So I was one of a couple of people who thought that you were replying to my proposal for him to be warned, rather than to a suggestion of a desysop nomination, which I haven't proposed as of yet although Eugene's responses in this thread have been very problematic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I was clear that I was responding to the "behavior unbecoming of a bureaucrat/admin" part and that implication of de-adminship from that but I'll be more clear in the future. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem! Online communication is difficult. Anyway, we agree that a few steps can be taken before a desysop nomination might be made. The first step is a warning and monitoring his behavior for improvement. The second could be a suspension of his engaging in deletion requests and deletion tags. Desysopping would be somewhere down the line, and I hope we never get there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll just leave this here as yet another example of where EugeneZelenko claimed clearly educational media was OOS and acted like the uploader (a longtime, otherwise productive editor) was using Commons as a private video album, which is clearly nonsense. People can take it how they want, but the DR is from 2020. So there's clearly a long-term, chronic pattern of the same problematic behavior that this ANU report is about going on. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I brought up at an earlier time that EugeneZelenko uses speedy delete under the premise "no license", when there is a license, but they disagree with the license. That strategy should also be stopped. Those images should go through the normal deletion process. --RAN (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this a misuse of the tools or nominating images on their own and another admin deletes them? Ricky81682 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did the deletion nominations followed the rules? Trade (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a good example of EugeneZelenko frivolously using SDEL: Commons:Deletion requests/File:La porallée en 1230.jpg, which barely was saved, despite the obvious public domain nature of the image from 1650. You can see that there is an automatic deference because of his admin position: "How dare you presume to instruct an Admin and Bureaucrat on whether or not to open a DR?". RAN (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It's shocking and highly disturbing that someone actually wrote that! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen that myself and at least from what I can tell other administrators delete the file. That said, he still shouldn't nominating images for speedy deletion on the premise of them not having license if they do have one regardless of if the files are ultimately being deleted by someone else. Personally at this point I'd even go as to far as to say he shouldn't even be doing speedy deletion nominations for images that don't have licenses. It's not one can't just be added. As a side to that, while I agree with you that a topic ban on him doing DRs isn't justified at this point, what about a ban on doing speedy deletion nominations? Considering his behavior as a whole I think there's at least grounds to say that the actions he takes related to deleting files should be reviewed better by the wider community, which I think forcing him to do DRs would help with. There's no reason he has to nominate files for speedy deletion either. Especially considering his clear misuse of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with deletion is that at any given time, we have a 6-month backlog of deletions. It is very easy to nominate for deletion, but very time consuming to do the research for an image. The deletion closers do not always have the time to research an image, and tend to side with the nomination out of expediency. I would be satisfied with a SDEL ban. --RAN (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support But it's pointless. There will be no action taken against an admin, there never is. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it seems like essentially everyone supports some kind of action. If nothing is ultimately done about it, be that a warning or anything else, then I suggest taking it to Meta or reporting it to whoever is responsible for dealing with issues at the WMF. I assume that would be the trust and safety department, but I'm no expert on their bureaucratic structures. Either way, it's really not a good look if admins can do whatever they want with impunity. Plus, it allowing an admin (or really anyone) to get content deleted in mass just because they don't like it or whatever isn't great either.

As a side to that, I'm aware that he can technically have his admins removed, but there should really be a middle ground between that and nothing happening. Not just because it probably doesn't have a chance of passing either, but because EugeneZelenko seems like a fine administrator outside of this issue. So IMO it would be unfair to remove his admin rights over it. Something needs to be done though. If for no other reason then to show admins aren't above having to follow the rules. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: Taking a Commons issue to Meta or the WMF isn't going to do anything. They'll simply dismiss it as an intrawiki issue, especially on a wiki where there's a lot of oversight. SHB2000 (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've mostly stayed out of this but: Eugene, it worries me that you don't seem to see a problem here at all, and that all of your posts here are either about defending your actions exactly as they were, or attacking someone else. I think even most of the people calling for sanctions here are aware that most of your work here is good. This isn't about whether you are basically competent, but accepting reasonable criticism should be part of being an admin (let alone a 'crat).

Slow down a little on the deletion requests. Give a little more thought to how you word things. That shouldn't be so hard. It would be really stupid if it takes sanctions to call your attention to that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never refuse to accept comments made in collegual way, but it's very hard to not be in defensive position when such comments were made in offense way. Indeed, it's good idea to refresh "Tao Te Ching" in memory and give opportunities to participate in project maintainance to people who could do it better than me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason I started this thread is that you had consistently ignored every comment I made in the response threads of your deletion requests. And now that you feel forced to reply in this thread, you continue to pretend that no-one is giving you any policy-based arguments or that only we and not you are being "subjective." What kind of reaction do you expect to get to that kind of attitude and refusal to discuss things in good faith? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Speedy deletion ban --Trade (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am with Jmabel on this. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 21:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time for a ban on DRs and speedy deletions?[edit]

At this point, Eugene has made it clear that a warning made in good faith won't do anything; as of Feb 8, 18:21 (UTC+11), not a single user agrees with Eugene and they have repeatedly ignored nearly everyone's comments (if not everyone's – I'm using "nearly" as I may have missed a comment or two). Their refusal to discuss their problematic behaviour leaves a ban on DRs and SDs the next resort, and I should reiterate that there is no policy stating that admins or bureaucrats are exempt from bans.

A 3-month ban should be enough time for Eugene to reflect upon their actions and come to the realisation that their behaviour is problematic, IMO. I should make it clear, though, that I'm not married to the 3-month ban proposal, and if there's consensus for something else, then I'm all for it. If that does not work, then perhaps a longer ban could be considered.

Other thoughts? Pinging everyone involved in this discussion, including EugeneZelenko: @Ikan Kekek, Adamant1, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), King of Hearts, Matlin, Cryptic-waveform, Tuvalkin, Abzeronow, Yann, Sänger, Jmabel, Trade, Stemoc, Ricky81682, and Andy Dingley: (I hope I didn't miss anyone).

--SHB2000 (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if a warning plus supervision by admins for a couple of months with a reevaluation might not make a difference. However, I would also support a 3-month ban on DRs, SDs or both and/or a suspension of his admin/bureaucrat flags. Essentially whatever others conclude is an appropriate step, given his behavior, and is at this point temporary, is something I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Really, the multiple people who have supported some kind of action should have been the warning. The fact that he doubled down, obfuscated, or straight up blamed other people at every turn doesn't make me think a warning, official or otherwise, would be an effective way to stop him from doing the problematic behavior again though. So I support a three month topic ban on DRs and speedy deletions. Hopefully he can spend the time he's topic banned being productive in other areas. Since. like I've said, I think he's a fine administrator otherwise. He clearly has chronic issues with doing spurious DRs and SDs that need's to be dealt with somehow though. IMO a 3 month topic ban is the perfect middle ground between doing nothing and trying to get his admin privileges taken away. As SHB2000 said, there is no policy stating that admins or bureaucrats are exempt from bans, and one seems completely justified considering how EugeneZelenko has behaved. Both originally and with his responses to people here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support request to stop any deletion nominations for some time. Yann (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support some type of action. EugeneZelenko does not seem to see an issue with the way they handle speedy deletions and DRs. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - sadly, he isn't the only admin on this project that does not seem to understand the policies of this wiki especially since admins are held in high regards for being trusted by the community and i forsee more to come, would also agree with a 3 month TBAN and a refresher course to take that time to learn some of commons policies surrounding deletions and nominations and basic copyright laws, I have seen a common trend of users who became admins ions ago and those who were editors only for a short time (less than a year) before becoming admins LACKING the basic knowledge of commons policies surrounding copyright/FoP/Licensing..that said, even admins deserve a 2nd chance (but no 3rd,4th,5th,6th or 7th chance, we ain't enwiki :P ) ..--Ste moc 13:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support--Trade (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose I agree that Eugene often creates DRs or SDs without double checking the files and/or their copyright status, but I find unfair to write that Eugene lacks the basic knowledge about Commons policies. It is clearly untrue. Please consider that 90% of our users don't care about correctly licensing and attributing their uploads. Thus, someone has to do something for all these files that cannot stay on Commons because of a wrong license template, or a wrong attribution. I've myself notified EugeneZelenko in the past about some files that were tagged for deletion which were actually in the public domain. But I understand that you cannot check every single file, in every single language and copyright law. There must be a "first line" of users pointing to files that are uploaded with no valid source/license/author, and a "second line" that tries to save the files that are in SCOPE. What I would ask EugeneZelenko is to try to double check those files that are clearly in the public domain (or under a free license) when uploaded in GF, even if they are not perfectly sourced or licensed. I also understand that there are a lot of files that are illegally uploaded, and too few active admins to deal with this continuous wave of copyvios. Ruthven (msg) 14:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: Do you have any other alternate suggestions to dealing with Eugene's disruptive behaviour? SHB2000 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000 There's not an easy solution. My advice is to spend more time checking the files, in order to fix those licenses that are clearly wrongly attributed. "Slowing the pace", and showing a willingness not to delete public domain files, would be an OK behaviour for me.

Said that, we are touching here one of the main issues of this project: Copyright law is difficult, and here we're allowing anyone to upload anything. Some sort of (strict) control is mandatory! Moreover, it's up to the uploader to indicate the correct source, and the correct license; which means that, even if in GF, continuously uploading wrongly licensed files can lead to a block. Ruthven (msg) 09:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak support Matlin (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I hope that everyone who votes in support of ban will take over task of maintaining Commons, for example, reviewing media in Category:Media needing categories or even own uploads, as well as clearing backlog in Category:Items with disputed copyright information. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't think acting like your work is so valuable here that it overrides your conduct is helping your cause. One concern is your hubris. If the backlogs worsen, that's more of an indictment on how much we would rather they worsen than deal with you. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a fair request, though. Like everyone else, I'm a volunteer here, and I'll be very busy doing work for my job, but I'll try to do some of this at least now and then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Yeah, I think a 3 month SDEL ban would be appropriate. Their stubborn refusal to double check to make sure a file is public domain and/or actually notable is an ongoing problem. I will also help in the Media needing categories backlog since that is a good suggestion from Eugene. Abzeronow (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question If Eugene is being banned from performing file maintenance, how are they in any capacity to be judging it as an administrator? This proposal does not address that. 1989 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I rarely had problems with the files nominated by EugeneZelenko. I deleted more than 95000 files here, some signifiant number of those files likely nominated by EugeneZelenko, and among those files nominated by EugeneZelenko and deleted by me so few (none?) have been restored that I guess the deletion requests were almost all appropriate. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Is the ban meant to apply to performing deletions in addition to nominations? Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the ban, IMO it doesn't really make sense for someone to be allowed to close a deletion nomination that they would not be allowed to open. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment That makes sense. I don't think I agree with Gestumblindi that the performance of all administrative actions would need to be suspended, though. As long as there's been no controversy about things like file moving, renaming, user rights changes, etc., no problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: You're probably right. Only administrative actions in connection with deletions, then (also processing of UDRs?), if that is the consensus, but as said below, I'm neutral, I don't have a clear picture. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gestumblindi I would like to point to the fact that here we're discussing files put in deletion or speedy deletion. This means that Eugene doesn't perform the task himself, but ask other admins to do that. The main issue is that, doing so, he charges others of the task of double checking the deletion, taking limited responsabilities. But, in itself, it is not an abuse to ask others to do the job.! Ruthven (msg) 07:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I have no clear picture on the question of how big the portion of problematic/poorly founded DRs and speedy deletions by EugeneZelenko is. Myself being not a very active admin, when browsing through deletion requests by him which I handled over the years, I think I often found the copyright-related ones to be correct (e.g. cases like no freedom of panorama in France), but the scope-related ones less often so (the most blatant cases being nominating files for deletion as "out of scope" that are in use and therefore in scope per COM:INUSE). What I also quite often encountered is that EugeneZelenko speedy deleted files for which a deletion request was still open, without closing the DR (maybe not even noticing that there was a regular DR besides the speedy request), so I cleaned up with a "procedural close, already deleted" of the DR, but then, I saw this issue also with speedy deletions by other admins. - Anyway, I have similar concerns as 1989 and King of Hearts: If a a 3-month ban is agreed upon (I think I'm neutral on the issue), it would make more sense to apply it to all administrative actions. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"It would make more sense to apply it to all administrative actions." How so when this doesn't really have anything to do with his actions as an administrator? At the end of the day administrators are also normal editors when they are doing non-administrative tasks. It's not like we can't separate the two and just sanction him for what he did on his own time in edits that didn't involve using admin privileges. It would be ridiculous and totally pointless though to say ban him from being able to block sock puppets or whatever just because on his own time and in the normal process of editing he did some bad speedy deletion nominations. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you're right, "all administrative actions" was poorly phrased, see my reply to Ikan Kekek above. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We were writing previously about editors that nominate for deletion when a license is missing, rather than just make a quick fix. Here is another example: File:JAR speech Chemical Industry of Yesterday and of Tomorrow.pdf where there was no license, but adding the correct license. --RAN (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the uploaders responsibility to add the correct license - the person nominating might not know what the applicable license is and rather err on the side of caution and DR. FWIW I am deeply grateful for the work you do fixing licenses Gbawden (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was one of four files that I was trying to save from speedy deletion. I had fixed one to PD-US-unpublished because it looked like a memorandum of a speech and its author died in 1952, two other appeared to have been personal letters but you had correctly discerned that they were U.S. government works, and the file mentioned appeared to have been published in 1949 without a copyright notice, but since the title page and possibly the last page were not included, I couldn't be sure and I couldn't make out what title the pamphlet had published under, so I started a DR to buy time so information could be found. So, yes, I erred on the side of caution. Abzeronow (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After two weeks of discussions I would like to hear a comment from EugeneZelenko upon this feedback on their actions. Perhaps not all what has been written was constructive, but perhaps there have been some points to induce change. Ellywa (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For historical media I'll follow {{Wrong license}} suggestion and had asked to integrate support to maintenance widgets.

For logos I'll follow User:Jmabel advice. However, there is nothing new in this matter, see m:Inclusionism and m:Deletionism.

For deletion request texts I'll use direct links for Commons policies because policies are same for every user.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you willing to apologize to the uploader next time you make a deletion request for faulty reasons? Trade (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please point to example of faulty reason? Even in case of mural from Belgium mass uploader could de better job of describing file to avoid any possible confusions. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You wrote, "... had asked to integrate support to maintenance widgets." What was that request? Also, if you "follow Wrong license suggestion"- will you not just add the tag, but follow the instructions on this tag here- "... An experienced editor should contact the uploader and add the proper license tag, or discuss the issue on the talk page."? Ooligan (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See MediaWiki talk:Gadget-VisualFileChange.js#Feature request Support for wrong license and MediaWiki talk:Gadget-QuickDelete.js#Feature request Support for wrong license. I'm aware and use paired {{Wrong license note}}. I never denied help to users who asked to it. However, uploaders know much more about origins of file and they should participate in providing proper copyrights status to avoid wild guessses. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you say "policies are the same for every user," that's false in regard to personal images. Fly-by-night users or new users are not entitled to host non-notable personal images, but regular users with hundreds of edits or more are allowed to upload some non-notable personal images of themselves, as long as they are selfies and therefore don't have copyright problems. So do you plan to do a cursory global contributions check before you accuse another good-faith user with hundreds or thousands of useful uploads (or edits on another wiki) of using Commons as their "private photo album," or do you seek to cover yourself by lamely linking to a Commons policy that is irrelevant to them? Sorry for the confrontational tone, but I think it's important for you to do a bit of checking before you request deletion of any file, and I'm unconvinced so far that you are planning to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What if such good-faith user with hundreds or thousands of useful uploads would upload media that violates Commons:Freedom of panorama or Commons:Derivative works? Will nominating particular files for deletion with linking to policy be seen as accusations for rest of uploads? If not, what is principal difference with out of scope media?

Since you keep insisting that rules should be applied differently for different user. Could you please write essay and elaborate your vision? What are gradations, which policies could be ignored for particular grade, what are technical means should be to discover grade of particular user, how such policies would be enforced?

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a really bad-faith answer. Obviously, most policies apply equally to everyone, but this one does not, and it's an absolutely ridiculous thing for you to presume to assign me an essay when the differentiation is spelled out in policy. Just reread COM:SELFIE, specifically "The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project." Do you plan on checking whether a user whose selfie you want to delete is an active participant in Wikimedia before you accuse them of using Commons as their "private photo album," or do you prefer to spew out nonsense like the above reply over and over again until or unless someone blocks you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why request for systemic point of view is assumed to be made in bad-faith? This is definitely contrasting with a lot of mentioning of good faith in this section.

Just a reminder: these selfies were not used at time of nomination and policy is clear about such cases. Please aslo answer my question about other policies in similar sircumstances.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that a user with thousands of good uploads had a single currently unused selfie to his credit did not give you a factual basis for seeming to accuse him of using Commons as his "private photo album." By the letter of the selfie policy, it could have been deleted, and I didn't oppose deletion, though you should note what the closing admin said in regard to that case, but no-one is saying it was illegitimate to request deletion of an unused selfie. Either you really are unable to understand that the way you did it is the issue, or you would rather troll about it; either way, that's a problem. Your other question is absurd and does not dignify a response; moreover, it was already answered above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started a discussion on COM:ANB#User:EugeneZelenko (DR ban), though it's disappointing that after 96 hours, nothing has been done yet. SHB2000 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment For all the running around, EugeneZelenko has been continuing to start DRs so it would be helpful for someone to make a decision and close this because it doesn't make sense to ban someone for doing something they haven't formally been told they are banned from doing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random / false licensing, edit warring[edit]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) silently changes descriptions and PD rationales of files, uploaded by other users and nominated for deletion, adding random or blatantly false tags, which are unrelated to the particular issue. When undone, starts edit warring: [1] [2]. This is not a single case, but a modus operandi. Another example: [3] contrived date of creation added as well as false statement that the author is anonymous. 188.123.231.32 19:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that 188.123.231.32 is an IP account with 12 edits, 6 of those edits involve this AN. I don't think it is physically possible to edit war with someone whose only contribution has been two deletion nominations, and maybe a dozen other edits complaining about someone opposing the nomination of one other image. Clearly this is someone that has had a beef with me in the past, most likely blocked, and is hiding behind an anonymous IP address. --RAN (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't nominate something for deletion saying that the uploader added the wrong information, then complain that someone has attempted to correct the data. You reverted back to information that you agree is incorrect, because it is the rationale for your deletion. It appears that you just want deletion, not more accurate information. My changes are not "random or blatantly false", they are based on the best information available at the time. If you think changing inaccurate information during a deletion nomination is wrong, then lobby to have all entries locked during the process. As with File:Heinrichschultz.jpg, changing the information back to what you agree with, as being incorrect, is just counterproductive. Your argument appears to be that the information is inaccurate, and needs to stay inaccurate, because that is the rationale for deletion. If someone tries to make it more accurate then it may not get deleted. Deletion is the motivation, not more accuracy. --RAN (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for link #3, it would seem that a creation date of 2012 does not refer to a photo of a man clearly younger than 88. Is the author of a photo supposed to be the uploader of a scan, or the person who clicked the shutter? Is the creation date of a photo the former or the latter action? Elizium23 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also been a bit concerned by RAN's modus operandi, as you call it, for a while. Do we have a term for the opposite of a deletionist? A "keepist"? That's what we could call RAN, always looking for reasons to keep files, often using PD rationales that seem rather far-fetched or at least not really well based on established facts. I'm sure that it is with the best of intentions, but just assuming an anonymous author, for example, because none is stated at the immediate image source, is a common mistake. - Regarding example #3, File:Heinrichschultz.jpg: 13 October 2012 is simply the upload date, a common mistake as well. It is certainly a scan of an older photograph. The uploader Bartod2 claims to be the author ("own work"), and that is possible - we do have Commons contributors of advanced age who have taken photographs in the 1960's and even earlier, and are uploading their own works. In this case, maybe it's not very likely, as it's the uploader's only contribution and in low resolution, so the deletion request is understandable - what is not understandable is RAN just changing the authorship to "anonymous", as there's no base for this assumption given. If there's no author mentioned or the stated authorship is wrong, that doesn't mean that a work is anonymous per default. - Summing up, I would recommend more caution and a more restrained approach. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legally when "Bartod2" uploads an image it is pseudonymous. --RAN (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, most Commons contributors are using pseudonyms. That's not the same as an anonymous work. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In some copyright jurisdictions anonymous and pseudonymous have the same legal standing. Without a VRT to backup the claim that "Bartod2" took the image they uploaded, that has no metadata, and the file size is that small, the best assumption is that the image is not the creation of "Bartod2". We make that assumption on a daily basis, and it is the most common rationale for deletion at Commons. --RAN (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a remarkable fact, RAN. How do said jurisdictions handle attribution as required by Creative Commons? If "pseudonymous = anonymous" does that mean there is no requirement/possibility to accurately attribute a work to its author? I mean, it's a huge problem for us regarding sock puppetry and fake accounts. We have no way of tying back a pseudonymous WMF account to a real person; there is not even necessarily a 1:1 mapping of these! Elizium23 (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you name some of those jurisdictions, RAN? Nowadays, of course most jurisdictions have automatic copyright that starts when you create the work; you are the copyright owner immediately, and it doesn't matter at all whether you publish the work under your real name, under a pseudonym, or even anonymous, as the copyright is tied to the act of creation, not the act of publication. I know that it is more complicated in the US for older works (for works created now, the US follow also the automatic copyright standard), but per COM:HIRTLE, even in the US, "anonymous and pseudonymous" seem to be only treated as the same thing for quite specific cases expressed in our template {{PD-US-unpublished}}. - Regarding Bartod2, I'm quite of the same opinion as you. It seems unlikely in this case that Bartod2 is the author (though possible), so we will most likely delete the image, but that would also be the case if they uploaded the image under their real name, or a name that looks real. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jurisdictions do not declare anonymous/pseudonymous published works in the public domain at creation, but the enter the public domain 50, 70, or 120 years after creation since you can't determine a death date. Some legal jurisdictions, like Germany, allow a claw-back from the public domain if the creator becomes known, and has died less than 70 years from disclosure. For example, the EU, our license PD-anon-70 has: "This image is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term for anonymous or pseudonymous works is 70 years from the year of first publication or less, for example in the European Union." In Japan, we have the license PD-Japan, and it has "50 years after publication for anonymous or pseudonymous authors" and the EU worded slightly differently: "PD-EU-no author disclosure" has: "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image" (my emphasis) and PD-Sweden-photo has "The photographer is not known, and cannot be traced" (my emphasis). And lastly, as you pointed out, the United States for unpublished creative works: PD-US-unpublished: "it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work." --RAN (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I think you show clearly that "anonymous" and "pseudonymous" are often conflated. However, a pseudonym doesn't necessarily mean that the real identity of the creator is unknown and was never disclosed, and if it is known (or "can be traced"), the work can no longer be treated like an anonymous work, you surely agree. Also, again, copyright per the Berne Convention is fully automatic and starts with the creation of the work no matter under which (if any) name you publish it, so at least for newer works, this needs be kept in mind. Furthermore, see the note in fine print in {{PD-anon-70-EU}} - in Germany, anonymous works published before July 1, 1995 are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author per Übergangsrecht, even if the author never became publicly known! That's a bit of a conundrum if you have no way to ascertain the identity of the creator, but that's how it is. - Lastly, this discussion is veering away from my main concern, which is assuming an anonymous work just because no author is mentioned at the immediate (random) online image source, as there is still a vast amount of printed and archival material that is not online where creators could be identified, and we should err on the side of caution. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"No author is mentioned" plus the due diligence provided by a reverse image search against the more than 1 billion images a Google Reverse image search matches against, would make an image legally anonymous. If a name is found at some time in the future, then you have 70 years after the death of the creator to claw-back from the public domain. You also can search under the person's name in the image and see what that search turns up. Google has also scanned over 1 million books. --RAN (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have a term for the opposite of a deletionist? I think in Wikipedia they are called "inclusionists." --Adamant1 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, true, though there it's usually more about notability arguments. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not a deletionist or an inclusionist, I concentrate my efforts on finding the most accurate information available at the time, where newbie uploaders have chosen the default settings upon upload, leading to a nomination for deletion. My research skills, in dating and providing context to historical images, have been recognized by the Library of Congress. --RAN (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), you concentrate your efforts on teaching other users how to cheat an inattentive administrator by willful false rationales and let a file illegally stay on Commons. --188.123.231.32 06:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems odd to be so enraged by my edits when you only have 4 edits under your belt. We must have interacted before, have you been blocked under the old name? This seems to be some long running beef, if you were blocked under your old name, I think I know who you are. --RAN (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's silly and I'm not a fan of it, especially since I have to hunt back in the history to figure out what the person who listed it was looking at but changing the description and posting this comment is just counterproductive. If you can spent the minute to change the description, explain it in the discussion rather than make me puzzled what the issue is. Still, I don't think it's necessarily problematic enough for even a warning. I don't care if you think things should be kept and rewrite the page with nonsense but the discussion is what matters, not whatever you post on the page of someone else's upload. All this does is add trouble for a future potential undeletion request because no one can tell who saw what facts and when. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gestumblindi, Ricky81682, and Abzeronow: please see [4]. Dear colleagues, perhaps one of you would kindly explain to me how decisions are made here, if all discussions and arguments, in the presence of clearly fake PD rationale, can be crossed out by such a remark without the slightest explanation. I doubt even that this user bothered to read the opinions expressed. What is Commons about then? Discuss as much as you want, and I will do what I want? --188.123.231.32 16:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with Yann's decision to keep the file in this case, at least with such a meagre explanation. Please, Yann, elaborate: Why do you close this request with a simple "no valid reason for deletion" after all the arguments brought forward strongly questioning the licensing? Why do you think that PD-Poland is applicable? Why do you think this photograph is from Poland at all? I only voted "weak delete" because there is a high likelihood that the photograph is in the public domain, but at the same time asked for more data, which we didn't get. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment 188.123.231.32 comments here are clearly not appropriate, and borderline as harassment. This file is in the public domain in Europe, as the author is unknown. The copyright status in USA is unclear, but for URAA deletions, the proof is for the nomination. Yann (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This photo was most likely made in USSR, and has nothing common with European legislation. And in Russia it is definitely not PD, because no one indicated the date of publication, from which 74 years are counted. --188.123.231.32 17:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Edit conflict) @Yann: You changed {{PD-Poland}} to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} now, but we don't know that this is an EU photo. It might be from Russia, as was discussed in the DR. So it could be {{PD-Russia}} - but we simply lack data. "PD-EU-no author disclosure" for a work that is quite likely not from the EU seems to me similarly implausible as PD-Poland in this case. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then find out where it is from. It has been said many times on many places that nominating a file for deletion just because no one bother to find the details is bad practice. Yann (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Bad practice" is uploading of files of which one doesn't have sufficient data to determine the copyright status. We certainly can't just assume out of the blue that this is an EU image, as Russia seems more likely, I suppose you would agree with that? So how do you propose to continue? Gestumblindi (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a pity that the position expressed in the official policies Commons:Project scope/Evidence and Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is completely opposite to your opinion. --188.123.231.32 17:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should 1. log in instead hiding in IP; 2. behave properly instead of giving lessons to experienced users. Yann (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Comment I'll email the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research to see if I can get more information on this photograph. If I get a response, I'll share it with interested parties. Abzeronow (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: could you please elaborate on your close? Are you aware of any evidence regarding where the photo was first published? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Mdaniels5757: Since this user obviously has no intention of explaining his unreasonable replace of PD template and unjustified close, please help re-nominate the file for deletion - it's still admin-protected. --188.123.231.10 05:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have learned some time ago to double check descriptions when this user is involved, especially to go back and look what the file description pages actually said before any RAN edits. I recall several other admins complaining about this behavior as well, but I don't think anything has really changed. IMO this behavior is at least dubious, if not outright misleading. --Rosenzweig τ 07:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only thing that matters is: Is the current license valid, or not valid, no matter who adds it. If it is not valid, is there another license more appropriate. People get angry whenever a deletion is opposed: Check out this one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:La porallée en 1230.jpg. --RAN (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From my observation, RAN seems generally well informed on many aspects of copyright laws, and I have often seen him correct licenses which were previously mistaken or otherwise false. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My view of RAN is that he is an overall positive but his unexplained changes to dates, file details and licences can be confusing to other users. RAN mentions the good work he does with Library of Congress, but the key thing there is that he does his research, posts the details n a Flickr comment and then LoC gets to decide whether RAN's argument is sound before updating the details. His related work on Commons though has no filter; he may carry out a similar level of research but none of that is recorded and no one checks his work like the LoC does. All we see are new details inserted as facts with no justification - sometimes when RAN is asked, he has a sound reason for the changes and sometimes he doesn't. I am struggling to find the link at the moment but we had one case of a photograph of a Romanian woman; RAN inserted a date for the file that placed her in her early 40s (and conveniently aligned with the requirements of a PD template) but she was clearly much older in the photograph and further research showed it was from decades later in her late 60s. Do I think RAN needs to be sanctioned in some way? No. Do I hope that RAN can find a way to harness more of that quality work he does for LoC while at the same time filtering out the unsound cases like that Romanian file? Yes. From Hill To Shore (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Do I think RAN needs to be sanctioned in some way? No. Do I hope that RAN can find a way to harness more of that quality work he does for LoC while at the same time filtering out the unsound cases like that Romanian file? Yes" - I think that reflects my point of view well, that's what I think, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not even "not recorded," but asking for an explanation for the reasoning seems to be ignored. For example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ikeysel001p1.jpg it makes sense to claim it was from the EU but to say "I corrected the licensed" is just annoying. Admit it's a guess and it's likely a good guess but whatever, people are allowed to claim they know all and if you dispute it it will be a edit war because someone knows where a 70-year-old photograph found on the internet was taken. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary: As always, people take it personally when you oppose their deletion nomination. File:Ikeysel001p1.jpg is a perfect example of doing the proper thing. The changes I made were clearly noted, as was the rationale behind the changes. I don't disagree if someone changes a "circa 1940" to a "circa 1950" if they have a better perception of human aging than I do, or have access to other more precisely dated images. Changing the date back to the clearly wrong, contemporary upload date serves no one. I think everyone would agree that the creation date is not the same as the upload date. As I mention previously the IP who started this discussion had just 4 edits prior, and I believe they are an editor blocked previously. I also think my reasoning, and my challenges-to-deletion to keep ratio, is better than some bureaucrats and admin people. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:La porallée en 1230.jpg where a bureaucrat nominates an entry for deletion, and my opposition to deletion, gets several kneejerk supports for deletion, including from another bureaucrat. The accusation that I add "random or blatantly false" statements is incorrect, changing the info back to what we all agree is incorrect is worse. No edit in the WikiUniverse is made "silently", all changes are recorded in the edit history. --RAN (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't think you are actually looking at the criticism here. When people someone disagree with your beliefs about Commons policy, it is not a "personal" opposition, which is especially an odd criticism about images that someone has zero personal interest in. I'm not sure how you can say Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ikeysel001p1.jpg is the 'perfect' thing as you don't answer the key question which is where the image was published. Your response is literally "The image appears multiple places online and there is no creator named at any of the copies" which is far from a "perfect example" of resolving the issue. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some people have the theory that if we just look harder and longer we will find the name of the creator and an exact date of creation/made_public, but that is wishful thinking. The best we can do is perform due diligence using the best information available at the time. In this case both the nominator and the closer agreed with my assessment, and you struck out your objection. With up to several hundred deletion nominations a day, we can't write a term paper on each nomination, although some people make very cogent arguments at deletion that read like a legal brief, and they should be applauded. --RAN (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the example I gave at Commons:Deletion requests/File:La porallée en 1230.jpg show that people do take it very, very personally when you oppose their opinions. Also this very Administrators' Noticeboard, that an anonymous IP with 4 edits is angry enough to come here. --RAN (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explain how you would have handled it better. "Published" does not mean solely appearing in magazine or newspaper, it literally means "made public". United States case law has sided with "made public", at least up until 1989, as being when a discernable copy of the creation leaves the custody of the creator. Unpublished works remain with the creator, usually when we have the provenance that an image has remained as a negative with the creator or has been donated to an archive by the creator, and not found in the wild. We can disagree, that is why a third party closes the deletion nomination. --RAN (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know what published means but man are you frustrating to deal with. I know it's impossible for you to ever be wrong but fine, there is no point in engaging further. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Equally frustrating here too. I never claimed to "[n]ever be wrong", only that my research added to images had a high rate of the image being retained. This arises by recognizing that the upload date is not the creation date, and correcting the license to be appropriate for the time period, and the proper copyright jurisdiction. Sadly every noob chooses the default setting when uploading. The closer is always free to ignore my opinions, and they have in the past. Notice that we don't bring everyone to Administrators' Noticeboard who !voted to delete, when an image is retained. We also don't bring the uploader who made the mistake in the first place here seeking punishment. If I have an opinion on 10 deletions a day and volunteer 300 days of the year, that is 3,000 opinions you can disagree with. Ultimately the closer weighs the evidence. The anger seems to be over 1 or 2 images in which you disagree with my dating estimate, and the closer agreed with you. By my math that is 2,998 estimations that editors have agreed with. For comparison the LOC has assigned the date 1900 to all 50,000 Bain Collection images despite them ranging from 1910 to 1930, User:Fae loaded them here, and they still have a date off by as much as 30 years. That is 50,000 errors. --RAN (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move on?[edit]

This has been open for some time and I am not seeing a concensus here. Personally I think that RAN plays a valuable role in finding licenses for files that might otherwise be deleted. Perhaps we should caution him to be more cautious and move on? @Gestumblindi, Mdaniels5757, Yann, and Rosenzweig: How would you like to proceed? Gbawden (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's exactly what I think: "caution him to be more cautious and move on", yes. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK for me. Yann (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. RAN does quality work to preserve and curate files. -- Ooligan (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): You do great work on Commons and your contributions are appreciated. However I urge you to be more cautious to avoid a situation like this again. I consider this matter closed. Lets move on Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Gbawden

Orijentolog (talk · contribs)[edit]

User:Orijentolog is using Commons to canvass an editor to join a discussion on en.wiki (where they are indefinitely blocked) by posting non-neutral comments [5]. They've done this before too [6]. I informed Orijentolog about the problematic nature of their comment per Jmabel's advice, yet Orijentolog reverted it with the edit summary laughable. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 20:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's indeed laughable how you assumed the bad faith in simple asking for advice (which ended with "correct me if I'm wrong"). It means, if I'm wrong, I'll correct myself. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that you would like to change common English names to your local preferred naming (used in Azerbaijan), that's why on Commons and Wikidata you started renaming items without discussion or proper explanation, and on English Wikipedia you left comment "I'll rename it if no objections in three days" without properly tagging renaming or pinging anyone active in history topics. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referring someone to a discussion on a platform you're blocked from, and then suggesting that the original poster of that discussion is incorrect, is not "asking for advice". If you genuinely desired the user's opinion on which name was more common, you could have asked without linking to the en.wiki discussion. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 20:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't suggest anything, as I stated, I may be wrong. Noticing other projects about issues is nothing illegal, few months ago I've alarmed Doug Weller (admin on En Wiki) about recreation of famous hoax, which was then deleted again. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's one thing to point out hoaxes; it's quite another to link to an ongoing out-of-Commons discussion and leave a comment indicating that you believe the OP is incorrect to someone who hasn't commented on the discussion. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 21:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only if assuming bad faith. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Orijentolog: I wish you hadn't gotten yourself in trouble by sockpuppeting on en-wiki, because there is a fair chance you are right on the substance of the matter. Still, being blocked on en-wiki, you really ought to tread carefully here. It's probably OK for you to engage someone here for their opinion on a factual matter, or to point them, with neutral language, to a discussion you think might interest them on en-wiki, but combining the two amounts to inappropriate canvassing, and you should not be doing this.

I personally don't think any sanction by Commons is in order at this time (though if someone has a broader picture than I do and there is more going on than I'm aware of, I'm not saying a hard "no" here), but you should consider this a warning. This is not OK. It appears that you were blocked on en-wiki for deliberately evading a rule. Given that, it's hard to give you a lot of benefit of the doubt here.

I realize this straitjackets you a little. The way out of the straitjacket is to get back in good standing on en-wiki. Conduct like this does not increase the chances of that happening. - Jmabel ! talk

@Jmabel: you don't need to be worry about anything, believe me. First of all, my dispute on English Wikipedia happened fourteen (14) years ago. Secondly, nine years after it, the user involved in that dispute got indefinitely blocked because it was discovered he was WP:PAID for editing. The similar case is with Croatian Wikipedia, ten years ago I got involved into disputes with several admins, and in meanwhile there was a widespread controversy after which all were desyoped and one got globally blocked. As philosopher Seneca said, "Time discovers truth." Considering time, all mentioned facts, my well-known contributions, as well as good relations with established users and admins on both projects, I could probably remove blocks in the matter of hours. But there's one serious problem about it, I would have to say two words, that "I apologize." I do not, and I never will. My language against both was harsh and clear violation of Wiki rules, but I tend to stand behind it. I could also open new account for a clean start, however, I don't plan to hide anything.

Speaking of my contributions to Wikimedia, here on Commons I have over 275,000 edits, as well as over 307,000 on Wikidata and 130,000 on my native Serbo-Croatian project, including over 37,000 opened pages. Zero blocks. And that's only a quantity. Articles with the most scholarly references on English Wikipedia are African humid period (1,361 references) and Joseph Stalin (1,076). My article Earthquakes in Iran on native project has 1,245, and there are several others like Ali (806) and Geography of Iran (737), which would fit among Top-10 on all projects. Furthermore, I edited thousands of Wikidata items regarding to art & architecture history, with multiply referencing various details. Overall 50,000-100,000 inserted ref-links in total, likely more than any other individual in Wikimedia history.

And now, Golden accuses me of "problematic" nature or sort of cross-wiki abuse. Bizarrely, he points out my alarming of hoax as something nasty. Yes, as I said, I did alarm LouisAragon about hoax, as well as Doug Weller who is administrator and one of most established users in history topics. Result was deletion of hoax. This particular time I asked LouisAragon about opinion, with is not canvassing but simply asking for opinion, and I left possibility that I may be wrong. On the other hand, from Golden's acts I can see that has left a zero possibility that he can be wrong. That's why he started with renaming sites here and at Wikidata, claiming it's a common name (false), and on English Wikipedia he obviously thought his improper renaming proposal will pass unnoticed so he'll get results he desires. It failed, therefore he accuses me here. His pining of Jmabel is true canvassing because he assumed that they have a grudge against me. I doubt it. And if want to canvass, I can ping some friendly admins who would explain how beautiful Orijentolog is. Of course, I won't do that. If anyone of them sees this, I kindly suggest them to refrain from anything and leave Jmabel to have a final word. --Orijentolog (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I corrected titles of the categories I uploaded images to. I'm not obligated to initiate a discussion before renaming a category on Commons, especially when there's no indication that the rename would be controversial, as evidenced by the fact that I have an abundance of supporting data. You, on the other hand, have failed to provide any evidence that your preferred version is more common. Regardless, this is irrelevant to this report, which is about your canvassing, which you continue to deny despite an administrator's warning. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Majority of scholarly sources disapprove your claims, which are based on local media. Few minutes ago I left you friendly message that you don't use such argument around, since local media can never be stronger source than academic publishing, and I also gave you fine professional sources in your favor (which are obviously minority, but still reputable). It speaks clearly that I don't have any "personal preferred" version, as I already stated multiply times. Your accusations of canvassing are worthless, as well as attempts of invoking events from 14 years ago. Last year one person also tried to use the same anachronistic data against me, but got blocked for one month. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What difference does it make? Either get yourself unblocked on EN or knock it off in my opinion. If you aren't allowed to comment there, what is there for you to get opinions about? A discussion where you (supposedly) aren't going to be engaging in? Why? The issue isn't whether you are right or not. You got yourself banned from English because people find your sockpuppetry and other behavior so much more annoying you aren't allowed to edit there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ricky81682: I don't want unblocking process, as a matter of principle. That doesn't prevent me from cooperation with people on multiple projects because Commons, Wikidata and Wikipedias are closely related. What do you mean by knocking it off? I should not cooperate with people related to art history? I should not warn en.wiki admins about hoaxes? Or when users put the wrong photos, like yesterday? Recently I helped even Golden by providing him sources and advises about intro. That's all something nasty and illegal? --Orijentolog (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You aren't cooperating. You are screwing around in various projects because you have too much free time. If you want to cooperate, actually get yourself in the discussion and talk to people there. You would find it insanely obnoxious if someone banned on Commons posted around and had the captions and descriptions you are fighting about here changed by finding users to fight against you. Either way, keep up your "principle" than you have been banned for years but can still control discussions via puppets in other projects. It must be a blast. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ricky81682 I am cooperating and you're in denial of facts. 700,000 edits in past 13 years with zero blocks is "screwing around"? Very grateful from you. On the contrary, I do appreciate your contributions here. You're linking dispute which happened 1,5 year ago, for which user was blocked for a month. And still I welcomed him/her back. And which puppets you're speaking about, please? --Orijentolog (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orijentolog Saying "I could make this discussion miserable by pinging an overwhelming number of users from one side of a discussion and choose not to" is not cooperation. If you want to be serious about having a neutral adult discussion, be serious. If you care more about winning and threaten to make everyone more miserable unless you get your way, that's precisely why people quit this project. We are arguing about the name of a category on Commons for a bridge, a name which literally will not affect a single encyclopedia article or change a single person's life, and you thinking that "I have a nuclear weapon of drama I could unleash and will unless I get my way" is actually helpful explains what principles matter to you. Be an adult and ask to provide notice to both projects but that would require you having a fair fight which you clearly don't have the confidence to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ricky81682: you misunderstood my comment, the point was to prove that I was not canvassing or catching votes, the sentence starts with "if I'm in favor of keeping Khoda Afarin by any means...". Please read it again. As a result of my recent discussion with Golden, I passed 140 pages of two files from architectural encyclopedia ([7][8]), means an average book size on foreign language plus foreign script, to catch necessary technical details and dates for filling infoboxes, and also to provide Golden (and you) details for naming. Not to prove he's wrong, but to prove his proposal is valid. Check it yourself. I hope that's cooperative and serious enough. --Orijentolog (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion started because you saw a potential discussion on English and your tactic was to go stir up drama and send people from Commons to the discussion because you've been banned from English and have a "principle" against requesting an unblock and arguing it yourself. You can pretend this is all some odd curiosity on your part but no one is falling for it. As of right now, I agree that you aren't canvassing because you haven't done the things you threaten to do if you don't get your way. As I said before, that is not something to celebrate and is a quite immature way to handle conflict. Threatening it is not a productive line of discussion and I find it insulting to my intelligence that you continue to play these games. Nevertheless, we can continue the actual discussion about the bridge name at that page. I hope you do not suddenly feel the need to canvass or "catch" votes but the veiled threats of drama you can bring does not help your cause here. It is not difficult to stir up drama, especially one-sided nationalist drama, if you want to. The point is that most editors don't mention it precisely because it is such a petty way to "win" arguments. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check new user for possible LTA activity[edit]

Hi, can someone check out Monticiano to tell whether or not they are a sockpuppet of the prolific cross-wiki LTA abuser, Livioandronico2013 (aka "Orlando Paride")?

They are uploading high-quality photos of Italian locations, and forcing them into Wikidata, as well as many many articles in many languages (SOP of O.P.) although the new uploads have a different camera type in the EXIF, so I am curious... Elizium23 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I honestly find it quite curious that posting photos can be "vandalistic". Moreover, we are 4 million in Rome, if someone puts a high quality photo of Rome is it automatically an abuse? Moreover, I signed up in December to try to improve not to damage but independently if you post photos of Rome you're a vandal. Sorry for the outburst but I find it absurd. Greetings. Monticiano (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from non-admin: Agree with Monticiano. Each file has consistent EXIF, no copyvios were found. Can't comment on inserting them into foreign language wikis. A09 (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Thank you Monticiano (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]

@A09, I allege no copyvios, just that Orlando is using a different camera he got for Christmas this year. I'm filing RFCUs in all applicable wikis so that Monticiano is appropriately bagged, tagged, blocked and locked like all the other stinky socks in his drawer. Greetings. Elizium23 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand this rancour and this aggressive and vulgar way. I haven't done anything wrong I think but you assume it regardless. Can't you put up pictures of Rome without being threatened? Greetings. Monticiano (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue with Livioandronico2013 was that he was obsessed with image quality recognition, and that he started insulting people commenting negatively on his photos. As long as you do not engage in such behaviour, you are welcome here. To be clear: just uploading the photos is nice. Ruthven (msg) 08:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Thank you, I did not insult anyone but they blocked me anyway. I didn't think I was making trouble. Thank you. 37.162.212.188 08:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]

@Ruthven grazie per aver invitato un burattinaio violento e prolifico a lungo termine a restare nei paraggi. Ha già creato un altro account calzino che assorbe enormi e ardui tempi di pulizia. Non ti offriresti per favore di aiutarmi a ripulire i pasticci che lascia? Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elizium23 The idea is from en:Wikipedia:Clean start. However, I asked him only to upload, not participating in community processes. Then, if CUs have enough elements to perform a block, and the user is violating the guidelines, it's a different story.

Orlando, sai benissimo che il tuo comportamento era intollerabile: scostumato e prepotente. Non si può biasimare chi ha ricevuto una cattiva educazione (bisognerebbe biasimare i genitori), ma controllarsi in un progetto comunitario è alla portata di tutte le persone mediamente intelligenti. Se non sei capace di capire ciò, vuol dire che questo tipo di progetto non fa per te. Ruthven (msg) 09:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruthven: "As long as you do not engage in such behaviour, you are welcome here." I am not a priori against this, but it has to be a community decision. Yann (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann It is well known that if someone starts afresh, with a new account, doing different stuff, and behaving completely differently, there are no reasons to block (also because it's impossible to connect the new username to an "old" LTA).

Here it's clearly not the case. But, of course, community decisions come first. Ruthven (msg) 09:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruthven, mi fa impazzire il fatto che "Clean Start" venga tirato fuori in una discussione sui sockpuppets di qualcuno che ha passato 10 anni a molestare Commons, Wikidata e dozzine di altri progetti in ogni lingua.

Mi porta a credere che tu non abbia familiarità con la politica "Clean Start", ma questo è improbabile.
Allora forse pensavo che tu non fossi a conoscenza del fatto che Commons non è enwiki e che tali politiche non sono affatto implementate qui; correggimi se sbaglio ma "Clean Start" è un'idiosincrasia unica di enwiki.
E inoltre, se ipoteticamente qui a Commons potessimo onorare "Clean Start" con la sua lettera e il suo spirito, non sono sicuro su quale pianeta o universo alternativo Livio avrebbe un "account in regola" con cui cominciare.
Forse invece intendi fare riferimento a w:WP:Standard offer, che è dove enwiki offre una seconda possibilità a qualcuno che è stato bloccato/bannato. Livio dovrebbe astenersi dal modificare (anche i calzini e persino gli indirizzi IP) per almeno 6 mesi, quindi ammettere che ciò che ha fatto è sbagliato e perorare la sua causa per lo sblocco. Naturalmente, ancora una volta, Commons non è un enwiki e non sottoscriviamo il concetto di "Offerta standard" di per sé, ma @Ruthven, sono sicuro che lo sai già come amministratore dei beni comuni.
Un calzino LTA bloccato a livello globale, bandito, potrebbe avere difficoltà a sostenere questa offerta in primo luogo, non credi?
Credo che un rimedio migliore rispetto al fatto che gli amministratori di Commons incoraggino gli LTA a caricare ancora più contenuti, sia eliminare tutto il loro contenuto e salarlo. La cosa che fa tornare Orlando ai progetti di Commons e Wikimedia è forzare il suo contenuto in ogni articolo immaginabile. Se impediamo a Orlando di conservare i suoi contenuti qui per uso gratuito, allora possiamo rimuovere la "carota" che lo sta adescando per ottenere scariche di dopamina promuovendo la sua merda e spalmandola su tutte le nostre facce.
Saluti.

Elizium23 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elizium23: was there any sign of this behavior on the new account? If not, I'd be inclined to unblock, but be ready to block again if there is any abuse. - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel, a quale comportamento ti riferisci? Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elizium23: Il comportamento per cui è stato bloccato. Spinta eccessiva delle proprie foto, discussioni sulla qualità. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Il comportamento che è la causa del suo serratura globale è "block evasion". Sì, @Jmabel, ha subito iniziato a forzare le sue foto in ogni Wiki possibile, specialmente attraverso Wikidata. Si prega di consultare i suoi contributi. Questo è l'unico scopo della sua esistenza qui adesso.

Cerchiamo di essere chiari su questo, Jmabel: hai intenzione di ribaltare unilateralmente i blocchi CheckUser? E intendi anche ribaltare un serratura globale su metawiki? Disponi dei diritti utente appropriati per effettuare uno sblocco globale degli account di questo utente?

Mi sembrerebbe strano, Jmabel, che dopo che @Yann ha insistito sul fatto che lo sblocco globale "dovrebbe essere una decisione della comunità" tu stia proponendo di aggirare unilateralmente una discussione della comunità, e la discrezione di un CheckUser @Elcobbola, su questo.

Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Colin era qui quando l'abuso ha raggiunto il picco. Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elizium23: have I ever unilaterally unblocked a user against general consensus? Is there anything I said that would give you, or any other reasonable person, a reason to expect I would do so in this instance? Please let's not create straw men. - Jmabel ! talk 01:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Sarei propenso a sbloccare" suona diverso da "Sosterrei una decisione della comunità di sbloccare". Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose I don't support an unblock. Particularly so for sockpupetters who abuse voting with their socks and then come back with another sock account. I don't understand this "if you behave you are welcome" offer, which is both naive and an insult to the community they disrupted. The reason we block accounts like we did with Livio is because they didn't behave, they cheated and insulted, and are still not behaving with any honesty. Same old same old I see here. It would be different if Livio made a genuine unblock request where they acknowledged what they did wrong and made promises. That is not the case here. Same deception. Same I did no wrong. Commons is a community, not just storage for photos, and Livio harmed that community and the account here is still Livio. Go away. -- Colin (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already apologised at the time [9] but what are you talking about? Same cheating? Putting pictures up has nothing to do with having boring duscussions with you? I honestly don't understand what you're talking about. 151.43.125.104 14:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose per Colin, pretty clear Commonists' patterns. --A.Savin 14:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anche mentre parliamo, questo LTA sta eludendo il divieto per coinvolgere più editor nelle discussioni sull'eliminazione. Sono necessari più rangeblock e blocchi globali? Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann, @Elcobbola,

I pupazzi di calzino IPv4 stanno ora sollecitando attivamente molti utenti nelle discussioni sull'eliminazione.

e.g., qui e qui.

Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mentre parliamo, su Wikidata sto ripristinando i lavori di dozzine di contributori di Wikimedia Commons. Spero che possano essere informati dei numerosi editori e amministratori qui che desiderano schiaffeggiarli in faccia aiutando e favoreggiando un calzino LTA per rimuovere e cancellare il loro lavoro da dozzine di progetti Wikipedia in tutto il WMF. Molti di questi contributori hanno svolto un lavoro di alta qualità da confrontare con la fotografia di Orlando; parte proviene da musei e biblioteche; parte di essa è di pubblico dominio, che è una licenza più libera di Creative Commons.

È una bugia che le foto di Orlando siano "insostituibili"! Questi raffigurano alcuni degli oggetti d'arte e dei locali più popolari in Italia! È una bugia che le foto di Orlando siano di qualità superiore rispetto a quelle che sostituiscono. È una bugia che abbiano un copyright migliore o preferito, oltre a quelli dei contributori in buona fede!

Spero che tu capisca che coloro che si oppongono alla cancellazione delle foto di Orlando stanno aiutando a cancellare per sempre centinaia, migliaia di contributi in buona fede da Wikipedia. Grazie.

Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elizium23, in case you are responding to me (as suggests the placement of your above comments; I may be wrong though), it would be just polite to write in a language I understand. Sadly, Italian is not among those languages, while you are (according to your userpage) English native speaker. Thanks --A.Savin 01:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A.Savin, I am addressing everyone reading this thread, but chiefly I am addressing Orlando Paride, who is a native speaker of Italian. I hope that you can patiently understand the need for clarity and transparency in dealing with the person under scrutiny in this thread, rather than onlookers and innocent bystanders.

Mi rivolgo a tutti coloro che leggono questo thread, ma soprattutto mi rivolgo a Orlando Paride, che è madrelingua italiano. Spero che tu possa vedere la necessità di chiarezza e trasparenza nel trattare con la persona sotto esame in questo thread, piuttosto che con spettatori e spettatori innocenti.

Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meta: Global ban RFC for Σπάρτακος/Livioandronico2013[edit]

Please comment at meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Σπάρτακος. Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User ToxicFree[edit]

ToxicFree (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Claiming uploads to be own but without META data, most likely to be from unknown copyright source. Most of his uploads have therefore been deleted in 2021 but he comes back lately reuploading similar photos. All his remaining uploads should be checked for copyvio and this user warned or blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Made one DR and copyvioed two more. I haven't detected copyvios in standing two files, however they are suspicious to me. A09 (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated one more upload for regular deletion as likely copyvio. Taivo (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Two images of the user are images of other Google Maps users 1 2. The user had previously deleted messages from his talk page. --Ovruni (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fhguiñez personal attacks[edit]

Fhguiñez (talk · contribs) has been making personal attacks on DR of their files. There they suggest I may have "an ideological bias" that has led me to propose the deletion of their copyvio files. Please take action against this user. Bedivere (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bedivere: I would say those remarks are pretty mild to be called a "personal attack". - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I closed 2 deletion requests, nominated 2 more logos for deletion and warned Fhguiñez. Taivo (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tm and his edits concerning files related to Olivenza[edit]

Tm (talk · contribs) is making editions in items related to the town of Olivenza to state that it is part of Portugal. The items affected are:

Category:Olivenza. He insists in classifying this in the categories Alentejo and Municipalities in Portugal.
File:Coat of Arms of Olivenza.svg. He is putting this file under the category SVG coats of arms of Portuguese municipalities.
File:Escudo de Olivenza (corona mural).svg. He is altering the description of the file so it indicates that the city forms part of the Alentejo region in Portugal.
File:Continental Portugal districts.png. He is reverting to a version of the map where the municipality appears to be part of Portugal. Just comparing this map with the others in the same category it becomes clear that the map is not consistent with the others.

I have tried to discuss this issue with the user in his talk page, with no results. Please let me note that if these edits are allowed, then anyone could put any file related to Gibraltar under Spanish and Andalusian categories. Same with Ceuta or Melilla under Moroccan categories, and so on (I think that the list of examples would be long). J.M.Domingo (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A small and neutral resume about the dispute about Olivença. Both Portugal and Spain claim Olivença as being theirs De Jure and is De Facto administrated by Spain.

It was not me who added that categories, as i told you before in my talkpage.

File:Coat of Arms of Olivenza.svg I was not me that added that category. Also this version has the portuguese mural crown, not the spanish one. Addendum: To the contrary of what i tought this seems to be the official spanish coat of arms].

File:Escudo de Olivenza (corona mural).svg The same thing as the previous file, with the added bonus that this user J.M.Domingo tries to delete the text that says that this version also was the portuguese crown, not the spanish one, will also deleting the portuguese name.

File:Continental Portugal districts.png. And the map shows this territorial dispute, yet it is this user that tries to delete said dispute.

In resume, the one that tries to delete proper categories is J.M.Domingo, not me that tries to delete categories that refere this territorial dispute, change\delete the portuguese name to the spanish one. Tm (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are adding those categories once and again with each of your reverts. I do not want to discuss the obvious. This can be checked in the history of editions of these three files and the category. J.M.Domingo (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Isla Perejil, has Category:Islands of Morocco and Category:Islands of Spain in Africa and yet there seems to be no dispute to the contrary of real life were spain made an military operation with airmobile, SOF and naval forces to dislodge some morrocan gendarmes. Tm (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you referring to a 0,15 km² uninhabited islet? If you want to set a parallelism with any other place in the world, just get one with population and public administration. In Olivenza taxes are collected and services are provided by the Spanish state. No Portuguese law applies there. And these are facts, not fantasies. Same for Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. And maybe now you can explain here why you are not going to the Portuguese Wikipedia and do the same kind of edits as you do here. Why don't you add the category "Vilas de Portugal" to the article "Olivença" and see what happens? J.M.Domingo (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is Wikimedia Commons, not an Wikipedia. The fact is that there is a territorial dispute, or is it coincidence that there are no boundary stones between boundary stones 802 and 899, coincidently west of Olivença? These are facts, not fantasies. Tm (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to delete a wrong category[edit]

Please delete the category titled "Category:Category:Waggon monument in netanya". Thank you. Amikamraz (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amikamraz, you're not new here; what sort of "user problem" is this considered? I'm just a humble country editor, but it seems that your request would be more appropriate for Commons:Categories for discussion, don't you agree? Elizium23 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amikamraz Use template:badname in the future. It looks like you want Category:Waggon monument in netanya to be moved to Category:Waggon monument in Netanya but yeah none of this is an user problem. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ricky81682: in terms of the proposed name: is there a reason for "waggon" instead of "wagon"? - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amikamraz can you answer the question? I was just guessing based on Category:Netanya being capitalized. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, "wikt:waggon" is a dated, yet valid synonym for "wagon". Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is right: "waggon" is in British English, while "wagon" is in American English. You may choose :) Amikamraz (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure that an error in the name of a category is a matter to discuss... it just needs a simple correction :) Amikamraz (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved the category to Category:Wagon monument in Netanya, fixed its categorization, and connected it to a Wikidata Item and an article on Hebrew Wikipedia. Marbletan (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

100% COPYVIO contributor[edit]

Dinhngocnhatien16 (talk · contribs) has uploaded a number of images in a short time. I have identified three of them, which he/she has used on spammy articles on Wikipedia, as being blatant copyvio. It is therefore very likely that the rest of his/her uploads are also copyvio. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done I have nuked all their uploads. @10mmsocket Thanks for highlighting this. In future you can issue a warning yourself - I use the User Messages gadget. I have warned them Gbawden (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. FYI, that user has now been blocked on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. I'll take a look at the gadget. Is it in my user preferences? In particular I'd like to access the speedy deletion option, I'll look for that too. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gadgets found. Roger & out. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I declined the unblock request and tagged the user as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needless reversions[edit]

Ketchup-ze-Sauce (talk · contribs) continues to revert images back and forth despite multiple attempts to explain to them that it's unnecessary and mildly disruptive. E.g. File:National_Flag_of_Chinese_Soviet_Republic.svg#filehistory. TilmannR (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Blocked 1wk. If they promise to stop, not opposed to an unblock. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:The_Harvett_Vault most uploads Out Of Scope[edit]

User The Harvett Vault, (User's uploads) (XTools) appears to be using Wikimedia Commons as a free host for archiving furry art and animations that they like. They seem not to be aware of the Wikimedia Commons Project Scope which states that uploads "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose." –AngelinaGreen 04:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy. Welcome to the Commons. I'm the Wikimedian, artist, and founder of The Harvett Vault. However, I

strongly oppose your complaint that you crossed the line in reporting to me regarding the scope for no reason. I worked hard several years ago as most of my files are good quality while some others are crap and should remain so that they are trivial according to the note, irrevocable, in use, and notable.

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 05:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC); edited: 08:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with AngelinaGreen. Commons is not a repository for personal art. In addition, characters are under a copyright. Yann (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your labelling my art "personal" is outright unacceptable. In truth, some anthropomorphic characters I made from 100% scratch using different animal species in real life. I don't find myself using copyrighted and non-free ones, except public domain ones, either.

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 09:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC); edited: 12:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Harvett Vault: Read COM:SCOPE, and follow Commons policies. Yann (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel in pain at understanding how the policy works. As I said, most of them are in use and have recognized notability in every Wikidata item entry I created for historical or any purposes.

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 11:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC); edited: 11:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by The Harvett Vault. Yann (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Socks of enwiki user Jinnifer[edit]

Jinnifer is a long term block evader / sockmaster over on enwiki. They have recently turned to adding copyvio images to articles. You guys recently blocked User:Moilpewo and speedily deleted their copyvios. They are back as User:BoxtheMump, uploading the same stuff, and also editing logged out at 2600:387:C:7131:0:0:0:3 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), where they removed the copyvio tags. - MrOllie (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And furthering Jinnifer's MO, they have now started up the talk page harrassment about it. - MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Blocked the user and IP. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mdaniels5757 Apologies if I'm mistaken, but I think this user is maybe now acting as 152.86.164.35 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). With seemingly talk page harassment on my talk page: [10]. Possibly well as BugFatCackie (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who has uploaded the images that are almost surely copyvios: File:Jason Voorhees (Friday the 13th Part III).jpg, File:Michael Myers (Halloween).jpg, and File:Freddy Krueger (A Nightmare on Elm Street).jpg. Apologies is this isn't the same user and/or this is the wrong place to report. (And I have no particular idea why this IP posted those images to my talk page.) Skynxnex (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like this has been handled. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it does. Thanks for checking in. Skynxnex (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive behavior (CfD)[edit]

Davey2010 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Regarding behavior during discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Peugeot Expert I

Violating COM:CFD rules by closing an ongoing discussion prematurely and without notifying participants, despite being warned this was wrong
Deleting other users' comments from a public discussion page

Davey2010 closed a CfD in the middle of ongoing discussion without allowing sufficient time for comment. It was explained to them that they were welcome to withdraw their proposal, but that did not mean they were free to cancel the discussion. The user again closed the discussion, not only closing it, but deleting other users' comments (mine) that had been made in the discussion. They were contacted on their talk page regarding the issue and requesting that they restore the deleted comments they deleted, a request they flatly refused. After their refusal, when I attempted to restore the deleted comments, they pushed toward an edit war by repeating the deletion and closure.

Davey2010 went on to explain "I'm entitled to withdraw any XFD/DR, I have withdrawn this and have updated this accordingly." They are of course welcome with withdraw their proposal. If no real discussion has happened, we would normally close a CfD when this happens as there is not much point to it, but if a discussion has arisen, and particularly if alternative proposals have been made, then while the original proposal is withdrawn, the discussion is allowed to continue and reach its normal conclusion per CfD policy. A user who starts a CfD is welcome to strike their own contributions but is not master of the discussion with unlimited powers to censor, direct, control, or quash the discussion. Certainly it is unconscionable to think it okay to delete other users' comments (other than vandalism/abuse situations) from a public discussion. Allowing users to arbitrarily shut down public discussions and delete other users' comments seems incredibly disruptive to me.

Comment Technical note, closing the CfD with {{Cfdf}} like this triggers some automated archiving. Restoring a closed and archived discussion is a bit of a doozy, so if a closure is ever contested on CfDs, standard practice is to leave it open until the reason is resolved, under the principle of 'do least harm'. I do not want to get into an edit war so if the discussion could be temporarily locked open until this is resolved, that would be helpful for those of us that would have to go clean up this mess. Josh (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment it seems to me to be pretty poor form to shut down an active discussion simply because you don't like the direction it is going, even if you started the discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Agree that it was poor form to shut down an active discussion. Although like Davey2010 said on their page there should really be a community-wide RFC on the naming style since it would weird to create an expectation to the norm just for a random brand of vans. But regardless, I think there was merit in closing the discussion and saying it should take place in another forum. Really, the difference between an active or non-active discussion and who does or doesn't get to decide when a CfD can be closed because either of those things have happened doesn't seem to be a bright line anyway. I've withdrawn a few CfDs myself that had "active" discussions because they seemed to be at a dead end. No one reported me for it when I did. Again though, that's not to excuse the way Davey2010 handled it. Just to say this isn't that cut and dry. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Are there any rules governing deletion of other users' comments from a discussion? I ask genuinely as I've never seen or experienced this behavior before and I did not find anything obvious in the policies. Josh (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel Sorry but you couldn't be any more wrong - Adamant1 is absolutely correct - Yes I was expecting my naming style to go ahead however it didn't and like I said it seemed silly to have one brand in one format and 99.9% of the rest in another which is why I closed it. I also felt if had left it open it could've garnered more Supports for Josh's style which would've caused a whole of problems,

I've updated the CFD to say it should be a community-wide RFC. I will hope my hands up and say Yes I could've dealt with it in a much better way, hindsight's a lovely thing, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also not to dig myself any further holes but I didn't delete Josh's comments pre-emptively - I had reverted their undoing of the CFD closure which they commented on once they undid the closure so I don't believed I violented en:WP:TPO as I didn't randomly start deleting comments, It was just their comments essentially post-closed CFD that got removed (thus reinstating the closure), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Josh has since gone to CFD (Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Peugeot Expert) and has posted the CFD at COM:VP and at Commons talk:WikiProject Automobiles as well, I still would've preferred an actual RFC over another CFD which probably wont gain as many comments as a RFC would but trying VP and Auto is better than just reposting the CFD I guess Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:20, 22 February 2023‎

User Arkady2512[edit]

Arkady2512 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user seems a propagandist for the Russian government, uploading its government photos and files. Lots of his uploads are from uncertain copyright and been proposed for deletion. Pierre cb (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright issue may be worth looking into, but where copyright is OK, people are welcome to upload Russian government photos and files just as much as those of any other government. Please keep separate your dislike of their politics and whether their behavior here is OK. - Jmabel ! talk 01:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far they've had 11 deletions out of about 50 uploads, and one of the deletions was the logo of the World Darts Federation. - Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two other deletions were a coat of arms and the logo of an animation company. This does suggest someone who might need to improve their understanding of copyright, but if anything more nefarious is happening, Pinging @Pierre cb you'll have to lay out the case, it's certainly not obvious on the surface. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just pointing to a trend that I noted. If you do not think I am right, just drop it. Pierre cb (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 章 debate[edit]

User:RZuo[edit]

RZuo keeps removing the rename template despite the fact the proposed names harmonize with other files. Also, RZuo had renamed two files as Criterion 3 despite the fact that these two files (File:小豆島町章.jpg and File:多度津町章.jpg) are marked as Criterion 4 and most of the files on the category (Category:Emblems of municipalities in Kagawa Prefecture) are perfectly harmonized.

I tried to explain to user that 章 means emblem but the user did disagree. However, Xeror, Mike Rohsopht, Wright.one, Nardog and DiKnK8713 (who is from Japan) had agreed that the term 章 means "emblem". As a result, I am inviting them for a debate over the translation of 章. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:File renaming: "there's no reason to favor English over other languages."

i'll pick File:多度津町章.jpg as an example of why the original japanese name is better than the english translation "emblem".

"多度津町の「夕」を図案化し、これを熨斗（のし）結びにみせて町の発展と団結のシンボルとしたものであって、旧多度津藩主京極家家紋の菱四つ目にも似通わせています。" according to https://www.town.tadotsu.kagawa.jp/soshikikarasagasu/chochokoshitsu/tadotsuchonitsuite/1042.html .

"家紋（かもん）とは、個人や家族を識別するために用いられる日本の紋章である。"

Mon (emblem): "Mon are often referred to as crests in Western literature, the crest being a European heraldic device similar to the mon in function."

as such, the original japanese name leaves no room for any potential mistranslation. RZuo (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

examples:

https://www.city.fuji.shizuoka.jp/img14/fz16.pdf "Fuji City Logo". unfortunately, it was exactly SpinnerLaserzthe2nd who requested the commons file be renamed to "emblem" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emblem_of_Fuji,_Shizuoka.jpg&action=history .
https://www.city.anjo.aichi.jp/shisei/sisei-yoran/documents/h65-p40p41.pdf "City Crest", but again, it was mistranslated as symbol and then emblem https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emblem_of_Anjo,_Aichi.svg&action=history . and they have another diagram as "City Logo 市のシンボルマーク".
https://www.city.kitakami.iwate.jp/foreignsite/English/profile/12550.html "City Symbol" mistranslation on commons by SpinnerLaserzthe2nd https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emblem_of_Kitakami,_Iwate.jpg&action=history .
https://www.city.asahi.lg.jp/outline/guide/index.html "市章 City Logo" mistranslation on commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emblem_of_Asahi,_Chiba.svg&action=history .
https://www.city.tottori.lg.jp/top/multilang/english/general/symbols_en.html "City Crest" mistranslation on commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emblem_of_Tottori,_Tottori.svg&action=history .

there are plenty more examples to show that "emblem" is not necessarily a precise translation. using japanese filenames avoids any problem caused by translation.--RZuo (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same with Xeror too. Here are some examples:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emblem_of_Mine,_Yamaguchi.svg&diff=prev&oldid=722829455

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emblem_of_Nagato,_Yamaguchi.svg&diff=prev&oldid=722830482

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emblem_of_Nagato,_Yamaguchi_(red).svg&diff=prev&oldid=722830557 SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd[edit]

further, User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd should be warned that s/he should stop making similar rename requests that convert valid japanese filenames to english or other languages, as his/her previous requests have also been declined by other responsible filemovers, like https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%E7%8F%BE%E3%83%BB%E9%AB%98%E5%B2%A1%E5%B8%82%E5%B8%82%E7%AB%A0.PNG&action=history .--RZuo (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am here to have a debate with you. I am doing this because Xeror tried to do the same too before me. I am here just to debate you over your disagreement. If any users out there who speaks Japanese or lives in Japan, you are invited to join the debate. I am quoting Xeror: "Emblem is a more accurate translation of the Japanese term 章". As I stated before, other users that I mentioned even agreed that 章 means "emblems" SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spinner, can you like collect all information first before making a post? your small posts every few seconds, your posting on this thread is becoming a little irritating as a lot of ppl have it on their watchlist and you are making 22 nonsensical edits in the last 10mins, this isn't some 'chat' site where you make a post every few seconds..collect everything first and then hit the reply button. Ste moc 03:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about that, sometimes I am not good at collecting all information. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no problem at all with a file name being in Japanese, as long as it is an otherwise acceptable filename. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But in terms of translations, we will let other users (especially those living in Japan) decide wither “emblem“ is an accurate translation of 章 because this is a debate. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i have given 5 examples above linking to the japanese local governments' official websites and documents. it has been shown that there is no standard translation of the japanese term 章 in practice. whatever standard these users are claiming, doesnt exist.--RZuo (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i'll summarise these problematic rename requests:

it may be acceptable to rename problematic filenames (like "...chapter.jpg") to "emblem of ...", but it's preferable to use the original japanese names, as i have explained above.
when i see such requests, i will try to find the official japanese names and rename them as such. i hope other filemovers do the same responsibly, instead of blindly following these requests.
it's wrong to rename files like "symbol of ..." to "emblem of ...", because both are valid alternative translations of the japanese names.
it's wrong to rename files from japanese to english.

finally, there isnt any merit in talking to a wall so i wont reply to this anymore.--RZuo (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, there are some exceptions. Files can be harmonized perfectly in a category (see the Kagawa municipalities for example). SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the arbitrary "english standard" being harmonised to doesnt exist in real life, and it causes mistranslation.

you have now been warned not to request renames from japanese to english, please take note. RZuo (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you fluent in Japanese? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion may be over by now, but I would like to share my views. I myself am not a good English speaker, so I rely on machine translation. Therefore, please forgive any oddities. First, the '市町村章' is said to be the 「自治体の徽章」－emblem of the municipality－. In addition, some municipalities have established separate symbols. Therefore, it is not appropriate to translate the word 'Symbol' to avoid confusion with them. Recently, an increasing number of municipalities have established symbols separately from the emblem. However, the Japanese word for emblem contains many meanings and can be translated into all of them: seal, stamp, emblem, coat of arms. Furthermore, it also includes a paragraph, a meaning that has nothing to do with emblems or symbols. As a native speaker of Japanese, I am left to the nuances. I myself use the term 'emblem' for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning. Also, I have checked the meaning of the word using a Japanese-English dictionary and have come to the conclusion that 'Emblem' is more consistent with the word.--DiKnK8713 (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is really not necessary to have file names in English. COM:FRNOT#2 says it very well. Files should NOT be renamed only to translate the filename to another language... Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages. If the file names in Japanese suit very well, there's no need of asking them to be named in English. Yes, if there is any obvious error, they could be renamed to a correct name in the Japanese language. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had to agree with DiKnK8713. File:小豆島町章.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%E5%B0%8F%E8%B1%86%E5%B3%B6%E7%94%BA%E7%AB%A0.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=734455473) and File:多度津町章.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%E5%A4%9A%E5%BA%A6%E6%B4%A5%E7%94%BA%E7%AB%A0.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=734457746) originally had English names. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the original English was a mistranslation of the Japanese, the name change is appropriate. However, instead of simply 'Shodoshima Town Chapter', it should have been 'Shodoshima Town Chapter, Kagawa Prefecture' with the name of the prefecture added, or 'Shodoshima Town Chapter, Shodoshima County, Kagawa Prefecture' with the name of the prefecture and county added. This was to distinguish between the two, as there are sometimes municipalities in Japan with the same name. In addition, the name is generally preceded by the prefecture. DiKnK8713 (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. There is an error.

Shodoshima Town Chapter is "小豆島町章"

Shodoshima Town Chapter, Kagawa Prefecture is '香川県小豆島町章'.

Shodoshima Town Chapter, Shodoshima County, Kagawa Prefecture is '香川県小豆郡小豆島町'. DiKnK8713 (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, whats even more strange is that RZuo (kind of) broke COM:FRNOT#2 because he or she translated from English to Japanese. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, what he or she is doing seems contradictory.

Even as a native speaker, I think that translated Japanese is not wordy enough. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an error.

But I think it would be wise now to maintain the status quo for the time being, because the conversation is parallel at this point. DiKnK8713 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DiKnK8713, @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, Well, what I can see is this move by @RZuo is problematic. It is not inline with the criteria laid out at COM:FR explicitly the one that I quoted above. RZuo, Could you please explain why did you move the file from a title in English to one in Japanese? Files should NOT be renamed only to translate the filename to another language and/or because the filename is not correctly capitalized. If there were any concerns with the English name being explicitly wrong, I feel you should have asked the rename requester why they think the "the new English name is more correct and accurate" than the previous one, and then moved the file to an English title under COM:FNC#3. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 07:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How on earth does this move come under COM:FNC#3 when COM:FRNOT#2 says otherwise? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 07:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

because that's not a translation, but a correction, from a wrong english name to a correct japanese name.

if that was a translation, from a correct english name to a correct japanese name, then SpinnerLaserzthe2nd's requests to rename it to another english name are wrong from the beginning. "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better."

while correcting the erroneous english name, filemovers should choose names as best as they can. here, another english translation is still prone to mistranslation, but the original japanese names are better.

as i have shown above, "the new English name is NOT more correct and accurate". it's only slightly better. nothing is better than the original name in the native language. the requester doesnt understand this and that's why s/he got to AN/U. you wouldnt get that answer from him/her.

for example, if you want File:Emblem of Fuji, Shizuoka.jpg in english, then it should be Fuji City Logo https://www.city.fuji.shizuoka.jp/img14/fz16.pdf .

i wont reply if anyone else asks these same redundant questions without first reading the ample explanations and links i provided above. RZuo (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo, thank you, your explanation makes a sense to me. I don't know Japanese language so I can't comment on what is and what is not accurate in that language. But your explanation solves all the puzzles. I don't see if there is any merit in this discussion now. I would honestly name files in Urdu if the language fits in, instead of naming them in English (with less accurate/translated names). This is Commons, a multilingual project, and this should allow us to cooperate with volunteers from all the languages. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But still, RZuo should have not change into another language in the first place per COM:FRNOT#2. What this user could have done instead is keep the language but change these types of logos. For clarification, RZuo could have check what type of symbol is it. RZuo could have use the name style that DiKnK8713 has to offer. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is certainly not wrong to say that the original filename was a mistake, and that it was changed to Japanese to correct it. However, although it may be a little off topic, the reason we unified the name with 'Emblem' was out of a sense of harmony. Since 'emblem', 'logo' and 'crest' are all used with the same meaning in Japan, neither can be said to be a mistake. It is therefore administratively inconvenient to go to the trouble of naming them differently from other file groups.

Even if this is the end of the story, as long as the files are in one category, we may have to consider setting up some rules within the project. DiKnK8713 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cannot Overwrite Files[edit]

I can't overwrite commons files. I have no idea why or if I need a minimum number of edits. Can you tell me what I need to do? Skibly113 (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would you want to? We're usually pretty much against this – if it's something like a big rework or crop, we usually upload a new file as a new name, and link the two. Which file do you want to overwrite, and what's the reason? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to overwrite the file Richard_Wesley,_1st_Baron_Mornington_by_Henry_Pierce_Bone_(cropped).jpg as I went to the source of the image and extracted a full resolution version. Skibly113 (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wait until tomorrow when you become "autoconfirmed" Special:UserRights/Skibly113. RZuo (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

are you socking? Ste moc 11:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't get into that account anymore. The passwords I have don't work. I didn't set an email on that account so I can't reset it. Skibly113 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]