Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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

^{Translate this page}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~95
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No permission since 24 July 2024: ~11
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-08: ~1

Other:

• Duplicates: ~3
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~64
• Other speedy deletions: ~147
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~11

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~5
• Interface admin: ~18
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~1
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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

---

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

---

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

Note

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

Krzysio.szubzda.1

Krzysio.szubzda.1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I blocked this account for a week for uploading copyright violations after warning. I deleted obvious copyvios, notably screenshots. There are still many files to check, most of them probably not OK, despite the EXIF data. 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs) 14:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1

Adamant1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has made a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content ( Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin) ), and their conduct in this matter has been less than civil and respectful. Their demands for extra proof from uploaders are unreasonable and have caused unnecessary disputes. Instead of being receptive to others’ input, they consistently double down on their position.

Their claim of years of experience leading to "a pretty deep understanding of the laws and policies around these things" led me to find a multitude of similar issues which have seemingly not yield a meaningful improvement in their conduct. The first of which dealt directly with FoP in Belgium (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_112#Adamant1).

(There are several other complaints against Adamant1 that I have not reviewed in detail, but they can be found here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_113#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_107#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_99#User:Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_102#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_98#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_92#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_81 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive_20#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_100#Editwarring_by_Adamant1)

Adamant1 has even threatened to repeat these FoP deletion requests and has made vague demands to “properly document and license” my uploads after their arguments have been thoroughly refuted ("Otherwise don't be surprised if your files get nominated for deletion"). I would much prefer to avoid any further dealings with them, and I believe the community would benefit from this as well. --Trougnouf (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• The idea of any sort of collegial working has always been alien to Adamant1. This is entirely typical. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)]

@Andy Dingley: It's funny to me how that critizim always comes from some of the rudest people on here. But whatever. See my comment below. Are you seriously going to rude or worth blocking someone just because they said people shoud properly license and document their uploads? Come on. Trougnouf tells me I'm waging an "inquestion" against FOP, refuses to drop it after I asked them to multiple times, and somehow I'm the rude one here. It's pretty obvious you have zero ground to stand on. You never have had any. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A couple of things here that the person who opened this is just being dishonest about.

1. User:Adamant1 has made a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content I didn't open a "broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content" The DR has to do with a single mural that all the images where in the same category for. That is not "a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content" and there's no rule against opening a DR for multiple files for the same subject that are in the same category.
2. their conduct in this matter has been less than civil and respectful. Their demands for extra proof from uploaders are unreasonable and have caused unnecessary disputes. All I said was that the images weren't properly licensed or cited to the creator and it's on the uploaders to provide that information. That's it. There's nothing uncivil about that. Trougnouf then decided to treat me like I was doing an "inquisition" (their words) against FOP in Belgium. They also refused to drop it and continued responding to me after I said it I rather not continue the conversation. Both of which was extremely rude. It's not on me that Trougnouf decided to beat a dead horse after I told them multiple times that I was done discussing it.
3. Adamant1 has even threatened to repeat these FoP deletion requests. That's patently false. Nowhere have I said I was going to continue the FOP deletion requests. All I said is that they shouldn't be surprised if people nominate their there images for deletion if they don't properly license or document them. That's not a threat and nowhere did I say I was planning on being the one do it. So this ANU is totally baseless. Trougnouf needs to just accept that their uploads will be nominated for deletion sometimes, drop the retaliatory bad attitude, and move on like I repeatedly asked them to in the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather not see any admin action here but, Adamant1, your really don't have to -- indeed, ought not -- respond to every statement you disagree with on a DR. Your own view is clear, people agree or disagree, fine. Unless they've specifically addressed a question to you, or raised a substantive issue relevant to the DR to which you have a substantive response, typically you should just leave it alone and trust that the person who reads the closes the DR will read what everyone said and evaluate it. You actually make it much harder for them to do so when the DR becomes a long thread of tangentially related discussions.

I don't want to overstate what I just said -- I've sometimes seen genuinely productive, broader discussions arise on a DR and I'm sure you didn't respond to literally everything you disagree with -- but if it's turning into more or less an argument, it's rarely productive to keep disagreeing at length. It "sucks all the air out of the room," discouraging other people from participating productively in the discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 05:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That's totally fair in general. I think it's a little unfair in this case considering I told Trougnouf to drop it and their the one's who continued responding, but whatever. It's not really that I disagree with people. It's that they say things that are either patently false and/or involve personal needling. If someone says I'm on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" or that I'm wasting everyone's time with the DR then I'm going to respond. Their the ones sucking the room out of the air by not sticking to the actual reason the images were nominated for deletion.

I'm 100% there to have a substantive conversation. You can look through my past DRs. 99% of the time when I respond to someone it's because what they say is totally vacuous, personal nonsense that adds absolutely nothing useful to the discussion. I guess I can cut down responding to those types of things, but I think a better solution would be for people to just stop making blathering, off-topic personal comments in deletion requests. It seems like know one really cares about it though. It's not the personal needling that's a problem, the real issue is responding to it for some reason. I'll be sure to shut up and nod my head silently in agreement the next time someone won't stop responding when I ask them to and says I'm on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" though. I swear the priorities on here are fucked. You want me to shine their shoes to while I'm at it? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather not see any admin action here

While I'm not advocating for an outright ban, I think there should be a clear message from the admins that Adamant1 is not allowed to open FoP Deletion Requests (or DR altogether).

This isn't the first issue with them, communication is broken and goes nowhere despite what everyone has to say, and it is a legitimate fear that uploading anything supposedly protected by Freedom of Panorama (as well as the countless content already uploaded) will result in such frustration again.

I'm sure that Adamant1 has some positive contributions and these DR are certainly not part of them, so it would be in everyone's best interest if they were to refrain from making them. --Trougnouf (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1, you recently told me about all the things that are more important to you than deletion discussions - will you promise to stay away from deletion discussion for at least half a year so things can cool down? I know this is a long time for you, but as I said ... there are many other things you can do that are not perceived as problematic, where on the contrary the communiy sees your edits as productive. So could you consider this? --Kritzolina (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kritzolina: honestly I would, but it's almost impossible to do anything that doesn't involve deletions on here some how. I accidently upload a scan of a postcard that's wrong and want it deleted as a curtesy then I'm screwed there. Read through the DR. Trougnouf says in this that "communication with me is broken." I'm the one who said twice to end the conversation and stop beating the horse about it. They continued it and had the last word.

I don't care if they feel like there's a "a fear that uploading anything supposedly protected by Freedom of Panorama is going to deleted." It's one DR for a single mural that I at least felt was justified at the time due to the questionable circumstances and told Jmabel I probably would have been fine retracting half way through if it wasn't for Trougnouf's attitude and badgering. Their "fear" is totally unfounded concern trolling just because their upset that I nominated one of their images for deletion though. That's all it is. There is no wider "inquisition" against FOP on my end here. People get DRs wrong sometimes. That's it. And again, the DR seemed justified at the time.

I'll meet you halfway though. Show me any evidence what-so-ever that I'm an "inquisition against Belgium FOP" or threatened to go on one and I'll accept a full six month block. I'm not doing that or accepting a topic ban based on zero evidence though. That's not to say I don't accept Jmabel's feedback or won't listen to it. I certainly could reply less in general. But that again, in this case I'm not the one who continued it after I was told to stop. Trougnouf did and I think Jmabel's feedback is certainly enough. Again though, I'm more then willing to accept a six month block if you provide evidence of me being on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" or whatever. Otherwise this should be dropped and/or Trougnouf should receive a warning not to file baseless, retaliatory ANU complaints again. I don't think it's unreasonable that if your going to say I should take a six month topic ban or full for something that there should be some actual actual evidence of it though. Otherwise your just feeding into retaliatory drama farming. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I accept that it would be very awkward not to be able to nominate your own uploads for deletion, if something went wrong. So yes, we could make this a "I promise to step away from DRs, except nominating own uploads".

Otherwise this conversation sounds eerily like the one we had over the last AN/U coplaint against you - which, if I may remind you, was also about too broad DRs. So the problem might not be Belgian FOP, but overly broad DRs in general. This is why I am asking you to step away from DRs. And please notice, I am trying to pave a way to close this without admin action. So stop and think before replying again. Kritzolina (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Totally different circumstances from my perspective. In this case I said Jmabel's feedback was totally valid and that's something that I'm more then willing to work on. At least one of the images in the DR, File:A street in Brussels de minimis.jpg was already deleted as a copyright violation and had been reuploaded against the previous consensus. I'm pretty sure there were others. Regardless, that DR was both start and closed by admins and I partially based the deletion request on the previous conclusion by them that these images are copyvio. So I disagree with your characterization that there was or is anything "overly broad" about this. The fact is that I looked into it, there was a previous consensus by multiple administrators that the images were copyrighted and one had already been deleted as such.

So I thought it was worth nominating it and the other one's for deletions. I'm more then willing to admit the consensus has clearly changed about it since then, but that doesn't make the DR "overly broad" or whatever. Nor is a deletion request being kept for images that were previously deleted because a consensus about it has changed over time worth blocking or topic banning the nominator over. Again, that's not to say I don't accept or won't listen to Jmabel's feedback though. I just reject the way you and Trougnouf are characterizing this and I don't think writing a couple more messages in a DR then I probably should have justifies a block or topic ban. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am now taking time away from this discussion. I would like to ask you to also step away and use the time to really think about things like your discussion style and some of the advice I also shared via email in our last discussions. Also please remeber - deletions make everyone touchy and one should be especially careful when discussing them. Kritzolina (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator observation)- per the precautionary principle, I think it is a good idea to submit DRs when someone has legitimate questions about copyright. Indeed the permissions under these files did not recognize the copyright holder of the characters in the mural - they should be tagged {{FoP-Belgium}} and recognize the original artist in Author, as the photos are derivative works. Without the context discussed in the DR, they do look like copyright violations. But Adamant1's behaviour in the DR, arguing with seemingly every responder, is not pleasant. It would be better if they left their rationale to their initial nomination, where they did clearly explain themselves, and let the closing admin evaluate the validity of the nomination and responses. Consigned (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose No admin action needed here, at least from what I can see. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is not that all or even most of the DRs are completely unreasonable. The problem is that Adamant creates several in one go and not all of them are clearcut. Which also wouldn't be a problem, if Adamant1 didn't defend their opinion the way they do. Which is a problem. But after a bit of more thought I am not the right person to close this discussion, so I am stepping away for good. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• My memory of the last AN/U thread about Adamant1 was that they had made a large volume of specious DRs for in-use images, and when asked about this, made up fake quotes that weren't in the COM:INUSE policy, personally attacked people for disagreeing with them, et cetera; see here for some more context; they were eventually given a two-week block for this. While it's obviously not against the rules to have been blocked in the past, it seems like a pretty consistent recurring problem. Adamant simply wants to make giant, indiscriminate DRs -- basically wasting everyone else's time so that Adamant doesn't have to bother figuring out if nominations are valid or not. They refuse to admit when they are incorrect, and their response to any criticism is to deny everything and blame the other person. They have been repeatedly blocked for doing this, arguing so aggressively the last time that they had talk page access revoked. You can see this happening even in this thread, where repeated gentle attempts to propose diplomatic face-saving gestures (e.g. voluntarily stepping back from DRs for a while) are met with scorn and derision. It's one thing to be wrong about stuff every once in a while, that's fine. But I really don't think it's a net positive to be wrong about stuff every once in a while, and constantly refusing to admit it, refuse to change your own behavior in any way, disruptively double down, and accuse everyone else of being the problem. I think that Adamant1 should not be allowed to make DRs anymore apart from their own uploads, as them continuing to do so wastes large amounts of everyone else's time, and they have said again and again that they do not care about this or intend to stop. JPxG (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with @JPxG here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Adding some history, Adamant1 was most recently blocked on 2 July 2024 due to disruptive DRs (talk page access was removed on 5 July). This block expired on 16 July and they submitted the DR in OP two days later. Consigned (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note I have closed the original DR as keep per the overwhelming consensus. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 05:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"Instead of being receptive to others’ input, they consistently double down on their position" is absolutely their typical behavior, I have never experienced Adamant1 in any other way than, well, adamantly insisting that they are right and other opinions are completetely and utterly wrong. Even if one can quote an official Commons policy that directly contradicts what Adamant1 says, Adamant1 insists that they are right. The issue are not the deletion requests by Adamant1 as such - some of them might be better justified than others, sometimes the outcome is that the images in question are deleted, sometimes they are kept, that's the normal experience for all of us here. The issue is the behavior. Not sure what to do, though. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a point if I'm allowed since this is still going on five days later even though I've all but moved on and am supposedly the one who can't just drop things. But the idea that it's typical for me to constantly double down on my position is totally false. There's plenty of times where I've removed images from DRs, withdrawn them, or otherwise took steps to address issues and complaints. I'm also more then willing to take advice from when it's given to me in good faith. Both Jmabel and Kritzolina have given me advice about things in the past that I've listened to and taken to heart. Although I clearly screwed up with how I acted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin), but it's not my typical by any means.

As I told Kritzolina after the last block, I've just been pretty burnt out on this whole thing and I guess I'm not quit over it yet. That's totally on me, but I reject the idea that it's my normal behavior or that I'm totally unwilling to adjust how I act. People can look at my past edit history. I was a lot worse when I first joined. I think I've improved a lot over the last couple of years even if I'm not perfect. I just need to take more regular breaks and not get as overwhelmed or fatigued from this as much. I'm sure that's something we all have issues with. I'm just uniquely horrible at noticing when I'm burnt out and taking the proper steps to deal with it for some reason. I do plan on dealing with that better going forward though. But I at least have good intentions. I just get overwhelmed by the slog of this and lose the plot sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am disappointed but unsurprised. This is yet another example of Adamant1 pushing a fringe position like it’s gospel. They were just here on the 2nd for doing this and were blocked for two weeks. I sincerely want to believe Adamant1 is acting in good faith but this is getting really old; no user should appear three times in the same ANU archive. Dronebogus (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for going off-topic, but were you not the subject of three threads in the most recent ANU archive?

I hope an administrator can review and close this discussion and take any actions as appropriate given the discussion, history, and Adamant1's responses. I doubt any new information or insight will come light if the discussion continues. Consigned (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been a subject of a lot of threads here lately; a bunch were frivolous and the most recent bunch you’re probably thinking of were a huge interconnected shit-show Adamant1 left a rather unpleasant remark at. Adamant1 has had multiple non-frivolous reports on different issues all within the span of weeks. That’s a significant difference.
Back to the topic at hand, I am extremely hesitant to propose an indef for a productive new-ish user (Wikimedia is turning into way too much of an elitist old-boys club IMO) but I think Adamant1 is very lucky not to have been indeffed at this point. At the very least they need a topic ban from DRs per w:wp:CIR. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A topic ban would do wonders for the Commons community. Wolverine XI 14:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: I looked into it because math is fun and I had the free time. But if my numbers are right out of the last 50 DRs I've opened 8 were kept and I withdrew 4 after people provided more information about the artist. It's worth nothing that a good portion of those 8 were in the last month while I've been dealing with the afformationed burnout. Regardless, you'd have to agree that someone blocking someone due to supposedly having lack of competence just they got slightly under 2 out 10 DRs wrong (most of which were due to burnout that the person is in the process of dealing with) would be an extremely low bar. One that I don't think even you live up to yourself. If nothing else I just worry about the precedent it would set. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s not about numbers, it’s about you not understanding a policy or copyright law but acting like you know it better than literally anyone else and refusing to back down. The repeated excuses about “burnout” seem to indicate you also don’t understand the concept of w:wp:editing under the influence. Dronebogus (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

How would I not understand policy or copyright law when I'm only getting 2 out of 10 DRs wrong and most of them were just in the last couple of weeks specifically when I said I've been suffering from burnout though? Surely someone who just doesn't understand how the law works would have a much larger failure rate. And you calling the burnout thing an "excuse" clearly indicates you don't understand the concept of assuming good faith. It's not an excuse though. I litterally have burnout. I just spent the last month and half organizing upwards of 40 thousand uncategorized images of postcards. There's no way that wouldn't cause mental exhaustion. Look at my edits since I was unblocked. I've barely done anything since then and it's 100% because I'm just to mentally drained from organizing the postcards. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe just stick to something you’re clearly good at, like organizing postcards. You can be good at something 80-90% of the time but that 10-20% you’re not good can be a massive burden on the community if it’s bad enough. Dronebogus (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think mostly cutting back on the DRs until I'm fully recovered from the burnout and being more careful about how many times I respond to people in them going forward is totally fine for now. But your opinion about it is noted. I'll probably just not participate in the area anymore if those things don't help in the long run. The only burden on the community I see here though is us continuing this a week later when it clearly isn't going anywhere. So I'm going to end it there. I do appreciate the advice though. I'm not going to shot the messenger even if your delivery could have been better. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page in the future if you have any other words of wisdom for me. I'm more then willing to listen and consider whatever you have to say. As long as it's not patronizing. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that there's a competence issue. I haven't sought out their problematic DRs but those where I have come across generally seem valid according to our guidance at COM:PRP. I think the DR in OP was valid - without any background or evidence the files do look like copyright violations; a random user anywhere in the globe shouldn't be expected to know, and shouldn't be asked to assume, that a potential copyright violation is OK (in that DR, other users were able to bring in expertise/context that confirmed that such an assumption is justified in this case). The DR in OP would have resolved itself reasonably pleasantly if Adamant1 had left the other participants alone and left it to the closing administrator to make a decision based on all viewpoints presented.

I understand if others find the DRs themselves problematic or time consuming, but to me the problematic and time consuming issue is their behaviour within the discussion, debating all opposition in a confrontational manner. Consigned (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Delbatros

User:Delbatros is removing legitimate IP contributions from a deletion request discussion. If IPs are not wanted in those discussions you should announce and make it technically impossible. İf not you should apply a sanction to Delbatros. Thanks. 186.172.250.216 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The wording of your comments on the deletion discussion is also not appropriate. So please stay friendly when commenting on discussion pages. And @Delbatros you should also stay friendly when reverting inappropriate unfriendly comments. For now there is nothing to sanction but if this happens again the one of you who makes such comments will be blocked. The comment on the deletion discussion can be added if worded in an appropriate way. GPSLeo (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Support a block. The IP might have been a tad snarky with their words, but IMO does not justify removal. Delbatross, however, continued to label the IP in question as a troll with no apology at hand. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

   Weak oppose, engele gerek yok. ancak delbatros'un da sakinliğini koruması ve salıp gitmesi gerek. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 20:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose User was issued a warning by Yann to stop edit warring and has not removed any comments since. Revisit only if it becomes a problem again. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

and by the way.. "" İf not you should"" , """"""İf """""" :D. IP is turkish. confirmed. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 16:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Townpadne

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

Another sock of #Muhammedfasilkvkave per w:WP:DUCK. Reuploads the same files that previously were deleted as copyvios. Jonteemil (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

New aqrtilce acception

I wrote an article about a member of the Ukrainian parliament: [[1]]. I used official (state, govermental, financial) links for proofs of truthfulness of information about a member of parliament (Rostyslav Pavlenko). In other words, the link is of the highest level of credibility in my country (Ukraine). Article has been rejected for publication by a User: SafariScribe. I am asking the administrators of the English Wiki-page to help, because I consider the actions of the User: SafariScribe to be biased and inadequate and to harm the project. 94.45.142.2 21:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place, this is Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia.

Click the If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk in the box at the top of your Wikipedia draft article, if you want to talk to other users about a review that you feel was inadequate. Belbury (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Brandner: Hi, and welcome. In addition to the above, please stay logged in.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Brandner, you need to report to the English Wikipedia's AN. I also will advice you to maintain commons:Civility. SafariScribe (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiFreestyler

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

Another duck as #Townpadne. Jonteemil (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done blocked and deleted. GPSLeo (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Mykola.lemyk

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

Many uploads with bogus license, some might be in the public domain. Help needed for checking. Yann (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet use by Sthubertliege

Per Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sthubertliege, Sthubertliege ( local | logs | global ) is using the sockpuppet LeHardi45 ( local | logs | global ). Please block the sockpuppet account. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Likely sockpuppets of Masry684

Sarooky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sarooky looks like another sockpuppet of Masry684. Like the sockmaster, they have uploaded tons of low-quality images related to Egypt that have been deleted for copyvios or missing licenses. This recent upload, File:Nadia Lutfi-Salah Zulfikar.jpg, looks very likely to be a re-upload of a previously deleted file, File:Nadialutfi&Salahzulfikar.jpg, uploaded by Sweety1090, a blocked sock of Masry684. (Though I can't view the deleted file to confirm.)

Moreover, I'm confident that Crimsonalfred2022, recently blocked for the exact same type of behaviour (copyvio uploads of Egypt-related images), is related as well. In recent uploads like this and this, Sarooky provides the exact same dubious licensing information that I reported from Crimsonalfred2022 (see report here, examples like this, this, etc), namely: "Pinterest" as source, "unknown" author, but tagged as PD with no evidence (or indeed with contradictory evidence given the year provided and the US copyright laws outlined in the template). Crimsonalfred2022 is also blocked for sockpuppet behaviour on Wikipedia (see here), for that matter. R Prazeres (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know how I missed this while writing: Crimsonalfred2022 is already confirmed as a sockpuppet of Masry684 via the SPI that linked above ([2]). R Prazeres (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

User:DN27ND

• DN27ND (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Could an admin take a look at File:OC Register judo article.jpg and File:Fears, Randy (October 1975). U.S. Judo team. Rogers Daily News..jpg? They're scans/photos of newspaper articles that User:DN27ND is trying to use in support of their claim in en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nori Bunasawa. These are clearly not the DN27ND's own work per COM:2D copying and COM:Own work, and there's no indication the publications the articles originally appeared aren't copyright protected works. DN27ND had been previously warned by Yann to be careful with their uploads at User talk:DN27ND#File copyright status and was even advised in the English Wikipedia discussion not to upload scans/photos of newspaper articles because of copyright concerns; despite the latter, they went ahead and did so anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Files deleted, last warning sent. Yann (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violations

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

[3] this user has incorrectly labelled content as being his own and in all but two occasions where it has been public domain the images have been copyright violations. I gave up on looking further but I am almost certain the rest of the images will be copyright violations. Apologies if this not the appropriate place to report this, not familiar with Commons. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I didn't know it was copyright, I was just having fun and info 🙏 I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notify you like I was required to which is my bad, although I'm more concerned about having the files removed by an admin than whether action is taken or not. Do you understand that you cannot upload content you do not own unless it has a suitable creative commons license or is public domain? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The user has blanked/reverted my speedy deletion requests and has attempted to remove this. I've lost all ability to assume good faith here. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Support Block. See the edit history of this page. The user clearly isn't here to edit productively. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, I only uploaded photos, please respect democracy I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by I Kadékk Gilang. Yann (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Just delete the uploader's name (me) sir don't delete the file I didn't mean copyvio 🙏 I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

As for the source, I really don't know how to make it I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Please don't delete I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@I Kadékk Gilang: Just stop uploading files copied from the Internet, or you will be blocked. Yann (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay Yes but don't delete my old files thanks I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@I Kadékk Gilang: All your files are copyright violations. Please read COM:L before uploading anything else. Yann (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know it would be copyright sir I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@I Kadékk Gilang: As they say on the English-language Wikipedia, competence is required. If you don't basically understand copyright, don't upload other people's works. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Also COM:NETC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support block. Almost all of their edits here on Commons have been disruptive, including:

1. Multiple attempts to delete this thread
2. Harassing Traumnovelle on their talk page
3. Somewhat disruptive comments on their user DR

They clearly don't understand how copyright works and have no intention of learning how to fix their mistakes. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive? Trade (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Done 3 month block. I saw numerous instances of them cropping out watermarks to hide that the images were stolen. Between that and their comments here, it's clear that they either don't understand, or willfully ignore, copyright. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  You will be amazed how little your average person understands the concept of copyright Trade (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Copyright can be complicated. I think the fact that they were deliberately removing watermarks from their uploads hints at something other then ignorance of the law though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YilevBot is a large x-wiki sock-pool running for the past few months, with enwiki-CU evidence. DMacks (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Now blocked indef. by The Squirrel Conspiracy: Category:Sockpuppets of I Kadékk Gilang. Yann (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

القصور الرئاسية في إيران

• القصور الرئاسية في إيران (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user is erratically modifying pages by adding links to Wikimedia. is it possible to be very clear with her or him, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a sock of recently-blocked User:I Kadékk Gilang (see preceding section), created to continue that one's copyvio uploading pattern. Easy indef on its own merits to stop the immediate disruption (outright vandalism after being identified as a copyright-infringer). But also recommend extending the block on that other account as part of an editing-pool incompatible with commons content and behavior policies. DMacks (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

...so I've merged this into that section. DMacks (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiSarfu

WikiSarfu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continues to re-upload the same copyvios after being warned by Yann. Günther Frager (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Likely another sockpuppet of Bobanfasil, see also #WikiFreestyler which has the same username template and also uploads stuff about Indian football. Jonteemil (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Overlap at File:Usman Ashik.jpg so clearly Bobanfasil. Jonteemil (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Re-uploaded once again: File:Usman Ashik playing.jpg. --Geohakkeri (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as a precaution - if they are not a sock we can unblock. Uploads nuked Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User81874761

• User81874761 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Keeps uploading non-free files after having one prior block for it. Jonteemil (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. Lets see if they get the message Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Kurdzag1946

Please someone review this user's uploads, apparently the files are copyrighted, AI generated, poor quality, duplicate files and social media posts with watermarks. Zamand Karim (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done User warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Arnold Bartels

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

This user is trying to delete dozens of their uploads, which are in high-quality and in scope, under an identical nonsense rationale (“Sorry this picture is not interesting for an encyclopedia“). Obviously G7 does not apply to any of these (last upload was in May) so this seems purely disruptive even if not intended as such. Dronebogus (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I picked three of these at random to look at. They are well within Commons scope. These should all be speedy-closed as "kept" because it cannot possibly be worth anyone's time to go through them all to see if one of them happens to be valid.

@User:Arnold Bartels: Can you explain your intention here?

If there is no satisfactory explanation and this conduct continues, I'd support a block. - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

In the North of the Netherlands (Friesland) only some journalists are allowed to take photographs. There is a different law here. In Dutch we call that ONDERMIJNING. Arnold Bartels (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that law is applicable to Commons. We care about copyright and hardcore legal/ethical issues like child sexual abuse, not much else. For example trademark use is heavily restricted, but a trademark too simple to be copyrighted can be freely uploaded to Commons. Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with wikicommons, It's a local problem with the people here. Arnold Bartels (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes but Commons doesn’t care about your local problems and you don’t have a right to delete these images because of them Dronebogus (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You should have factored that in before uploading the images. It's not like there aren't plenty of images similar to yours from the Netherlands on here already though. So your personal issue with it isn't a valid reason to nominate the files for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Support Block depending their response. Clearly disruptive but maybe not intentional. They need to stop doing it either way though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Arnold Bartels: (1) I take it that all of these stand or fall on the same rationale, so you should have done a mass deletion request, not a series of deletion requests each of which would be decided independently. (2) the rationale you give here seems completely unrelated to the rationale you gave on the deletion requests. It sounds like you are asking for a courtesy deletion because you've discovered there may be some legal issues with having posted the pictures, is that correct? - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, if this is correct, can you link either the text of that law (in Dutch is fine) or somewhere it is talked about? I see plenty online on Friesland and ondermijning/undermining, but none of it mentions anything like a photography ban. - Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: According to Commons:Country specific consent requirements you don't need permission to take pictures of people in public places there. Although there does seem to be some exceptions that the page unfortunately doesn't go into. I find it hard to believe they would be relevant here though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No point to speculating. I want to see a clear statement from Arnold as to what he's dealing with. If there is likely to be a genuine legal issue, I'd support a courtesy deletion. If not, not. - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Dronebogus and "in use" as a way of avoiding deletion

Warning: images linked here are NSFW. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

On 10 May 2024, Dronebogus uploaded a self-made illustration. They added it to Wikidata on the same day. A few days later, they added it to Simple Wikipedia and also Spanish Wikipedia. A few days ago, they added it to English Wikipeda.

Here's the issue, this image is obviously well below the quality of image that is normally used on Wikimedia projects but it is now "in use" so any attempt to delete it will automatically fail. But it is only "in use" because Dronebogus added it to projects themselves. When I removed another piece of Dronebogus' self-made illustrations from Wikidata, they not only added it again, they tried to suggest that I was the one gaming the system.

Please take a look at the quality of File:Reverse ekiben position.png. To call it amateurish would be generous. But I can't ask for it to be deleted because it is "in use" and I can't remove from projects without getting into an argument with Dronebogus. This has already happened on English Wikipedia, where Dronebogus edit warred to keep the image and then accused Just Step Sideways of bad faith actions. I feel that Dronebogus is abusing a Commons rule to keep their substandard self-made images in Wikimedia projects as some kind of trolling or personal joke. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If this really is all the content we have available for this, then I'd support INUSE as an argument.

But this is far from impressive behaviour, and it's far from the first time. We are not here as an alternative to DeviantArt et al. These poor quality images are nowhere near the standard we'd like to use and Dronebogus is, yet again, on very thin ice. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Look at File:Phonesex.gif, File:Spoon position on bed.PNG, File:Illustration-of-Buttjob.png, File:Diagrammatic, non-explicit, depiction of a male performing cunnilingus on a female..jpg. All are arguably even worse than my art which is famously so horrible, and all are in-use and in scope. I understand Enwiki has a very high standard on everything, but it’s hardly the only Wikimedia wiki, and it’s not like Commons is just for Wikimedia either. This might be the only freely licensed depiction of this sex position on the entire internet that isn’t AI generated. And as much as I’m informed my uploads are terrible, awful, no good, and very bad it hasn’t stopped them from being used by other users, for example here and here) (I have never edited either article; feel free to check). And yes, I do add my own images to stuff, but I also believe in W:WP:BOLD and W:WP:AGF. Dronebogus (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

And yet, someone still thought it worthwhile to trace one of those to an SVG! Weird.

As I wrote, I would support this one within that narrow context of it being all we have. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t an ANI issue. And it certainly isn’t trolling or a “personal joke”. From the discussion at Enwiki: “I am under no illusions that my drawing is particularly good, but there were literally no free images of this subject on Commons and the article was illustrated by a copyright violation that was going to be deleted anyway. I didn’t want to leave a void where the original illustration was so after significant consideration I tried my best to provide at least a passable replacement.” I accused JSS of bad faith because they have acted in bad faith before, but I believe in this particular case their actions were legitimate and their response was adequate and civil. I think all three uses are legitimate— the one at Spanish Wikipedia was a similar replacement, the one at Wikidata was about the same topic, and the one at Simple English was in a relevant section. If you have a problem with my conduct it would have been much less aggressive to simply discuss it on my talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dronebogus I brought this here because this is something for the Commons community to discuss and decide upon. If it is not trolling, why are you adding something that you know is no good to Wikimedia projects? There are countless things on projects without illustrations - that doesn't mean that a bad image should be used. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s “no good”. I’m kind of being sarcastic when I say it’s so horrible and awful. In fact Andy Dingley has abruptly flipped around and said my art is actually pretty good when it happens to be SFW. But I have no illusions of it being brilliant and would gladly welcome somebody more talented replacing it. Dronebogus (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

better than nothing. i agree with dronebogus. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 21:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 Neutral why there is so many "dronebogus" topics out there in near time?

i checked up the image, and if no copyvio and has purpose to education it is good in my book. if you are not agree, i belive you should request DR for that instead move it to AN/U. you are free to put it in DR, again. and with solid arguements. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Modern primat I think you missed the point. It won't be deleted because it is "in use". Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want to nominate it, be my guest. But it won’t be deleted because it’s in scope. Dronebogus (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems like that's kind of the issue here. On the one hand it's worth uploading images that help illustrate a certain subject on Wikipedia in cases where we don't have any. Yet on the other in my own personal experience there doesn't to be a consensus we should do that by way of user generated content. At least not outside of maps or diagrams and even then there's some standards. There's a point where it just becomes "usage for it's own sake" though. Not the particular educational merits of the image as such and I think your veering to much into that territory.

There is of a course a line there where it's not a helpful or productive way to illustrate articles and I think you've repeatedly crossed it by uploading and adding your own illustrations to articles. That's certainly not something I would do. Even for scans of postcards in a lot of cases, because I don't necessarily know what is a "good" images for an article about any given topic. What you probably should be doing is just uploading the images and letting other people add them to other projects if they want to. If you aren't willing to roll the dice and leave it up to the community then you shouldn't be uploading the images to begin with though. Otherwise it just comes off like gaming the system. And it's hard to believe your not doing that at this point considering the history. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you’re mostly right, but your interpretation of community “consensus” is wrong. I don’t know of anyone who objects to users uploading their own work purely on that basis besides you. The reason everyone complains about my work is because they consider it low-quality and amateurish, dislike the sexual nature of it, or in this case find my behavior system-gamey. The main reason I am perhaps over-eager to use my own work is because anything I upload now is meant to fill a particular gap; if people don’t see that gap being filled they will assume it’s just mediocre art. I am extremely hesitant to upload anything else due to recent events (I actually have a drawing I finished before all this happened that I don’t know if I’ll ever upload) so it’s unlikely to be an issue; if I do upload anything in the future I won’t be adding it to another project without express permission from that project. Dronebogus (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know of anyone who objects to users uploading their own work purely on that basis besides you. There's plenty of DRs out there where amature artwork was deleted as OOS. Be my guest and look for them, but I'm not only who has an issue with it and there's a pretty clear consensus that it's usually OOS except in certain situations. But they aren't relevant to this. Anyway, I can understand you wanting to upload your artwork to "fill a gap" but if there's no freely available images out there for the subject to begin with then maybe it's not a gap that needs filling. At least with your personal drawings.

Although I have zero problem with you uploading the images to serve that purpose on our end. Just don't add them to Wikidata or Wikipedia articles on your own. At least IMO that's purely where the issue comes in because it takes away our ability as a project to decide if the images should be on here or not to begin with. Worse case scenario some of your uploads get deleted as OOS. So what though? It happens sometimes and it's not the end of the world. I think people get to personally offended if or when their images get nominated for deletion. So they throw a tantrum or game the system so they don't have to deal with their own rejection issues. It's perfectly fine if not everything you upload ends up staying on Commons though. I certainly don't expect it myself with my own uploads. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I agree with what you’re saying in broad strokes, but I strongly disagree with your argument that “if it was needed it would already exist”. If that was the case then the only things we’d have were free images from a long time ago or from various governments, which unsurprisingly seem to be the only things you upload. Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking purely about the subjects that you keep uploading images of amateur artwork for here. The last time I checked that has nothing to do with historical subjects or the government. Although I think similar rules would and do apply with amateur artwork by users of those things. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You’re missing my point: if we all thought “it would exist if it was needed”, why make anything? Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Just a quick question - looking back on other interactions between the two of you: do both of you think it's wise to keep trying to work this out here between the two of you? Kritzolina (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about me and Dronebogus or Dronebogus and the person who opened this? If your talking about me and Dronebogus that was really all I had to say and it doesn't sound like we disagree that much about it to begin with. I'm not claiming there's a clear line with it or even advocating for any action here. Simply sharing my thoughts on the matter. I think it's Dronebogus' and/or Counterfeit Purses thing to work out at this point. Honestly, this kind of comes off like Counterfeit Purses is trying to relitigate the whole thing from before when it was already resolved. Dronebogus can and should use their own intuition as someone who works in the areas at question to figure when it's appropriate or not to add their own artwork to Wikipedia articles. Again though, I don't think there's a bright line when it comes to the appropriateness of someone doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that is this CP trying to re-kindle the last embers of this month’s drama for not really any particularly good reason, plus the fact that they already seem to be following me around to add negative, contrarian remarks about me (like here and here). I’m not as litigious as I used to be so I’m not suggesting a boomerang against a good-faith user who’s barely been editing a year, but they really should cut it out. Dronebogus (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we really have a user complaining that another user uploaded media and made use of them on WMF projects? I don't think they are up to anything productive here and should be blocked. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Strong oppose block is not needed. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 17:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

why do you think so? Enhancing999 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think a block is needed here either, per my reasoning above. This should just be closed without action against anyone. Dronebogus (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a block is needed here either but @Counterfeit Purses: really needs to accept the feedback and not waste the communities time with similar ANU complaints in the future. There really should be consequences for filing clearly false ANU complaints. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite normal for people to upload images to Common so they can use them to fill holes in Wikimedia projects. Chasing a user's uploads and removing them from use so you can delete them on Commons is not so good. I'd generally say that chasing a user's edits on other Wikiprojects and reverting them is considered bad there, as well. Trying to delete low quality artwork that covers something we don't have a million files for makes Commons slightly less valuable and increases the level of hostility on Commons; it's not a good thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Marquitosmycraft and Marquitosminecraft

Users Marquitosmycraft and Marquitosminecraft are both clear sockpuppets of one another and the latter is being used to spam the revert function on several files. NorthTension (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done I blocked Marquitosmycraft for socking. Yann (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't. What about the revert warring / spamming by the latter?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

[4]??? I had also warned Marquitosminecraft. I think that is sufficient for now. Yann (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Muhammedfasilc

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

Another Bobanfasil sock. See also #WikiSarfu, #WikiFreestyler, #Townpadne etc. See User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files for obvious evidence. Jonteemil (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

TimesUIU.wiki

• TimesUIU.wiki (talk • contribs • block log • filter log)
• Timesuiuinfo (talk • contribs • block log • filter log)

This seems like a sock of Timesuiuinfo. Partly based on the similar usernames and partly since they show up at User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files. The newer account uploaded File:Times UIU Logo PNG.png which is the same file as File:Times UIU Logo.png which was uploaded by the master, and is deleted. Also overlap on the masters filter log where the master tries to edit the file uploaded by the sock. Jonteemil (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)