Category:FC Bayern München/Category:FC Bayern Munich and its subcategories

Science Photo Competition 2024 in Ukraine (midpoint): Request for MassMessage

Hi! Quick request from organizers of the Ukrainian edition of Science Photo Competition 2024 – we'd like to invite people who participated in this context in the past & haven't joined this year so far to join this year's edition

• List of receivers

• Text of the message (first line is the subject, everything else is the body of the message; I've already accounted for having a correct signature & timestamp)

AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing… -- CptViraj (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@AntonProtsiuk (WMUA): Ah sorry, but can you please confirm that there are still 723 users who haven't participated out of 730? -- CptViraj (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@CptViraj: yes, at least per this query. AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Sent. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Rev del, please.

• 1. File:Secretary Blinken Delivers Remarks at Kerry Portrait in Washington, D.C., December 9, 2024 - 1.jpg
• 2. File:Secretary Blinken Delivers Remarks at Kerry Portrait in Washington, D.C., December 9, 2024 - 2.jpg
• 3. File:Secretary Blinken Delivers Remarks at Kerry Portrait in Washington, D.C., December 9, 2024 - 4.jpg
• 4. File:Secretary Blinken Delivers Remarks at Kerry Portrait in Washington, D.C., December 9, 2024 - 5.jpg
• 5. File:Secretary Blinken Delivers Remarks at Kerry Portrait in Washington, D.C., December 9, 2024 - 6.jpg

Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you exactly want, deletion of these newly-uploaded files? --Túrelio (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Túrelio and @GreenMeansGo, yes the issue is that the John Kerry portrait painting is presumably copyright. I just replied the Jmabel (below) about a possible Guassian blur, if he is willing to do it. -- Ooligan (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ooligan: surely you have been around long enough by now that you know how to form in internal link so someone can click on it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Túrelio: I think he is asking for a revdel for copyright reasons, because the Kerry Portrait is presumably copyrighted. But Ooligan, wouldn't that call more for a Gaussian blur than a crop? At least to have a version in the history with just the offending part blurred, so we don't hide more information than we have to? - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ooligan: it would be good and helpful, if you link these files for obvious reasons. Not linking increases load of an admin. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 15:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I added links. I'm sorry about my error, @Aafi. Ooligan (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You still need to tell us what the issue is. GMG^talk 17:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Yes a Gaussian blur would be great, but I never learn how to do it. I know you are busy, but a blur would be the better aternative, if you are willing to do it. Otherwise, these crops will be ok. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have now hidden (not deleted) the uncropped version of each of the 5 files. --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this @Túrelio and also all the unseen work you and other Admins do daily. Best Regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Move request requiring an admin

Please see File:Indianapolis, October 5, 2024 - 05 (cropped) (cropped).jpg. I uploaded this cropped version, & it should replace File:Indianapolis, October 5, 2024 - 05 (cropped).jpg, an inferior cropped version that I also uploaded. Peaceray (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done GPSLeo (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Vlada ooo.jpg

personal attack on my family vandal please remove --Jphwra (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Already dealt with. @Jphwra: please don't post the same admin request in two places. - Jmabel ! talk 07:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Hang googles

Can someone take a look at this userpage? The creation of it is this user's only edit and it is clearly vandalism. Wound theology (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. and page deleted. I also requested a global lock on Meta. Yann (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

ArionStar/★ unblock request

Wilfredor

Wilfredor (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user appears to have missed the question of 16:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC) above in this pingless edit about their previous series of edits here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G., does thhis even need an AN discussion, please. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 10:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aafi: Wilfredor made serious defamatory claims in the closed discussion above. I was following up on @A.Savin's question about them in that discussion above. Sorry if I overstepped, what should I have done?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Prior to reporting someone to AN, their talk-page is the perfect place to discuss any disputes/problems/issues. The top of this board is clear at saying "You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention." This doesn't need admin intervention. Wilfredor can answer on their talk page, and if they make abusive-remarks or so, you can then bring the discussion here. As such, closing this as  Not done. Admins cannot act on requests that don't need admin help? _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 11:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

problematic users is a thing, but since you are "following up", the reported user's talk page is the place. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 11:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aafi: Thank you, I asked there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Noah James Barker.jpg

Can someone have a look at this? I just deleted a BLP-violating "article" on Wikipedia that used this photo. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done @Drmies Deleted as F10. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 04:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Datasets about potential logos - December 2024 uploads

Hi all, we have released a new dataset of potential logos uploaded in December 2024, together with another one of those which have already been deleted as of 2024-12-15. We are sharing them with you for your consideration.

This is part of our current work with the logo detection tool. We hope it will be useful for your moderation activities.

If you encounter issues with the datasets or have comments/requests, please reach out to me or to Sannita (WMF).

Thanks for your attention! –-MFossati (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/302

please move User:Queen of Hearts/MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-ip-translation to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-ip-translation and set the disallow message to "abusefilter-disallowed-ip-translation". Thanks! Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done moved and also added to the filter. GPSLeo (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Book covers

I think it would be a really good idea for one or more admins or experienced Commons users to take a close look at the visible "Media in category 'Book covers'" section of Category:Book covers. I took a look at the category yesterday because of a discussion about a non-free book cover being used on English Wikipedia and found File:2019 De la flor, el mar y la ausencia.jpg and File:2021-cover-194300.webp a couple of copyvio looking files right off the bat. I just took another scroll through the category and there are quite a few others which probably also are copyvios. Some are being claimed as "own work" by their uploaders (which most likely is referring to the photo/scan of the cover); some were uploaded by accounts which appear to be the names of publishers or authors of the books in question (which might not be the case); and some like File:Amets Arzallus Susa.jpg, File:Affiche-Une-histoire-d amour.png and File:Affiches au Stade Pierre-Fabre.jpg seem miscategorized (which might be why nobody notice them so far). Not many of the file uploaded as "own work" or which are derivative works seem to be VRT verified and almost all of those seem too complex to be PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/User:Dr Julie Dee Bell

Could an admin take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/User:Dr Julie Dee Bell? This could be a case of COM:G7 given the similarity between the name of the user page being nominated for deletion and the name of user nominating the page for deletion. It also could be a case of COM:G10 or COM:GA2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Julie Dee Bell has been a problem user all along, in my view. Commons:Deletion requests/File:God Centric.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:God calculation for time travel machines.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Julie Dee Bell. I see on the last one that P 1 9 9 approved the deletion but then did not delete File:God Calculation.jpg and File:Earth’s Galaxy.jpg. I don't know whether Dr Julie Dee Bell is the same person or a different one, but nearly all of their uploads have been deleted, plus a bunch of categories that were deleted for being only for their uploads; also earlier versions of their user page were deleted as self-promotion. However, there's been none of this "God calculation" stuff, it's been all related to oil sands, and is not as obviously bogus. - Jmabel ! talk 03:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Jmabel. Personally, I've got nothing invested in whether the user page is deleted or kept; for reference, though, the same user seem to have created another DR for the same page or just copied at pasted the first one and added it to Commons:Deletion requests/User:Dr Julie Dee Bell. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think User:Julie Dee Bell got recreated with the god computer stuff.  Support blocking the DUCK and the master. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Indeffed for global lock evasion and uploading out of scope files after warning. Global lock applied for at Metawiki for the former. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Prussian templates

Well, it seems that my translations are off-line with the rest; specifying "action" and an extra inconsistency using tikinna and gāncas at the same time...
I decided to make a few, more consistent ones.  Segīsenis gāncas →  Izpilninuns
 Ni tikinna →  Ni izpilninuns
Segīsenis jāu gāncas → Jāu izpilninuns

I also decided to try to improve the {{Half done}} template.
 Delīkiskas wangīnsna →  Puswangīnuns
Izpilnintun: To carry out, or to fulfil
Wangīntun: To finish, to end, to complete

Also, * <!--pnb-->{{Lang-mp-loader|pnb|مکھ صفحہ}} on {{Lang-mp}} can be Found and Replaced into

* <!--pnb-->{{Lang-mp-loader|pnb|مکھ صفحہ}}
* <!--prg-->{{Lang-mp-loader|prg|Galwas pāusan}}

.

Did that so that you would have a easier time placing it in the right spot. Kxeo (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This needs to be done by a translation administrator. I suggest you post to the Commons:Translators' noticeboard for a more direct response Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 00:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty then, moving again... thx :P Kxeo (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Double move needed.

Since other projects have decided on the new Syrian flag, File:Flag of Syria.svg should be moved to Flag of the United Arab Republic (1958–1971), Flag of Syria (1980–2024).svg and File:Flag of the Syrian revolution.svg should be moved to File:Flag of Syria.svg simultaneously. I'd rather not do this move myself. Abzeronow (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: I trust you pretty far, and I am willing to stick my neck out for what is likely to be a somewhat controversial move, but can you cite some indication of consensus a little more specific than "other projects have decided"? - Jmabel ! talk 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

English Wikipedia: en:Talk:Syria#RfC: Flag? closed as B, Syrian revolutionary flag and en:Flag of Syria shows it.

French Wikipedia: fr:Drapeau de la Syrie.

Arabic Wikipedia: ar: علم_سوريا

German Wikipedia: de:Flagge Syriens

Italian Wikipedia: it:Bandiera della Siria

Spanish Wikipedia: es:Bandera de Siria

Russian Wikipedia: ru:Флаг Сирии are all in agreement. d:Q45136 shows both, notes revolutionary flag as de facto. Abzeronow (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Would that automatically feed the new flag into ~500 Wikipedia pages regardless of context and caption? Like when File:Flag of Syria.svg is now used to illustrate that this is the flag that was adopted in 1980 and after the move it shows the 2024 flag without hint in the page history or any other warning to the Wikipedia editors? Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Rudolph Buch: Correct. However the projects have backed themselves into a weird corner because there's also templates that - instead of asking for an image - automatically pull the file with the name "Flag of [country name].svg" - and those would have the wrong image if we don't move it.

All: Did we have a similar discussion when Afghanistan changed their flag? Flag of Afghanistan redirects to File:Flag of the Taliban.svg. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: since they moved Flag of Afghanistan (and can answer that question). Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: thank you.

@Rudolph Buch and The Squirrel Conspiracy: I can't tell whether those are objections to the move or not. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don't object. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don´t object either, it just seems like a bad idea to me. It´s the local editor´s job to keep their pages current, not common´s. When a commons file is deleted, delinker-bot at least puts a message in the page history to enable them to do a check. Clandestine changes of article content may not be appreciated by every sister project, especially when it produces errors. Newly inserting a wrong image seems somehow worse than not-updating outdated ones. With 110,000+ wikipedia articles concerned (I meanwhile found the globalusage tool and it´s more than I initially thought) there´s a lot of potential for mistakes and anger. You move if you want, but usually I´d expect discussion at villagepump/proposals for topics with potential for harm on a six-digit-number of wikipedia pages. Rudolph Buch (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rudolph Buch: I'm not sure I really see the difference between that and an objection. It sounds like you are saying, "I object, but I'm not going to prevent you. Do this at your own peril because I think this is out of process." So what process, exactly, would you prefer? - Jmabel ! talk 05:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, exact semantics are difficult in foreign languages. For me, "objection" means saying "no" with the expectation that it stops you. As I merely wanted to say (in a mellow tone) that I think your intended action is unwise but I will respect your decisionmaking anyway and of course make no fuss about it, "objection" seemed the wrong word. To your question: Option (1) is to do nothing and to trust the wiki editors in updating their pages. Option (2) is to rename File:Flag of Syria.svg to File:Flag of Syria (1980).svg without leaving a redirect. This will lead to a huge amount of broken image links (which is bad) but prompt the editors to check what flag is right for the respective page (which is good). Option (3) is to let a bot replace File:Flag of Syria.svg by File:Flag of the Syrian revolution.svg at all wiki pages. This will lead to an amount of false inserts but the change shows up in watchlists and page history, so editors are warned. I don´t know if this is technically feasible but it would by my preferred mode. You may want to make sure that no bot can do that before you draw Option (4) which is Abzeronow´s suggestion. Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that it is clear that this is controversial, I'm not making the move.

NONE of what Rudolph Buch has written above looks to me like a process for making a decision. It is just a list of what that decision might be.

I propose that we reopen this question on COM:VP: if the action to take is really in question, then this is a community matter, not an administrative matter. Would someone like to start a thread there, paraphrasing the substance of what has been discussed here? If not, I'll probably get to it some time in the next 36 hours. I'm out the door in 15 minutes, which does not give me time to address this now. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind COM:VP discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Jmabel, that´s a strange answer. Either you consider my concerns as legit and do whatever you want to do to make your decision. I can´t tell you what process that is because it´s your decision. Or you think that the move is not "really" in question, then go on and move. Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In terms of proposed file moves, there are only two special roles for an admin:

1. Identify the prevailing view in the community.
2. Implement it.

In matters that are potentially controversial, we are no more supposed to make decisions unilaterally than anyone else. COM:AN is not the place to get a proper consensus about what flag is appropriate for a particular country, because this page is mainly read by admins, aspiring admins, and people who have recently raised an issue to the admins. COM:VP, on the other hand, is the page where people are invited to participate in decisions that require some community breadth. There is nothing strange about my saying that I won't use my admin tools to implement a "decision" that apparently has not been decided.

I'll start a discussion at COM:VP#Syrian flag, paraphrasing the relevant content from above. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrator who understands French

Does anyone know of a Commons administrator who understands French? An IP responded to a file tagged for speedy deletion at User talk:SimmerAlain#File:Alain Simmer.jpg in what I believe is French. The IP seems to be claiming that they're copyright holder of the file that was deleted (at least per Google Translate), but I'm not sure. Perhaps a French speaking admin could help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The deleting admin @Yann. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 05:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I answered in French there. This is about a book cover, so a permission is needed. Yann (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Aafi, Jmabel and Yann for trying to sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

NC license

File:Affiche de l'exposition temporaire de Hans Hartung et Anna-Eva Bergman au Musée de la Poste (1980-1981).jpg is licensed as {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, but the file's description and source url state it's licensed under a NC license. I'm assuming that means it's eligible for speedy deletion, but I just not sure which criterion applies since F1, F4 and F6 all seem applicable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Clear one. This is gone. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 05:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this Aafi. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive vandal

User:Shumadan62 has been reuploading a photoshopped image depicting himself with Danielle Bradbery despite a previous speedy deletion. The image is being used for cross-wiki vandalism via sockpuppet accounts, and he is blocked on enwiki. Please Refer to this ANI thread on enwiki and delete the offending image. Thanks, Ca (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Last warning for vandalism sent, file deleted. Yann (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Now he is back with a sockpuppet account, uploading the exact same image. User:Maddy Murk Ca (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done I think he got enough warning, so both accounts are blocked indef. They should be globally locked. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the first account that started all this was User talk:Handsomehen. He's currently neither blocked nor marked as sockpuppet. The report on User:Shumadan62 on Meta also doesn't seem to include Handsomehen yet.(edit: it's there, I just missed it) Nakonana (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

But on Commons, Maddy Murk is the oldest account. We also probably need a request for check user. Yann (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Would moving People of the State of Palestine by year subcats into People of the Palestinian territories by year be a controversial request?

There's a split category tree at Category:People of the Palestinian territories by year (1970-2012) and Category:People of the State of Palestine by year (2013-present). The actual contents are largely the same - Category:Mahmoud Abbas in 2012 versus Category:Mahmoud Abbas in 2013 - so I don't see any reason why the split should exist. However, I'm hesitant to just tell the bots to fix this because that's only for uncontroversial moves, and Palestinian tend to be controversial. Thoughts? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Since Category:People of the Palestinian territories by year goes back to Category:People of the State of Palestine, I think it'd be better to just put State of Palestine. Bedivere (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Migingo

Someone uploaded this photo but is actually taken from this website. I think We have to remove It. AnticoMu90 (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Deleted as a copybright violation. The source doesn't have a free license. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 09:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI

I indeffed Manojnath484 for obvious spamming. They've been given a plenty of warnings previously but I'd want to hear from others here in case I have been hard on them. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 15:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@CptViraj: any opinions on this user's userpage? _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 15:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

U3'ed; Intention of an article. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests

Now that Commons:Undeletion requests is empty, something very unusual, I would like to give a shoutout to those users to regularly help out with dealing with requests there: @Yann: , @Jameslwoodward: , @Bastique: , @Abzeronow: , @Ankry: , @The Squirrel Conspiracy: , @Rosenzweig: , @King of Hearts: , @Ruthven: , @Aafi: , @Elcobbola: and any other regulars there. Thuresson (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

IPBE for CuratorBot

Hi. The account CuratorBot (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) requires IPBE as the IP address where my OpenRefine runs is blocked as No-open proxies. Could an admin assign it please? Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@DaxServer  Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Flickr bot Malfunction Again!

Dear Admins and Other Users,

The Flickr bot has stopped working for almost 2 days now and the flickr backlog is now 3400+ images. Can someone fix the bot…again please? Something is not quite right with the flickrbot AntiCompositeNumber

Pinging the maintainers: @Eatcha, Multichill, Stang, Steinsplitter, WhitePhosphorus, and Zhuyifei1999: Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. @AntiCompositeNumber, Is some form of auto-reboot possible either by the bot itself, or via weekly cron job? I think there is something wrong with it's handling of failed LRs. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck Yes, there are a few ways to do that. For iNaturalistReviewBot I have a health check set up, so that it touches a file every time it reviews a file or checks for files to review. If it doesn't do that for long enough (about 10 minutes in my case), the Toolforge infrastructure will automatically restart it. Setting that up does take some knowledge of how the bot works, but it's fairly simple if you have that knowledge. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. The situation is getting very bad. Is there anyone who can fix this problem soon. License Reviewers cannot mark 3,000+ images as we have real life jobs. the flickrbot breaks down every few weeks. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment: I don't know if any other bot operators such as MGA73 can do anything at all sadly. The situation is bad. Hopefully, the flickr review backlog does not reach 5,000 images next. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  There is a usurping procedure, @AntiCompositeNumber, are you interested in usurping the bot? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  The wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Abandoned tool policy requires the tool to be non-functional for 14 days or for all maintainers to be completely inactive for 28 days. Neither is the case. I also don't have the capacity to maintain another tool at the moment, though if one of the current maintainers wanted to give me access to the tool I could help with restarts. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Same here, I’m also wondering if an admin only reboot page could be used, or if it wouldn’t work when the bot hangs. (I’m thinking along the lines of a klaxon system that auto reboots the bot. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  @AntiCompositeNumber since you're now a maintainer, could you reboot the bot please? It's reaching nearly 7,000 images now... BrazilianDude70 (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have restarted the bot. I doubt I'll have a chance to fix things properly, especially since whatever caused the bot to stop doesn't appear in the logs, but feel free to ping me if it stops working again. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  @AntiCompositeNumber I recently added health checks for Deletion Notification Bot 2 and CommonsDelinker; I'd be happy to add one for this bot if you'd like to add me as maintainer. My toolforge username is also Mdaniels5757. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Mdaniels5757 Sure, done. Good luck, the hand-written kubernetes jobs are in ~/jobs.yaml, the bot code is in ~/o/toolserver/bryan/flickr/bots/flickreviewr.py or https://yifeibot.toolforge.org/gitweb/?p=botscripts.git;a=blob;f=o/toolserver/bryan/flickr/bots/flickreviewr.py;h=99b13230fb69806edda810e0a25310d63db3e59b;hb=refs/heads/master. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Magdeburg car attack.jpg

Add Category:Screenshots of security camera footage--Trade (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Category:2024 Magdeburg car attack--Trade (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Already done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Obese MBi.jpg

This file is repeatedly re-uploaded by a vandal, to be used for vandalisms. Please remove it and protect against uploading. Blocking the uploader may also be worth considering. Msz2001 (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Here was another instance of that file: File:Otyły MBi.jpg Msz2001 (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Full protected both deleted files. Abzeronow (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The uploader and their sock are blocked indefinitely. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delete topic pages which template cannot be added

Hi. These topic pages contains nothing but error. Since I cannot add Template:Speedydelete to the page, I have to nominate here:

• Topic:Smtpj8utllnryc3k
• Topic:Smtrcre7hhh81d4z
• Topic:Smtrd0oxngijcsq9
• Topic:Smtsy0wtqqml28ke
• Topic:Smtt99p7yp47d4wc
• Topic:Smy2af0luk1wz5es
• Topic:Sn6grtdjn70cisb7
• Topic:Sn6hmfa58460l238
• Topic:Sn8f3y8qir8oxzjb
• Topic:Sn8f417nuorxes8d
• Topic:So4juczs8f56jvp5
• Topic:Ssg1557c6pg1r8zg
• Topic:Tg8hmw5fl6cc5c35
• Topic:Ty0zgb6jtxsi07hk
• Topic:Ty2mpskkqgqx26k4
• Topic:Ty2ntvbvaj5ymdoj
• Topic:Ty36xz9nqpmqx36d
• Topic:Ty3afiw134mdwu6a
• Topic:U95qp9ct63emszgi

Thanks! Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 09:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This is all about Flow. I don't think deletion is appropriate. @阿南之人: Has this stuff been moved to archive? Fwiw, the use of Flow is deprecated. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 10:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aafi Here. Commons talk:Flow/tests Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 10:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

As you have said, flow is deprecated. However, these error pages are left. So I it is appropriate to delete these to clear all flow pages. Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 10:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I will leave this open for a while, and see what my fellow admins have to say. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 10:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also other reason that I'd perhaps report on Phabricator. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 10:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete when there is no real content, i.e. Topic:Smtpj8utllnryc3k, but actually, I could not delete it. Yann (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I have raised this concern somewhere on Phabricator. ─ Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@AafiOnMobile Can you give us the link? Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 13:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This is on phab:T370722. ─ Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aafi It looks like there aren't any technicians reply us. I think it is better to set a new task for sooner response. Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 04:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the hurry? Let's keep this as is. This isn't damaging anything. I'm certain folks working on flow will take care of this anyway, at right time. As such I'm closing this as  Not done. ─ Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 14:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Good day, kindly see edit request Template talk:Warning#Edit request on 25-12-2024. Waddie96 (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocking practice

Hi, I would like to know what should be the blocking practice, specially for out of scope content. Should we block spammers on sight, or should we give them first a warning? Should the block be indefinite? What about people uploading vanity pictures? Yann (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

My cent is to block indeff whenever they come around. ─ Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 14:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

• For spammers advertising a business that does not seem to be theirs (including w:en:SEO people), unless it's particularly spammy or they have already been warned on another project, I often warn, then indef on second offense.
• For pure spam (e.g. boner pill or casino adverts), I indef them immediately.
• For vanity pictures and self-promotion, it really depends on how spammy they seem to be, but sometimes a block for 1 week to 1 month on second or third offense, then indef.

My motivation for being more lenient there is that I view someone advertising someone else's business as unlikely to be a productive contributor (they're probably being paid to spam, why would they stop?), but a self-promoting person can become one. (On enwiki, I think it's not uncommon for people who created vanity articles about themselves to go on to become productive contributors.) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but: I'd support a block-on-sight policy for accounts uploading blatantly promotional files related to high-risk spam topics (SEO and marketing services, online casinos and cryptocurrency services, pharmaceuticals, commercial pornography, etc). Users uploading these files practically never have any intent to contribute constructively; warning them after a first offense just delays the inevitable and risks letting further promotional uploads go unnoticed. Omphalographer (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocking policy makes it clear that warning is necessary when "disruptive behaviour, such as vandalism, repeated copyright violations and manual promotional activities" (emphasis mine) are involved by stating, "...ensure that the user has been appropriately warned, preferably using a block warning template." By saying manual promotional activities, I think it refers to promotional (self and otherwise) and advertising edits made by humans, otherwise there's an exception when spambots are in play, which are to be blocked outright.

Many users who create OOS content here often don't know what Commons is about. Blocking these accounts indefinitely upon sighting would be BITEy (in my opinion), unless they're not willing to listen and/or are continuing with creating OOS content even after warning(s) (where blocking is appropriate and the length of block would depend on the intensity of situation with the particular context to it and the discretion of the administrator). --Ratekreel (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Good as a general policy, but note that there are extreme cases where it is clear that the user is deliberately intending to be a disruptive vandal, especially when they are in the midst of a spree of vandalism, when a block without warning may be warranted for the purpose of halting disruption in progress. (This is of course quite different from users editing inappropriately due to ignorance or unfamiliarity with practices.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Mass deletion request

All of the 20 images by User:Sermspec are copied from https://ptk-sp.ru/proizvodstvo-gibkoy-polimernoy-upakovki. I posted a template asking them to send proof of ownership to VRT, but they (presumably) never responded. Ca (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for removal of rights

Please remove my advanced rights. I no longer have a use for them. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 02:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done - I will however grant autopatroller. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 04:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

These images in Brooklyn Museum

Dear Admins and experienced users,

• File:Brooklyn Museum - City Landscape - Francis Criss.jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - Foot Bath - John R. Frazier - overall.jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - Louisiana Rice Fields - Thomas Hart Benton.jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - Louisiana Rice Fields - Thomas Hart Benton (cropped).jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - Portrait of Abraham Walkowitz - Max Weber - overall.jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - Trinity Church and Wall Street - Bertram Hartman.jpg

The Brooklyn Museum Bot long ago uploaded these six 2D paintings of artists who died between 1960 to 1973 but no one wants to review them. Can WikiCommons keep these images? I think the PD-70 year rule may be a problem. Just asking for your opinions. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: This image File:Brooklyn Museum - Portrait of Abraham Walkowitz - Max Weber - overall.jpg was created in 1907. Maybe PD-1922 applies? --Leoboudv (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• The Francis Criss painting from 1934 might be a problem. The 1929 painting might be OK in less than a week. I don't see a reason to doubt the rest. Abzeronow (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: Secondly, this painting File:Brooklyn Museum - City Landscape - Francis Criss.jpg has a credit line which says "Courtesy of the Fine Arts Program, U.S. General Services Administration." Maybe that is why few people want to review such works with complex copyright. Who owns the copyright here or when did it start? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• I will pass File:Brooklyn Museum - Portrait of Abraham Walkowitz - Max Weber - overall.jpg since it dates before 1922 but the rest of the paintings are a question mark. Maybe an Admin can give advice here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• I added {{PD-Art|PD-US-expired}} for this one. Yann (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• US paintings from 1930 to 1963 may be {{PD-US}} for lack of copyright notice or renewal. Copyright database needs to be checked. Yann (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Yann It seems safer to not review them in this case...despite the Brooklyn Museum assurance that there are no copyright restrictions on them. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Leoboudv: Could you please explain why? Yann (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: Dear Yann The Brooklyn Museum says "This image (ie. painting) was uploaded by the Brooklyn Museum as a content partnership, and is considered to have no known copyright restrictions by the institutions of the Brooklyn Museum." But with no information of a for lack of copyright notice or renewal, do we know if the remaining images are OK for Commons. I have to sign of now for bed...but it is a hard question. Unless MGA73 knows a bit about their current copyright...which is really complex. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, but please do not edit my posts. Yann (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I was Ping'ed. I do not know more about those paintings than allready said. If a museum check copyright and find it to be expired then I think the risk is low. As said above the copyright could be gone for lack of copyright notice or renewal. --MGA73 (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks MGA73 for your advice. I am sure we can trust the Brooklyn Museum here when they say there are no copyright restrictions. I will pass a few more images like the two Brookyln Museum rice fiellds due to this DR too. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Likely copyvio uploads

All the 86 uploads by User:Mkrax are highly suspicious, though I've not been able to find sources with tineye. Cited sources like "Some multiple websites" and "At Facebook, websites , and other" just don't conform to Commons standards, though. Mass delete? Advice, please! - MPF (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I sampled half a dozen; Google Lens all found the original sources with free licenses on none of them. I've deleted all uploads as copyvios. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Wonder why tineye didn't find any?? Is it useless? - MPF (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: Tineye has definitely become less effective in recent years; I'm not sure why. Under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, you can enable the "Google Images & Tineye" gadget, which adds an easy Google Lens link to file pages. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 - thanks! Not a great fan of google though, given their reputation for data theft from people's computers - MPF (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello, can someone please complete the edit request at Dr. Singh's Portrait. I have made some fixes with source and author. Have also added attribution and Caption in en. ShaanSengupta^Talk 07:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Aafi. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yuiyuo

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

Block evasion of Jam47325 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user; adding the same photos of someone without their consent, ostensibly as a form of harassment against another real-life person. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Close discussion

Please close this discussion. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this one. - Jmabel ! talk 20:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

File:AVIDspoiler.jpg

Hello. Can anyone check this image file? It seems suspicious for me. Thanks in advance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 It does not appear that either revision contains stenographically encoded data (i.e. no hidden images). Seems COM:OOS though? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757 unused in any Wikimedia area/site/page. No forseeable use. So yeah, out of scope too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Nominated for deletion as OOS. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

See https://www.avid.wiki/Coventry_Productions Glrx (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Thebigsixth

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

Could admin take a look at the files recently uploaded by Thebigsixth; they're all uploaded under a {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} and claimed as "own work", but that seems unlikely to be the case. This just could be a good faith misunderstanding of COM:L and COM:Own work, and some of the files might actually be old enough to be now PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Mostly deleted, user warned. Yann (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: Could you take a look at File:Richard Adams Hogan.jpg? It's the same uploader, and the file seems to be a reupload of one of the files you deleted per F3. The file name is at least the same, but the file itself might be different. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done blocked by The Squirrel Conspiracy. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 03:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Done It was the same photo uploaded a day after they were warned. File deleted, user blocked for 2 weeks. I saw you tried to point them in the direction of the relevant policies (thank you!), but if they're not willing to read warnings, we can't help. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone you took a look at this. FWIW, this user is working on a draft at English Wikipedia, and most of the files they uploaded here seem to be also uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free content. The "problem" (if you want to call it that) they were having on English Wikipedia is that non-free content isn't allowed to be used in drafts per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; so, the files kept getting removed by a bot. My guess is that they just mistakenly assumed that uploading the files here to Commons would make them OK to use in the draft. Obviously, that's not the case, but I don't think there's anything more to this than that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the Occam's razor compliant explanation. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 06:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Hmd5i

They personally attacked me and harassed me on their talk page by calling me a dumb and stupid person just because I joined a few months ago. This is what they said: "Be careful next time , don’t be a dumb when waiting updates form website , you are here just months and look like crazy". If it is not there, check the talk page histpry and it should be there. They also put misinformation on the syrian coa varations by attempting to edit war with me, but luckily that's fixed. 🗽Freedoxm🗽 (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Freedoxm: I have given them a warning to remain civil in discussions, and removed both the words from the thread. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 09:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for revision deletion

Category:Candidates for revision deletion and its subcats have a backlog of up to a year. Is anyone taking care of this category at all? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• I cleaned up a few. For what it's worth, of the ones I took on, about half were cases of people having done the work without removing the tag, and at least one was because of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_73#Better_quality,_but_without_reference_to_source, which I followed up as a decided matter but honestly can't see the point of revdels for this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• I handled your files, everything in Category:Media with unacceptable data in old versions, and Category:Overwritten files requiring revision deletion. The other two subcats are too large for me to handle right now, but I can chip away at them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luigi Mangione

Hello,

Would any admin like to assess the consensus of and close this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luigi Mangione? The Luigi Mangione article on the English Wikipedia is in the preparation queue for DYK, so it would be nice to have any copyright issues resolved before it appears on the main page. Thanks in advance! Some1 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Photos deleted since there is no evidence that Altoona police waived copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Ntifdiariu123001245

Hello, the user requests that all of his files be deleted.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/az Sofia (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted, and their claim that got their account deleted on Wikipedia is absurd. Also, account renames are global and I don't see that here. Many of the links in the message are external. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 06:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

He wrote this with his new account. He should log in to his old account and request that his files be deleted. Sofia (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of the links there aren't even links to anything. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Cross namespace moves by new users

I just noticed that new users are able to move pages between namespaces. I thought that was not possible. Was that always possible? If yes I think we should create a filter to block such moves. GPSLeo (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

For others: Special:Diff/980262033 and Special:Diff/980261107 are examples. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 16:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

per Special:ListGroupRights, autoconfirmed users have ability to move pages. Perhaps, ideally becauses talk-pages are different than files, and maybe not included in movefile, which is only reserved to file-movers apart from admins. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 16:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal Announcement

I made a proposal for abolish acceptance on the Commons:Freedom of panorama discussion page#Proposal to abolish acceptance. I would like to hear from many people, so I would appreciate a more widespread announcement. Y.haruo (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not see why we should send a mass message or watchlist announcement for this discussion in the current status. This could change if this first discussion develops into an RfC to vote on. You can simply ask for comments on the Village pump. GPSLeo (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge category's history

Please, merge the history of the two following categories:

• Category:Elizabeth Bagley
• Category:Elizabeth Frawley Bagley

Thanks. Minerva97 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done - 4 revisions were mergeable so I merged that much. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 18:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Closure requested on a month old DR

• Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Nicole Luisoni
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicole Luisoni (52524729432).jpg

These have been open for a month and the subject clearly would like to see some resolution. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I've closed both DRs as deleted per consensus. Abzeronow (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Good day. Do consider speedying the files and not wait for the default 7 days for someone else to process. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Add a domain to external uploads whitelist

Please, add domains https://fckarpaty.org.ua/ and https://www.fcpodillya.com.ua/ to MediaWiki:Copyupload-allowed-domains. We received CC permission from these sites, you can see CC licensing in website footers. We plan to mass upload images from these sites using bot, like we did from dynamomania. MBH 12:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I support this request. Well very well (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Done by A.Savin. MBH 15:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Protection setting

Hello, Request any admin to remove the protection setting: ‘Allow only autopatrollers’ from my userpage. --Gpkp (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done, though its hard to imagine why anyone but you should edit your userpage. - Jmabel ! talk 19:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Star Avenue sock accounts

• Star Avenue 2018 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Zestsees (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Star Avenue 2018 and Zestsees are two accounts uploading the same kind of content that blocked LTA User:EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018 was last year, including a lot of repetitive and unusably dark photos of Hong Kong's Central Plaza, as seen across a body of water at night.

All three users credit some of their photos to "ms bing", eg. Zestsees's File:Central_path_0221.jpg, Star Avenue 2018's File:Ex centre AI 02.jpg and EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018's File:Blue EX centre 0004.jpg. Belbury (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Belbury: Already done, lock evasion. You could have reported to COM:RFCU or m:srg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Good to know of global blocks, but this didn't need the "last resort for difficult cases" of a checkuser! Belbury (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@B​sadowski1: FYI.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Datasets about potential logos - December 2024 uploads

Hi all, we have released a new dataset of potential logos uploaded in December 2024, together with another one of those which have already been deleted as of 2025-01-07. We are sharing them with you for your consideration.

This is part of our current work with the logo detection tool. We hope it will be useful for your moderation activities.

If you encounter issues with the datasets or have comments/requests, please reach out to me or to Sannita (WMF).

Thanks for your attention! –-MFossati (WMF) (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Sannita (WMF) and MFossati (WMF): it would be spectacularly helpful if you could put all of the files that this tool identifies into a hidden category, so that admins can look at them in gallery view instead of having to open them one by one from the links in the CSV. Or maybe we could have a bot do that if it can parse the CSV? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  @The Squirrel Conspiracy I just made some tables: take a look at the subpages of User:Mdaniels5757/Logo data 2024-12. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  • @Mdaniels5757: Thanks. Column headers would be nice, especially for columns with just Boolean values. - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Jmabel Try refreshing, I just fixed those after I posted :) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    • @Mdaniels5757: refreshing not fixing for me at User:Mdaniels5757/Logo data 2024-12/03 and they appear not to be in the page source (sortable, but no headers given). - Jmabel ! talk 04:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

      @Jmabel Ah, I see the problem now. Fixed. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

      • Now we're good. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! I've already zapped a bunch of spam and a few copyvios using those tables. Just what I needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• How is that "confidence score" used? What (if anything) happens for files in what range of confidence score?- Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's not used, it's there for your information. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Sannita (WMF) and MFossati (WMF): Can you add a rule to ignore any file that begins with "BSicon"? For example, File:BSicon SFSKRZqu+l.svg. Files with this naming convention will never be logos (they're segments of transportation diagrams), and there are a lot of them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

   Done, see . BSIcons will be ignored starting from the next dataset. MFossati (WMF) (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrator who understands Turkish

Is there an administrator out there who understands Turkish? Perhaps that person could take a look at File talk:North Marmara Anatolian Motorway.png. All of the files uploaded by Kaya3477 are roadway maps that either are crops of other maps found online or the same as the map found online. All the uploads are claimed as "own work", most likely because of a misunderstanding of COM:Own work, but some do appear to have been modified slightly by adding a text description to the map. Anyway, I couldn't find any indication that the originals (see here) were released under the same license as the uploader and what the uploader posted on the aforementioned talk page seems to indicate there is some kind of restriction in place on commercial re-use. I, however, don't understand Turkish and Google Translate might be missing something important. I tagged the files as copyvios, but I'll remove the tags if that was incorrect and more discussion is needed or the files are OK as licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Per Commons:List of administrators by language, User:Kadı is the admin you want. --Rosenzweig τ 00:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Rosenzweig. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, The user says that "Web sitemizde yayınlanan çalışmalar, kaynak gösterilmek suretiyle kullanılabilir. Ancak bu bilgiler, ticari amaçlarla kullanılamaz.", the government's sources can be used with attribution but can not be used for commercial purposes. Because of this, the file is not suitable for Commons as they restricted the commercial use rights. Therefore, I deleted the image. Best wishes! CC: @Rosenzweig Kadı Message 09:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Kadı. Would you mind explaining this to the uploader so that they don't try to reupload the same files or other similar map images? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly,  Done Kadı Message 11:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

user:Ahonc and Category:Neo-Nazism in Ukraine

On April and August 2022, Ahonc without any discussion twice deleted all contents of this category, removed several dozens of files including files like first right photo, and, after second deletion, protected category from re-creation by non admins. I think this is wrong decision based on his political views. Neo-Nazism exists in any European country (and not only European), we have many parallel categories by country like Category:Neo-Nazism in Russia for Germany, Kazakhstan, Poland, Lithuania, Netherlands and Chech Republic, and category for Ukraine should exist too, for photos like second right photo. I propose to restore this category and explain to the administrator that his actions are unacceptable. MBH 15:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

See also "Death to Kikes!" graffity. MBH 15:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@MBH: He invoked COM:CSD#G3. I don't understand how maintenance of such a category can be vandalism.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone has pinged Ahonc to let them know about this discussion, so I have done so. I'm leaning towards undoing the page protection and the deletion per the existance of parallel categories but since Ahonc hasn't been pinged yet, I'm happy to wait a day or two for their response before doing so. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have pinged Ahonc in thread title... MBH 17:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Very inappropriate actions by Ahonc, to say the least. Looks almost like a "man on a mission with sysop flag"? In any event, of course this category should exist, as long as the files are supposed to be OK for Commons. --A.Savin 08:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Calling Azov batallion as neo-nazism is Russian propaganda. This is not nazist formation. And nazist symbolic is forbidden in Ukraine. That category was used for propagandic purposes. I just removed protection from category. And about existance of category: we already have caterory Category:Fascism in Ukraine with swastika-like images there, why do you think that we should have other similar category?--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You performed the deletions in 2022 with G3 reason that is the action complained here (not the recent unprotection of the page). While you could debate on the Azov symbol, a Swastika and a black sun are indisputable Nazi symbols the belong in such a category. GPSLeo (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

About G3: Azov Regiment is one of brigades of Ukrainian Army. And Russian propaganda calls them nazist to avoid military help for them from international donors. These category contained at that time many images with Ukrainian military formations and people which is unrelative to nazism (for example this and this). And I consider it as harassment and attacking for Ukrainian military people. That's why I use G3 criterion there. And about Swastika: there is Category:Nazi Swastikas in Ukraine for such symbols, is not it?--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

First, I think it is necessary to make the distinction between the scope of the categories—Fascism, Nazism and Neo-Nazism. Second, the argument, And about existance of category: we already have caterory Category:Fascism in Ukraine with swastika-like images there, why do you think that we should have other similar category?, doesn't make any sense. It directly contrasts the hierarchic and universality principles of categories. We have instances of both the categories for a particular country such as Category:Fascism in Country and Category:Neo-Nazism in Country, see Category:Fascism by country and Category:Neo-Nazism by country. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

How do you know that Swastika is nazist, but not fascist symbol here?--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It is the other way around: All Nazis are fascists but there are many different forms of fascism they do not refer to the NSDAP. The Swastika is always a reference to the NSDAP (if not used religious symbol from India). GPSLeo (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not learn this topic deeply. Nevertheless, now category is empty. So, nothing to discuss. When there will be adequate content for it, it may be created.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Emptying a category by yourself and then using the emptiness of the category as an argument during an ongoing discussion is not the behavior I expect from an admin. GPSLeo (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I've explained above: there was not appropriate content there, that's why I removed it from category. Where is nazism here or here?--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S. There was request from Ykvach about this category: it was created for distribution of fakes about Ukrainian military units.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Well, if you are expert in this topic, please, tell me, what difference between fascism, nazism and nationalism? That organization are nationalistic, but not nazistic or fascistic. Nazism and fascism are forbidden in Ukraine, and they may not be nazistic.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Nazism and fascism are legally forbidden in Russia too, but Category:Neo-Nazism in Russia and Category:Fascism in Russia exists. It's incorrect argument: "forbidden by law" doesn't mean non-existence. MBH 17:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

For the longer version please read the Wikipedia articles. But in short:

• Nationalism: Putting one country in favor of other countries.
• Fascism: Violent ideology based unequal treatment of human based on origin (racism) or views on the society.
• Nazism/National-Socialism: Form of fascism developed by Hitler and the German NSDAP putting a "race of Aryan" people in favor of all other people.

GPSLeo (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So, most of files which I removed from category were related to nationalistic organisations, not nazistic. But they were in category about nazism, which was used with Russian-propaganda purposes (to show Ukrainian army as Nazi). That's why I remove files from that category. Ironically, that this topic was opened by users from Russia. In general, I do not oppose of existing such category, but it should have adequate content (which is really nazistic, but not nationalistic).--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

According to en:Andriy Biletsky#Political views it is definitely not vandalism to categorize photos of him into that category. It might be not totally accurate but is definitely debatable and therefore something to discuss and not to just remove with admin rights. GPSLeo (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, if so, we should categorize whole his category, but not each image.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course putting only one photo of a person who has a own category is nonsense. GPSLeo (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree firmly with those who say that this is not the sort of thing anyone, administrator or otherwise, should have done unilaterally, and that for at least some of these images, this was simply wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That said, I wish to differ somewhat with User:GPSLeo about the definition of nationalism, and less so about that of fascism, while agreeing with him about Nazism.

• "Nationalism" is not necessarily about an existing country. For example, Kurdish, Basque, or Catalan nationalists, or Zionists before 1948, or Palestinian nationalists now, or Black nationalists in the U.S., were/are advocating for the recognition of a group, usually ethnically defined, as being a nation. Usually, but not always, this correlates to either chauvinistic advocacy for an existing country (the case covered by GPSLeo) or the desire to create a new one. But the term is broader than that: For example:
  • White Nationalists in the U.S. generally are more focused on excluding some current U.S. citizens from the definition of who is an American than from any particular attitude about U.S. international relations.
  • There are plenty of self-described Catalan or Basque nationalists who wish some degree of autonomy within Spain, rather than the creation of a new country.
  • Very few Black nationalists in the U.S. wish any sort of geographic separation from other Americans; in fact, few of them are separatist at all. Their goals are usually more cultural/economic than narrowly political.
  • Hungarian nationalists in Romania may be almost anywhere on the spectrum from simply being concerned to defend the use of Hungarian language and culture in Romania to wishing Hungarian annexation of large hunks of present-day Romania by Hungary, comparable to what happened during World War II.
  • Etc.

As for fascism, I wouldn't say that racism was a particularly defining component. Unless we are speaking narrowly of the Italian Fascists led by Mussolini, fascism is a bit of a cluster: militarism, strongman rule rather than democracy, strong government regulation of commerce largely (but not necessarily entirely) in the interest of the capitalist class, sexism and imposition of "traditional morality" in the sexual realm and, yes, racism. Most scholars I've read don't require that all of these factors be present to call a party or regime "fascist", just the bulk of them (and some would weigh in half a dozen other criteria). - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support restoration of category. Ahonc's unilateral actions went against policy. Abzeronow (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the longer explanation my summary might have been a bit to short. GPSLeo (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• For the sake of it, I ran this query and got a list of edits made by Ahonc in 2022 with edit summaries containing Category:Neo-Nazism in Ukraine.

This might be useful in closing the discussion. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked at some of these photos and most of them all related to nationalism in Ukraine, but not to neo-Nazism. Mitte27 (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bartosz Kapustka

Please restore Category:Bartosz Kapustka, it contains files again. Mitte27 (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Hmd5i (second report)

despite my contributions to stop misinformation on a file, this user, User:Hmd5i, has once again harassed/personally attacked me by calling me a vandal on User talk:Aafi.

here's what they said: "Funny, the user Freedoxm is still doing vandalism, but instead of being punished, he is being honored and allowed to vandalize more, any way the coats of arms of Syria have changed , but wiki still living in November 2023 :)". if you do not see the message feel free to look at that page's history. if youve also noticed you may check my contributions, all i have done here at wikimedia commons is contribute, not vandalism.

this isn't the first time they have attacked me, as they've called me stupid and dumb before. i would greatly appreciate it if this nonsense is removed and the user is blocked temporarily for falsely accusing me and personally attacking me. thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Ping to @Aafi. Kadı Message 18:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Apparently nothing that needs an admin intervention at the moment. You should try to have a mutual conversation with them. I have already sent them an advice for remaining cool-headed. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Suppression

Please suppress old summaries and revisions of wikitext in . Taylor 49 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I've hidden all mentions of the previous file name in the history there. Abzeronow (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Please undelete

• Category:NANP area code 753

for it is not empty any longer, and the deleting admin has meanwhile been unflagged. Thanks! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: just create it from scratch. I don't think it's interesting to restore a history of it having been categorized incorrectly as an area code in Missouri. - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I will. I only asked because I thought it was policy to rather undelete instead of recreate, in these cases. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Depends whether it was deleted just for being empty, or it's plain wrong. In this case, it's plain wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 06:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Dirk Schaefer 2024.jpg

Kann bitte jemand File:Dirk Schaefer 2024.jpg in die Category:Dirk Schäfer (boxer) einfügen? Ich darf das nicht, weil die Datei "mittels Kaskadensperroption geschützt ist". Danke --Seemannssonntag (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

user:Florizss

Vandal. Aranzavy (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. The user has not edited on current year, but nothing good has come from this account, so I decided to block Florizss as vandalism-only account. Taivo (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

deletion of upload comments

Is there a way to delete the comments listed in the first upload of a file. As an example, the comment in this file File:Peineta and two combs in a shop, Valencia.jpg reads 'Uploaded while editing "Peineta" on nl.wikipedia.org'. Can this be removed. I tried revision deletion in another file, but it did not have the desired effect. My question relates to a privacy issue. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I've hidden the edit summary in that file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ellywa: I've also done a very slight crop as an overwrite to help me get rid of that comment. Feel free to revert the very slight crop. Abzeronow (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem, so that is the trick. I can help somebody else now, thanks so much for your quick answer. Ellywa (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow. For your information: I discovered the comment is still visible in the public log, in this case no problem at all, but it might be a problem for privacy issues. I noted it can be deleted from the public log as well, thanks again for your help. Ellywa (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

phab:T288327 since 2021. --Krd 11:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Sigh... while WMF is doing so much to incorporate temporary user names, this remains unsolved. Ellywa (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I see temporary user names as a necessary thing, IP addresses are not best for privacy and WMF doesn't want to require editors to register (although that would be better for us). Not requiring an overwrite to remove unwanted data would definitely be a quality of life improvement though. Abzeronow (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this is planned to be fixed with the rest of the migrations in phab:T28741, but I'm not sure. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Block review: Adam Cuerden

The administrator GPSLeo recently blocked Adam Cuerden indefinitely without leaving any warnings whatsoever about their behavior. I strongly disagree with this block, however they feel otherwise. 1989 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I reduced the block duration to tree days. But please keep the discussion at one place and discuss this around here . GPSLeo (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

CJS is unrelated to the action you made, that’s why I made a separate discussion here. 1989 (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

We can also make a separate thread here but the link the background is needed anyways. GPSLeo (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: I guess we ran into an edit-conflict. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, good that is was my block change first and then yours the other way around would look very bad for me for someone not knowing that it was not intended. GPSLeo (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Given my comment at the discussion, my analysis is that a 24 hour block is enough at this time. But I'd suggest that other comments be made at the discussion pointed out by @GPSLeo. If they do not disagree with me reducing the block to 1 day, I guess I am good to close it from here as  Done. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with Adam about Charles, but I don't see the need for blocking Adam either. Please call down, and try to find a peaceful outcome. Yann (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Immediate desysoping for GPSLeo and Bedivere (unblock of Adam is obvious). Bedivere certainly would be no loss to the project and I can only echo Adam's description of them as "a terrible, capricious admin". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Again,  Done: I have removed the shorter block as well. Let's have the rest fo the discussion where it is supposed to have. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 20:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Andy Dingley: if you want to request desysop please start a new discussion —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• And have the other one immediately indef me in retaliation? No thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have made mistakes, for sure. I have sincerely apologised for such mistakes. I don't find fair, however, that you say "certainly would be no loss to the project". Makes me feel my contributions are worthless. Sure, we may disagree on some things but I'd never dare to call you or your work to be worthless. Bedivere (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Bedivere neglected to mention their improper early closure of a deletion request without even reading the comments there. I didn't even realize until I noticed them comment here that their behavior was already under discussion. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you harassing me now @Berchanhimez by chasing my edits and comments? Stop it right there. Bedivere (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I watch this page and noticed you comment here. I normally don't look at this page unless I've made a post here, but since it was still on my watchlist, I was curious about your comment that you have "made mistakes". Color me not surprised that someone else has identified a mistake you made. Also, saying you have sincerely apologised for such mistakes is false - you have still not apologized for your inappropriate closure of that discussion. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course I wasn't referring to that DR closure as I don't think it was a mistake. Bedivere (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

When I'm criticising an admin for rushing too quickly to apply an indefinite block, and get hit with someone rushing too quickly to apply an indefinite block, that feels like it's saying something about admin culture around blocking.

Saying that the actions of an admin, in blocking another user what I think were too hastily, were the actions of a terrible and capricious admin. There were language issues, I think - I meant that the actions were the kind of actions a capricious admin would make, but I can see how it could be read as more than that. Even still, skipping warnings, skipping any block that ends on its own, and jumping right to an indefinite ban, is... we all agree that's not good practice, right?

I'm a little hesitant to speak up, because I don't want anyone punished over this, and so I'm just going to call the people involved B and G. B jumped to an indefinite block while a noticeboard discussion was less than a day old, and I think it was a bad block. I also think that if we insist admins are always perfect, we're not going to have any admins. G blocked me indefinitely for a single sentence about B's block that, admittedly, wasn't perfectly phrased, but which was meant to criticise what I do think was a bad admin action. I don't know B, and, as I'm pretty sure I said in the discussion, I don't think a single block shows that much about B's adminship.

G is,I believe, a German-speaker, and machine translated my sentence, which probably didn't help matters, but I'm not upset at G. I'm kind of furious with a more nebulous "blocking culture" on Commons. If a single sentence seen as insulting can be used to give an indefinite block, apparently with the intent of forcing an apology before unblock, that's... really not great. Especially when you have to machine translate the sentence in question. (Luckily, I was away at a family event and this had somewhat blown over when I was back.)

But I don't think either B or G are bad people. I think that blocking policy is simply not being well-applied, nor understood.

Further, remember that blocks do have consequences: They can very easily drive users off the project. You're far more likely to get actual trolls back after a one year block than well-meaning but thoroughly disenheartened contributors. People move on. People find new outlets. I would presue that the only people likely to come back after a year block are exactly the people who shouldn't be allowed back in the first place.

Even a block that's corrected is going to have consequences. The logs still exist. That someone was blocked before can be used as evidence that they should be blocked again. And, of course, it absolutely kills any enthusiasm for contributing.

Now, Commons:Blocking policy is fairly good, on the whole. I'd probably say that that kind of block is explicitly forbidden: "blocks are preventative rather than punitive", "Controversial blocks may be discussed at the blocks and protections noticeboard, preferably before they are applied if at all possible. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block", " use a block duration that is proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour."

So, is there any good way forwards? Because I do think the situation is pretty bad, but we don't need showtrials. We need to figure out why what are, as far as I can tell, well-meaning, sensible people would make actions so far out of policy. I don't want revenge, but I do want change. Because Commons is meant to be better than this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, As I said, I think you should not have been blocked, let alone indefinitely. Now I don't understand why GPSLeo blocked you. Language misunderstanding? Something else? I have no idea. Everybody can makes mistakes, and I did once too. I don't see anything in the policy that should be changed. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I first did not want to continue to participate at this discussion as I do not want to justify for the mistake I made. But as we are now starting a policy discussion I want to share my view on the situation and the general topic. The reason for the block was a combination of language/cultural misunderstanding of the wording as very harassing and an overreaction after reading the escalating discussion. (Which obviously escalated even more after the block.) I trust you that the comment was not meant that attacking as I understood the comment. The blocking policy does not say much about block duration and blocks to enforce an apology with the possibility for a very fast unblock. Therefore if an inappropriate comment that would justify a block but that is not against the code of conduct the policy does not say if the user should be blocked for some days or should first be blocked infinitely and give the user the possibility to appeal immediately.

I could even think about a 4-eye-principle for blocks of long term contributors (defined by autopatrol rights) or a rule that long term contributors always have the possibility the make a statement before being blocked as long as they do not abuse this. GPSLeo (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I do apologise for bringing you into this, I don't think you're the problem. It doesn't sit well with me to block with no warning, then coerce an apology as a requirement for unblock. Like, I am sorry if I upset B, but if I was blocked and saying that as a condition to get unblocked, even if it was sincere, how would you know? Better to warn or ask someone to redact their statement first. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

File:TrumpPortrait.jpg

I cannot edit File:TrumpPortrait.jpg as it is locked. The source should be the following: https://x.com/dto_rok/status/1879743327781945429. PascalHD (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Added to source field. Abzeronow (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:King George Henry

King George Henry (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is a blocked user. He created this personal useless category thta should be deleted

 Done: deleting junk; strong final warning given. Any continuation should result in a block. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove the autopatrolled of User:BlackShadowG

The user is deceased. Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 09:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done RIP. Yann (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Update Needed: {{User admin}} Template on User Profile

Noticed that User:Srittau still has the {{User admin}} template on their user profile page, which might give the impression that they are still active.--SimmeD (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, could an admin unprotect the page again? I don't think the protection is still necessary. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done to both. Abzeronow (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible edit filter use case

Hello,

a fellow Wikimedia noticed that the graphics resource page Redbubble apparently produces a CMS naming pattern that is quite peculiar and visible on several files on Commons, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#File:Flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg. I'd like to suggest an edit filter to tackle the likely COM:NETCOPYVIOs that these files make us incur. Its conditions could be in kind of pseudocode "IF NOT member of license reviewers AND action=upload of filename= *f8f8f8. THEN... // tracking or outright forbidding the upload". Tracking may be wiser, so as to spot the copyvios without encouraging the uploaders in making up avoidance filenames. Or, if the restriction to license reviewers is too strict, a check for the right of uploadfromurl could also work (if the filters allow that). I'd rather not have only autoconfirmed as threshold, as some amount of experience in dealing with internet sourced images would be needed to gauge whether the Redbubble graphics may be OK for us to host. Grand-Duc (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc, Autopatrolled should do the trick. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 03:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sock false tagging

a sock account is tagging files I have uploaded with missing copyright tag though they have proper licenses Baratiiman (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, It is not a sock account but Modern Sciences. However I don't think the deletion requests are justified, so I removed them. Yann (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Resident Commissioner of Basutoland.svg

What happened to file File:Flag of the Resident Commissioner of Basutoland.svg? Not loading, seems to be an error. Can you fix it? Otherwise, maybe just delete the file. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 14:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Clicking directly on the file I see "error on line 92 at column 38: Namespace prefix inkscape for connector-curvature on path is not defined", although that doesn't explain why this wasn't an issue before. I wondered if it was related to Phab:T384128, but that showed a different error. CMD (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv and @Chipmunkdavis: Perhaps another task is in order.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if you click too many times you will see a meta screen saying "Error, too many requests". זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There are some errors in svg. Maybe @AntiCompositeNumber or someone well-versed in SVG editing can help. It is unrelated to admin' workload imho. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 17:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, the file had some undefined XML attributes that are now treated as invalid. It looks like it got created in Inkscape, then edited in Adobe, and didn't get cleaned up correctly. I removed them and both the browsers and rsvg-convert are happy. In the future, COM:VPT is usually a better place to ask, but feel free to ping me about thumbnailing issues. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much and also for the tip about the village pump. If I come across something like that again, I will contact them. Best regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

URGENT! Major damage to this project

As far as I can see, major damage has successively been done to Wikimedia Commons over the last few years by chopping up categories about people into individual "by year" categories making it

1. virtually impossible to find the best image to use for a certain purpose, and
2. virtually impossible to avoid uploading duplicates since searching/macthing imges has become virtually impossible.

Here is a perfect exsmple. I have a really good, rare picture of her, but I'll be damned if I'm willing to wade through all the "by-year" categories to try to see if Commons already has it. The user who uploaded this didn't even bother to place it in a personal category. Why should they, with all the work required to try to find the category at all & fit the image in there?

What if anything can be done about this mess which is steadliy getting worse all the time? Could some kind of bot fix it?

I really feel that this is urgent now and cannot be ignored any longer. The project had become worth much much much less through the problem described. Or have I missed/misunderstood something here? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Person by Year can be useful if there are a lot of images of a person so breaking it down by year can be useful. Now categorized into Sophie of Sweden category. Abzeronow (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not an urgent thread to the project that would require immediate admin action. This is a regular discussion on guidelines and best practices and has already been discussed in the past without a clear outcome. If you want to make a new proposal on this use the Commons:Village pump/Proposals board. GPSLeo (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

OK I've moved this there. Amazed that someone would defend the existence of the by-year categories. I have not questioned their existence. Searching is the problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I've started a CfD Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/01/Category:Sophie of Sweden by year and I agree with GPSLeo that this is NOT an urgent matter that requires immediate admin action. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Have you tried mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Deepcategory?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Uploads made by User:Estradadarwin16

Hi. I would like to seek assistance in deleting all of the images uploaded by User:Estradadarwin16 since these are mostly copyrighted logos. The said user was already blocked last December 13 and most of his uploaded images are yet to be deleted. -WayKurat (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the obvious copyvios. The remainders are plausibly {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-shape}} and will need a closer look. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I nominated one more logo for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

999real

• 999real (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Unapproved bot. — Tarkoff / 13:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I just used VisualFileChange...  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess they mean you'd need some consensus before performing those changes Bedivere (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@999real: What did you change, and why?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I changed the template on many files with YouTube source and {{cc-by-3.0}} to {{YouTube|author}}  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@999real: You were editing files at a speed of 200 changes per minute, which is why I wrote this request. That's a very high speed. The template replacement task is not urgent, so it can be done at a low speed. — Tarkoff / 18:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tarkoff: AFAICT, VFC has no adjustment for speed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't touch any setting in VisualFileChange. I do see it has option "Maximum number of requests to send to the API simultaneously" defaulted to 5, I will try setting it to 1 in the future.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done No action needed. @999real: you're fine. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   00:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

User:GabagoolMuncher

User here has gamed the system for almost all of their edits by repeatedly reverting images over and over without explanation. 🗽Freedoxm🗽 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, it's the useless flag revert LTA. Blocked. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Henri Matisse not public domain in 2025

Looks to me like consensus here is pretty clear, but I'm probably too much of a participant to close it. I'll add the ton of "Undelete in" categories, etc., but could someone else please have a look and make a formal close? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 18:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

questionable uploads by User:Wave of Pandas

This user has been uploading images starting in January 2024. The images are all night scenes in Hong Kong. None of them are useful, and some e.g. File:Panda wave.jpg, File:Lot of pandas.jpg seem to me silly. There are already a huge number of images of Hong Kong, most provided by very good photographers. Is this behavior an Administrator could examine? Thank you. Krok6kola (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by User:EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018? Omphalographer (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The photos lack a description and categories but the quality is absolutely fine. I only see a problem with the panda photos as I a think they are not permanent and therefore not covered by FOP. GPSLeo (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The photographs are the same low quality and subject matter (Hong Kong). I think you are right. Krok6kola (talk)

Category:People

Can someone fix this category, please? Thanks in advance. Wieralee (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Looks like Bidgee is on it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• I've given a strong warning to Mohammedfrdj. - Jmabel ! talk 00:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

What to do, who, why

Whenever I add {{Color deficiency ok}} like here on this file File:Map_of_Hadhrami_emigrations.svg (look below the Summary box) that read template appears or like this

 

It has been suggested that this project page should be merged with Template:Colour blind accessible. Reason: Mostly equal, cases of only partial acessibility i.e. red-green vs. full achromatopsia can be handled with a simple parameter inside the other template

This media should work for many people with some kind of color (blindness) deficiency. Due to the complexity of color deficiency, however, it may unfortunately not work for every one. Deutsch ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ македонски ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

So someone thinks some templates should be merged. I have left messages for different users, pages associated with those templates that say so to get some information on what to do, who, why etc. So far I haven't got any response at all and as I don't have the knowledge to make this happens or decide if it should happens I'm asking here for help regarding this issue, thanks. --please ping me-- [[User:{{Color deficiency ok}}|Goran tek-en]] (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: Fixed. Pinging @Croomfolk who introduced the error. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thanks, but what do you mean by fixed. Are they merged, what is changed? --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The merge request will no longer show when the template is used:

This media should work for many people with some kind of color (blindness) deficiency. Due to the complexity of color deficiency, however, it may unfortunately not work for every one. Deutsch ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ македонски ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Goran tek-en: i did reply to you on the 21st, on my talk page. Reposting here for visibility.

"Hello Goran tek-en, both templates are notice boxes for images ok with colour deficiency so they appear to be redundant. If no one opposes it, the one you make could be replaced since the other one has more parameters like fields for the type of colorblindness etc. But parts that are better can be taken from your version and moved there, like the image and perhaps some autolocalizations. What do you think of this merge?"

You didn't mention an error and I hadn't spotted it, but it seems someone just fixed it. Sorry for including the merge proposal on the wrong place! --Croomfolk (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Croomfolk I never got any notification for your replay so I haven't seen it, sorry.

I'm sure we can merge those two but at this stage I don't really know what the other looks like. Can we move that discussion to somewhere else.

To me it seems you have more experience and knowledge within this field so if you start a new discussion somewhere you think is appropriate we can take it from there. Please always ping me, otherwise I might miss it, thanks. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned file talk pages

There are 45 orphaned talk pages. Phương Linh (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Phương Linh: Hi, Please tag them with a speedy deletion tag. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

There are some false positives there. For example Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests/Archive 6 presumably shows up because there is no BSicon/New icons and icon requests/Archive 6, but it is related to Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests, which in turn is related to Talk:BSicon, and via that to BSicon. While it is quite possible that all of these belong in Commons space, not main space, none of them should be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 18:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I only tag the “File talk:” pages for deletion. Phương Linh (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hide on Rosé: Ah, that makes sense. - Jmabel ! talk 00:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So archive in "File talk" space will be left alone? - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel On Krinkle’s Orphan Tool, I check these option: “Hide subpages” and “Hide redirects”. So that the archives, which mostly in subpages, are not deleted. Phương Linh (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo of the ABNCC.png

Would an uninvolved admin please have a look at this? I am not at all sure the closure here was correct in terms either of process or result. - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the closure by the uploader and asked a question. --Leyo 21:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the Crown Copyright status as explained by the uploader, but I don't know why they thought they could close the DR. 🤷 I wouldn't even close one I had personally uploaded (unless I agreed with it and deleted my image, of course). Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Tagging @CROIX in this discussion since this involves their image and they closed the DR out of process. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This was a mistake on my part. The discussion had been inactive for a while and I had assumed that closing it would be within the rules. I take responsibility for that. CROIX (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Files by CodsodorsWriter

All of the files have been uploaded by a sock of SleepyHollowGuy1999, and should probably be deleted per CSD G3. Leonidlednev (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done indef-blocked, user page deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The vending machine photos could also be nuked, as they are not used anywhere. Leonidlednev (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I decided to delete all uploads. Taivo (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Omar.idma

Someone may want to look at what's going on here. I did a short-term block to stop what appeared to be an out-of-control bot, but there may be larger problems, and I don't expect to be back on Commons for at least 12 hours, maybe more. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Definitely running a script. Why the script is being run, I have no clue. I think you should increase block to 24 hrs unless we can make contact and leave a note on talk page. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 04:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I deleted all 5,000+ of their recent uploads and expanded on the warnings already on their talk page. Let's see what happens. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think any sanctions are in order at this time. I think we are just dealing with a confused, relatively new, but well-intentioned user, which is why I didn't bring this to COM:AN/U. They have engaged on their user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Good, then we can close this and move on. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Rampant image scrapes from flickr being added - is this normal?

Greetings all, I will begin by saying that I am not intimately familiar with the intricacies of the Wikimedia Commons project aside from what is stated in the Welcome page and project scope page. That is the only perspective I have coming in to what I perceive as being a possible issue. If indeed I am incorrect in my suspicion and subsequent raising it here - then please by all means let me know, purge this request for admin review, and accept my apology for raising the alarm.
In reviewing contributions from other editors, I have noticed that User:Tm has amassed over 4 million edits to the WMC. From what I can see - the bulk of these are simply uploads of entire image library sets from flickr, using the flickr2commons tool. While user interactions demonstrate that it is not a bot account, it is evident that the tool is being employed with some automation, as there are between 10 to 20 image uploads per minute to WMC, and the activity is continuous.
There doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to why these particular images or entire libraries are being grabbed, and Tm is not employing their usage elsewhere within Wikispace. Many of the libraries are multiple views of the same person, place or event. Further - a quick look through random archives of his talk page reveals thousands upon thousands of deletion request notifications for many of the images he has uploaded.
This kind of activity just seems odd to me... it does not seem to be in alignment with the project scope page statements. I didn't see anything in them that part of the project was to mirror openly licensed content at flickr in a redundant repository. It also does not appear to be the best utilization of WMC resources - including storage and the need to check the image for license compliance and the addition of image details. Seems like a lot of wasted time, space and effort - especially if the bulk of them are being deleted anyhow.
So - am I barking up the wrong tree here? Happy to accept if I am, and would love to better understand what I am missing if so. This just kinda stuck out to me and seemed to be a bit of a red flag, so - that is why I am raising here. Thank you for your time and insight. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm: You must inform users when you report them here. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, apologies. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Bulk mass imports of files are a good thing and it needs more of these as long as people make sure the files have proper titles and categories. I think many of the most useful files are missing and additionally with increasing numbers of files, enabling users to easily see high-quality files would be good...e.g. enabling/showing files used multiple times in Wikimedia projects at the top. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. So is the only criteria & driver for bulk/mass imports is that they are appropriately licensed? There is no other driver associated with conducting image acquisition for this project, such as they are being used or otherwise attributed towards other Wiki projects? It really is just a "grab everything" type initiative? If so - ok, I will rescind this AN right away. But it might be good to update the project's scope page to reflect something to that affect. It certainly doesn't read like that now. Understand - I am not at all being argumentative... I am just trying to make sure I full understand and appreciate the scope of this project. Thanks. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It should be potentially useful and things that aren't can be deleted. It's a 'grab everything useful initiative' more or less, I mean there are over 111 million files, how could it not be so? However, it's actually rather a 'integrate everything useful into an aggregation system initiative' (the part about the search, file-titles, categories, standardized formats, etc are key). Prototyperspective (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the further explanation. To be honest - just from the admittedly small sampling I have done - the "useful" part of the criteria is not being observed. This is the foundation for my concern and raising it here. Entire collections/libraries/folders - however you wish to identify it on flikr - are being harvested and uploaded at a time, seemingly indiscriminately. Again - there is some obvious automation or scripting behind it, as the uploads normally clock at 10-20 files per minute and do not contain any details when added. The details look to then be harvested and attached afterwards by further automation or script. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Entire collections/libraries/folders […] are being harvested and uploaded at a time Yes, that seems like the way to go. Good that somebody takes care of that instead of overburdening users who would do it more manually and waste their precious volunteer time on that. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ok - but is 75 photos of the same object, person or event from slightly different angles = "everything useful"? TBH unless the mission was to be a mirror of everything vs. be a collection of everything useful - then I would see how this kind of approach qualifies. One way or another - manual review will need to be done of the upload(s)... either before it is snagged and uploaded, or afterwards - as is evident by the number of redlink deletion request notifs he has received. How is that not overburdening the users and their precious volunteer time? As @Omphalographer mentioned below - that is just a ton of busywork on the back-end. It is far more inefficient to have to run a file through the deletion process and get consensus from multiple users after the fact than it would have been to just determine the usefulness on the front end before uploading. A lot more of precious volunteer time is being used in the current method than it would if the files were manually screened by the uploader, before being uploaded. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The inefficiency comes at most from users like Omphalographer nominating so much for deletion. Yes, your example doesn't sound useful so again you could link the album you're referring to but nobody is bugged by these photos if they are in the category about that object/person where they may be the only images. Just let things flourish and mind your own business or actual problems. If you think this is an actual problem, please describe why it would be. No, a lot more volunteer time would be used up if each file was manually uploaded individually instead of whole collections being imported. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow... that's a bit of an unnecessary jab at @Omphalographer, who in my opinion is actually doing that work in good faith, and in lieu of it not being done on the front end. Pruning is never a bad thing - in any realm.

Anyhow - my previous reply was being written at the same time you wrote yours - so I apologize for it being somewhat out of linearity. The point I am raising here is not if someone is bugged/bothered by the images or not - but more pointedly if seemingly indiscriminate, mass-harvesting is the correct MO & in alignment with the project scope. I think I have been pretty clear on that from the beginning.

I will need to take a deeper look at his uploads/albums which are still active - but in lieu of that, there are many clear examples of entire albums, or large chunks of them which have been removed just by looking at the redlinks in his deletion notifications on his talk page archives.

"MYOB" is not the correct response, here. It is contrary to the point of having a discussion in the frist place, and the communal nature of all of Wiki. To be honest - it is also rather inappropriate. I don't really want to go here, but I have to say that when compounded with your jab at Omphalographer - it seems you are getting pretty close to COM:CIVIL. Please - let's not continue to go there, ok?

In a nutshell - I would say that efficient, appropriate usage of WMC and its hosting and user resources that is in alignment with the project's scope is everyone's business - and in their best interest, and in that of the project itself. That's all I am asking about, here. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, what do you refer to with "seemingly indiscriminate, mass-harvesting". Without examples we're discussing nothing. I think this kind of sensitivity hampers discussion of the subject. I'll repeat If you think this is an actual problem, please describe why it would be and so again you could link the album you're referring. Until there is substantial reply to these two questions, the discussion remains intangible and unclear. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Without any comment on Tm's imports in particular, indiscriminate Flickr imports to Commons are generally discouraged. Many files on Flickr are inappropriate for Commons, often because they're not useful (e.g. pictures of common objects, vacation selfies, artsy filtered photos, etc) or they're not fully free (e.g. DW / FoP concerns). Pulling files into Commons just because they're available creates unnecessary busywork for Commons users who end up having to sort through it, attempt to categorize it, and tag it for deletion if it's not useful or inappropriate. Omphalographer (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe this notion to be the case which is happening here, and why I raised it. The uploads are targeting entire collections/albums/folders on flickr, and are being uploaded en-masse by some sort of automation at a rate of 10-20 files per minute. It does not appear that any criteria regarding usefulness or application elsewhere within Wiki is being applied in this image harvesting. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the criteria is applied at the collections/albums/folders level. If you have an example of a collection that is unlikely to be useful at all, please link it. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm: "the bulk of them are being deleted" would mean a majority, probably a supermajority. That seems very unlikely to me. Do you have any evidence of that, or would you like to amend what you said? - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Without doing an actual count - I will defer to "a good chunk". Just randomly sampling his talk page archives reflects thousands of deletion request notifications where the nominated file is now redlinked, indicating it has in fact been deleted. I am not sure how to go about generating a report of that difference specifically to him - so I can only rely on eyeballing it at this point. In either case - it is an incredible - if not an unreasonable amount. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tm: can you describe your criteria about what you bring in from Flickr, and what (if anything) you do to avoid placing a heavy burden on others of identifying files not appropriate for Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm, Yann, and Omphalographer: I notice that Tm has not edited at all in several days. I suggest we suspend this discussion until they can reply. - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fine - however this is not specifically related to just him, as there are other editos who are as well. My original question was is this kind of activity within scope, normal and part of the intent of the project - regardless who is doing it? Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm: if by "this kind of activity" you mean mass-uploading free-licensed images from sites such as Flickr, yes, that is normal and part of the intent of the project. However, the issue is precisely what is being done by the uploader to make sure the content in question is at least preponderantly in scope (and what they are doing to make sure images are at least reasonably likely to get appropriate filenames, categories, descriptions, etc.). That is always going to be a case-by-case basis of how different uploaders are approaching such scraping. Since Tm is the uploader under discussion, my question is addressed to Tm. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons administrator case suspension

A request regarding a Commons administrator was submitted to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), you can read the the full request here. The U4C has passed the following motion 7-0 (with 1 member inactive):

The case request is suspended for 6 months to allow the Commons community time to incorporate the UCOC into its practices/procedures (e.g. desysop). Following unsuspension the U4C will consider how to further proceed (accept the case, pass a further motion, or decline the case). All editors who have commented on the case will be notified when the case is unsuspended.

Further comments by U4C members on the motion are available to be read here.

On behalf of the U4C, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Unacceptable threats by Yann

Yann (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

• Yann tagged File:Indy Fuel new logo.png with {{No permission since|month=January|day=24|year=2025}}. In the same minute, he speedydeleted it. Note that the template says Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added and the uploader was notified. In my view, this logo isn't above COM:TOO United States. On Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Indy Fuel new logo.png, no opposing view was offered except by Yann himself (for five days so far).
• Yann also tagged File:Finnischer Eishockeyverband logo.svg with Missing permission, even though a reasoning is provided on why this logo is in the public domain.
• Finally, Yann posted a last warning before blocking to the talk page of Xgeorg (talk · contribs) – a user who has been on Commons for 18 years and has ~150,000 contribs. This user had only cropped the former logo, not uploaded it originally. In the case of the latter logo, he had uploaded it 15 years ago to de.wikipedia, not to Commons.
• When I confronted Yann about his inappropriate actions, he directly threatened me with a block.

I am of the view that this behaviour of Yann is not acceptable. --Leyo 00:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• All three of these are absolutely typical of Yann and happen repeatedly. But they're an admin, therefore they're above any criticism. The blocking threat is particularly egregious.

To highlight just one of them, Yann incessantly misuses speedy deletion. Rather than seeing it in the limited sense in which it's valid; i.e. a convenience when we can speedy delete something without controversy, they see it instead as an opportunity to ease the admin's dreadful burden^(™) by doing deletions with as little effort as possible. They can be tagged and gone with only minutes between them, no matter how complex the issue involved. We have a specific prohibition for this over FOP cases, because they're recognised [sic] to be complex. TOO is not much simpler.

The image here is another version of the same thing. A contested permission is not the same thing as a missing permission. There is no excuse for Yann acting like this (and doing it over and over). DR would be reasonable, speedy deletion is not. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI, I undeleted File:Indy Fuel new logo.png, and created a regular DR. Yann (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

And File:Finnischer Eishockeyverband logo.svg is way above the threshold of originality for a copyright. There is no evidence why it would be in the public domain, so a permission from the copyright holder is needed. Yann (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, but how does anyone know if it is speedy deleted before anyone else gets to see it?

Yet again (I am tired of having this same conversation with you, over and over), this is not about whether this item should be deleted or not. It's about you short-circuiting our agreed processes here, because you clearly see yourself as above all the little stuff, and the little people (No-one else has a "God is busy, how may I help you?" banner). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Big LOL. This is supposed to be a joke, but your sense of humor is clearly lacking... Do you have anything serious to say? Otherwise, please stop wasting my time and others'. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

What exactly are the threats the headline speaks of? --Krd 12:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Krd: I think it is this response to, what I have perceived as a well articulated question on User:Yann's talk page. I have, however, no further background than what is stated here. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

… and also this (see 3rd bullet point above). --Leyo 14:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I overlooked that. I'd admit that this is not the best move. Krd 16:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that Special:Diff/990212786 was also uncalled for: a ‘last warning’ issued to a confused new user who had already stopped uploading, started engaging with an admin (who made it clear they believed that user was acting in good faith), and received firm but polite responses from multiple other admins. The situation had escalated rapidly because the new user was operating an unauthorized bot. See #User:Omar.idma and User talk:Omar.idma#STOP. Brianjd (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Datasets about potential logos - January 2025 uploads

Hi all, we have released a new dataset of potential logos uploaded in January 2025, together with another one of those which have already been deleted as of 2025-02-04. We are sharing them with you for your consideration.

This is part of our current work with the logo detection tool. We hope it will be useful for your moderation activities.

If you encounter issues with the datasets or have comments/requests, please reach out to me or to Sannita (WMF).

Thanks for your attention! –-MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Mirror_Selfie_of_erect_penis_with_removed_pubic_hair.jpg

Yann closed this request as:

 Not done: Obviously not. No recent naked pictures of minors are allowed. May be the montage should be deleted.

The only thing that is obvious here is that I end up looking bad. I did not know that the nominated file contained a naked picture of a minor, nor could I have known that.

No one else knew either, apparently:

• I do not see that the uploader is locked for child protection.
• The user who previously nominated this file for deletion with a generic scope argument did not seem to have any child pornography concerns.
• The user who incorporated this file into a montage clearly did not have any child pornography concerns either.

I suspect that the nominated file does not depict a minor at all, but Yann is somehow misreading the situation. Either way, this situation needs to be resolved urgently, which is why I bring it to this noticeboard after a very brief failed attempt to resolve the issue with Yann. Brianjd (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The file page is in a Wayback Machine archive. For some strange reason, that archive is missing both the preview and the thumbnail in the file history section, but that means that archive is safe to view. Now that the file has been restored, it should be correctly archived at some point. The description is (emphasis added):

Young man taking a mirror selfie including his erect penis and removed pubic and chest hair

That would explain it! Yann has a history of interpreting such things as meaning that the subject is a minor. Brianjd (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, I reverted my closure. I misread this. Yann (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

LTA now socking with IP

Hello. The LTA Oirattas/Moroike/Orattas has returned under an IP address 78.162.130.48 shortly after being blocked on their latest sock Orattas: you can see identical of LTA "requests" to erase Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh from commons maps [4], [5], [6], [7], among other identical requests concerning Sudan. They have also reverted all of my reverts of them.

The IP even left a message to one of the users Orattas was making many requests to in commons, but the message was left on a different wiki project, with IP saying "Unfortunately, I have been blocked.", and making the same map requests that Orattas did. It's clearly them, this is just unhealthy. Also, on another user's page on a different wiki project [8] again confessing they have been blocked. The IP clearly needs to be range locked or the abusive sockpuppetry will continue and is sipping into literally every wiki project. All of their "requests" need to be reverted too which they display here: what they do usually is go to oblivious users pages and request edits to erase Nagorno-Karabakh from maps with disregard to context, upload dates, historical purpose, etc, see one of the users actually challenging them , KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done IP blocked for a week, most edits reverted. Yann (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

File:2025 Philadelphia Learjet 55 crash.png

Please add Category:Screenshots of security camera footage--Trade (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done already done by Bedivere. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Unban request

The Portuguese-language Wikipedia user Gabriel bier (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has shown interest in a courtesy vanishing. However, as they are banned from this very project, they are unable to request it. They have been banned here for over a decade now and are (or were) a prolific editor on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, so, in my opinion, the ban seems unnecessary, especially given the user's expressed interest in permanently leaving the projects. I am in favor of the unban so that they can proceed with the process, but an administrator needs to carry this out. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done courtesy unblock in order to complete vanishing Bedivere (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Request to allow these files to be deleted as tagged.

Usually Admin's decide to keep the duplicate that has the earliest date & time. I'm requesting that these files (nominated by a User other than me) be deleted, even tough they were uploaded two minutes earlier than my uploads of the same Flickr album. Yes, that means that my files would be kept. User:RandomUserGuy1738 and myself both used the UploadWizard tool. However, it took me 2 minutes to create file names for all the uploaded files. I aslo made a "caption" for all files as well. This little bit of prep time before uploading, makes files with good file names and captions. Only 2 minutes is the diffence in the upload times here. Unnecessarily, RandomUserGuy1738 has uploaded over 10,000+ files with "bad" or meaningless file names. Admin's have disgression. I'm asking that positive work to make better quality uploaded files with captions and good file names be rewarded- not penalized by having taken a couple of minutes to do the right action. I'm asking that these be allowed to be deleted as duplicates as tagged, despite the two minute earlier upload time.

• 1. File:250205-D-FN350-2216 (54309478444).jpg
• 2. File:250205-D-FN350-2226 (54309667800).jpg
• 3. File:250205-D-FN350-2255 (54309668120).jpg
• 4. File:250205-D-FN350-2283 (54308365932).jpg
• 5. File:250205-D-FN350-2309 (54309490293).jpg
• 6. File:250205-D-FN350-2329 (54309244286).jpg
• 7. File:250205-D-FN350-2103 (54309667910).jpg
• 8. File:250205-D-FN350-2138 (54309490243).jpg
• 9. File:250205-D-FN350-2151 (54309244236).jpg
• 10. File:250205-D-FN350-2054 (54309667975).jpg
• Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@A1Cafel, is there a reason you reverted all the duplicate tags? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a strong reason that the newer one should be kept, just let User:OptimusPrimeBot to tag it. --A1Cafel (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber, The reason is found here: User talk:Rakoon#Duplicate files. One hour before A1Cafel reply to you here, a comment was made on the duplicate deletion requester's talk page.

• @Rakoon wrote, "Hi, actually I didn't look on uploading date, but on the naming. I thought the policy of Commons is to prefer images with clear naming, that was my rationale here. But if you think its not the correct way of working you are welcome to make the change. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience." Rakoon's "rationale" was based on file names- "I thought the policy of Commons is to prefer images with clear naming, ..."
• Commons "Official Guideline": Commons:File naming states, "This page in a nutshell: File names should ideally be descriptive, clear, appropriate and concise. However, old files do not need to be renamed to fit this guideline exactly, due to the costs of renaming files." (underline emphasis added)

Also, A1Cafel knows that OptimusPrimeBot makes a decision based only on the earliest time. That means no human thought and therefore- no ability to use an Admin's disgression. For years, A1Cafel and RandomUserGuy1738 have uploaded 1,000's of files with "bad" or meaningless file names from the same Flickr sources. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I would think we should keep the files with better names and with captions. I won't do anything unilaterally right now, since I would like to give A1Cafel a chance to respond with his reasoning (and certainly there is no emergency), but it seems to me that meaningful names and the presence of captions are both of value, and who uploaded first (by minutes) is basically beside the point. The reason we have that rule about "older file" has nothing to do with someone getting there a few minutes earlier, it has to do with not overwriting longstanding files. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, Exact or scaled-down duplicate with non-descripive file name has been a deletion reason since 2013, and the expectation has always been that administrators should make sure that any useful information is copied to the surviving file. Uploading files with the imported caption and just a VIRIN as a name is exactly the sort of bot uploading that is contemplated by COM:CSD, whether on someone's main account or not. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Clearly it would make sense not to have to go through the tedium of keeping the older file but then copying over the caption and changing the name. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber & @Jmabel, A1Cafel did not reply to your most recent comments above, however:

• A1Cafel removed all the "Duplicate" deletion tags (apparently on behalf of silent RandomUserGuy1738) at 08:10 on 6 February- before this discussion was finished.
• This allowed OptimusPrime BOT to tag my better named uploaded files with detailed captions for deletion as duplicates. As I said above, "A1Cafel knows that OptimusPrimeBot makes a decision based only on the earliest time. That means no human thought and therefore- no ability to use an Admin's disgression."
• So, the 10 files above, plus another 4 files from the my same Flickr album upload (inadvertently not included by me here) were deleted by Turelio from 01:30 to 01:33 on 7 February according to this Deletion Log: . I assume @Turelio just routinely processed these files, tagged by the User:OptimusPrimeBOT, while having no knowledge of the discussion here.

The meaningless files names without captions remain. More files are now added to the already 7,500+ files found within Category:Photographs by the United States Department of Defense with bad file names and more more than 10,000+ files with meaningless file names found within 113,000+ files Category:Files uploaded by RandomUserGuy1738. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. Will revert and do it properly. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done. File:U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth hosts a bilateral exchange with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Pentagon, USA on February 5, 2025 - 12 (cropped).jpg was also incorrectly deleted as a duplicate when it was not, and I have undeleted it as well. I also copied the COM:VIRIN from the Flickr descriptions to {{ID-USMil}}, which is helpful for spotting non-exact duplicates from other US military sources like DVIDS. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Possibilty to send Wikimails to a large number of users?

Hi, I do not know if this is even provided technically, if it is possible for admins. As a member of the organizing team of Wiki Loves Monuments I would like to send an email through "Email this user" to the participants of WLM in 2024 to invite them to take part in a survey we conduct to learn from their experiences. By participating in the photo contest they agreed to being contacted by email, but doing so one by one would take a looong time. There have been about 4500 participants. If an admin can help with sending the invitations - or if someone can point me to a bot that is allowed to do so - I would provide the list of user names and the emails' content. Thank you for any help in advance, Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Manfred Werner (WMAT) In general, it's better to use m:MassMessage than to directly send emails, especially with that large of a list. This would also respect opt-outs, which is important since the section of the rules you mention does not actually provide consent to be emailed about a survey. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There is the tool de:Benutzer:DerHexer/massenmail but I do not know the rate limitings for sending wikimails. Account creation rights would definitely be needed but I am not sure if this would be sufficient for such a large amount of mails if you do not want to wait some days until everything was sent. All mass wikimails I got came from WMF staff and I think even those where only to some hundred users and not some thousand. GPSLeo (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Participants should have their e-mail enabled on Wikimedia Commons (or the platform they uploaded their photos to) to be eligible for prizes; is not consent to be contacted by email. It is consent to be contacted by email specifically about prizes. I would certainly oppose you emailing people in this circumstance. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Fully agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy. Emails are intended to be used for private communication like prize notifications. Public communications, like survey requests, should generally be posted on public talk pages. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Please remove bad warning

Please remove the warning "You are using the old upload form. Try the Upload Wizard instead.". Where does it come from? The "Wizard" in inherently defective. Not only it does not show the crucial deletion notice, it also shows useless "Flickr", is overly complicated, and it is almost impossible to use it. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Seems I found it: MediaWiki:Gadget-ImprovedUploadForm.js @User:Perhelion @User:Steinsplitter. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 in Ukraine: Request for MassMessage

Hi! Quick request from organizers of the Ukrainian edition of Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 – we'd like to invite participants of previous Ukrainian photo contests to join this one:

• List of receivers
• Text of the message (first line is the subject, everything else is the body of the message; I've already accounted for having a correct signature & timestamp)

AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done. --Ratekreel (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Uploader with many excellent contributions asking for a deletion

Please see File:Sonic Milf, Ministère de la Paix, Soisy-sous-Montmorency, France (01-11-2024) · © Danilo Samà.jpg. I declined a rename request on the file ("Tobedeletedplease.jpg") by the uploader and hoping an Admin can step in and help them out with the speedy delete request. Thank you. // sikander { talk } 🦖 01:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sikander The request is more than 7 days since the file was uploaded, so it's not eligible for COM:CSD#G7 unfortunately. They've already opened a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sonic Milf, Ministère de la Paix, Soisy-sous-Montmorency, France (01-11-2024) · © Danilo Samà.jpg, so it should be deleted in a few days if there are no objections. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah OK. Sounds good, thank you. // sikander { talk } 🦖 01:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

User has been here for years, seems to exclusively want to upload copyvios, and also copy fraud claim own works

Captain Wingy (talk · contribs). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done All uploads deleted, final warning left. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

A.Savin (de-adminship)

• A.Savin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Per Special:Permalink/987304932 at out of process Commons:Administrators/Requests/A.Savin (de-adminship): "Per this discussion. Commons has become a toxic forum, largely due to A.Savin's arbitrary and problematic behavior. For years, his actions and provocative attitudes have seriously damaged the environment and driven away good contributors, myself included. I barely participate here because of these constant tensions. I hope Commons will one day regain its original purpose and become a fairer place, but that can only begin by revoking A.Savin's privileges. I would like to ping users who participated in a previous discussion @1989, GPSLeo, Christian Ferrer, Charlesjsharp, Ghilt, and Barkeep49: -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfredor (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)". We need consensus first.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support This right here is completely unacceptable. Along with the other issues with this user, he is clearly not acquit to be an administrator. 1989 (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support per above A.Savin has since long time the little word, the little verbal jab, the behavior, ect... to be unpleasant towards anyone (experienced users, administrators, ect..). Create a safe environement for every one need a minimum standing at administrator behavior level, this is not a punishment, but a clear lack of A.Savin at this level. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• My comments are not always friendly, particularly as a reaction to an unfriendly comment a response might be unfriendly too. At least they are genuine and not ChatGPT-generated like those by Wilfredor. And unlike Wilfredor, I never insulted someone xenophobic and narcissist --A.Savin 12:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that I may have done something wrong in your view does not justify calling me "hopeless," "coward," or comparing me to Vladimir Putin (a clear example of the tu quoque fallacy). This behavior has been directed solely at me, not to mention the treatment of other users. I would have appreciated an apology from you, but your refusal to acknowledge these actions leaves me no choice but to vote in favor of the continuation of this process. Wilfredor (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Neutral I think we need the vote on this to end the discussion. But I totally dislike the process we came here and how the initiators of the process behave. I am also not sure if however the outcome of the vote will be that this would solve the problem behind. I think we need a discussion on our conduct policies as suggested by the U4C and decide on sanctions after we have our policies improved.

GPSLeo (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

That's how I feel too. I don't think having A.Savin desysopped would solve anything. Wilfredor cites a toxic ambience but I don't feel that in general on Commons. Bedivere (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Question What the initial reason(s) to start this in the first place? All links given in m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/A.Savin are either old or not really convincing to me, but I may have missed something. Yann (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yann: For recent conduct, one just needs to look at Special:Diff/987717785.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Certainly it doesn't help A.Savin's cause but I don't find it gross or disrespectful enough to justify his deadminship Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly. Not very friendly, but not a reason to start a de-adminship discussion. It would be much better for Commons is everything step back for a day, go fishing or hiking, instead of starting a process I see as revengeful. Please do not start digging out old bones to prove that someone did something bad in the past. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  We’ve known each other for quite some time, and while I don’t share your opinion, I want you to know that I respect you. This process is not being initiated out of any spirit of revenge but rather to address a chronic and ongoing pattern of mistreatment—not just toward me but also toward other users. I only decided to open this process after the case against 1989 was initiated, not after the most recent attack from A. Savin toward me, which, honestly, I chose to overlook entirely at the time. However, the situation has now become unbearable. I understand you have a special fondness for A. Savin, as do I, but this is not a complaint against him as a person—it is about his actions and repeated instances of disrespect Wilfredor (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, I don't have "a special fondness for A. Savin". This is quite nonsense. Yann (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes and also I wrote "as do I," referring to the time we shared on FPC and not some kind of additional special treatment. The real nonsense here is the idea that I have some kind of revenge in this process. Wilfredor (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Wilfredor: As mentioned by A. Savin here, you are very far from being irreproachable. Did you apologize for this? Anyway, you should keep a low profile, otherwise this may very well turn against you. Yann (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  What does that have to do with A.Savin? That comment has nothing to do with him. And if it has to do with him, which is not true, does that justify A. Savin's degrading behavior? Wilfredor (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support Unfortunately, this is not just about A. Savin; it appears to be a systemic issue involving certain individuals on Commons. It is unacceptable for someone with certain privileges to misuse their authority to mistreat or undermine others. Even if some want to frame this as a personal issue between me and A. Savin, this problem has affected other regular users as well, especially those without administrative privileges. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  If this is not about A. Savin, why do we discuss about A. Savin? And, per Yann, where is the evidence? Krd 16:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  I told, Its not JUST, please let us focus on the case, the evidence was meticulously collected by 1989, whom I would like to thank for taking the time to do this. , Also in this same complaint, their behavior of diverting attention towards me with out-of-context and unrelated topics demonstrates a continuation of the same behavior being reported. This leads me to seriously question their ability to recognize the harm their attitude is causing to the community. Wilfredor (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I am only posting here because I was pinged. I have recently been blocked and warned about a possible indefinite Commmons ban, so I am too afraid to say anything. Sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, Charles. We fully understand your position, and I'm truly sorry you had to go through all of this. If you feel that your sense of security within the project is compromised, there's no need for you to continue commenting here. Your well-being and peace of mind are what matter most. Wilfredor (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment A.Savin is certainly not anything like the friendliest or most polite admin here, but that alone does not seem like a reason for de-adminship. If someone is going to make a case here that would at all convince me, they are going to have to show something like repeated abuse of admin capabilities. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not interested in convincing anyone, especially any administrator, as this is not about my ability to persuade. The evidence has been clear since 1989. What matters here is stopping the repeated abuse by making use of the administrator's functions, which the user seems to fail to acknowledge. Wilfredor (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment to the closing bureaucrat, the Commons:Administrators/De-adminship policy says there only needs to be some consensus for a request, and I think that relatively low threshold has been met. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't another request be filed? At the time of the filing of the original one there was no discussion. Bedivere (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

"some consensus" obviously is more than the consensus within a small group of plaintiffs. I currently don't see consensus, this is boiling up an old personal conflict without new evidence. COM:POINT. Krd 07:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Krd on this one. Wilfredor is doing most of the talking and there aren't any biters that weren't already involved. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

fair enough —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 22:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose AFAICT, this looks like a personal dispute (or worse revenge). No evidence of admin tools abuse was shown so far, so I don't see any reason to start a de-adminiship. Yann (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are you insinuating that this is a group of users seeking revenge? I fail to see any so-called revenge in their actions. An administrator should be a representative of the community, serving and supporting it, not threatening or disrespecting its members. Even if they haven’t misused their administrative tools, their lack of respect toward the very community that entrusted them with this role is reason enough to reconsider their position Wilfredor (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Please do not reply under every comment with the same statement you already made. GPSLeo (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  The problem, from your point of view, is not that I allegedly trolled someone, but more the fact that I happen to be an admin? Right? Because otherwise you would be contradicting yourself -- you are persistently advocating Charlesjsharp, who really trolled someone and was blocked for that, but isn't an admin. --A.Savin 01:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose This looks very much like a revenge action. A.Savin is one of our best admins. I trust A.Savin, and I have good reasons for that. I do not trust Wilfredor, and I have good reasons for that. Punishing or (even worse) banning A.Savin would rob Commons of one of its best admins. – Aristeas (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose I also trust A. Savin. I cannot see enough evidence for either harrassment or abuse of admin tools. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose I haven't found A.Savin's action to be abusing or justifying a desysopping. I tried to understand, however, the feud between A.Savin and 1989. And this goes back, at least, to 1989's request for adminship in 2019, which was successful, but with the opposition of A.Savin. It would be A.Savin himself who would request 1989's desysopping back in 2020, which resulted in 1989 resigning. All I can say is that everyone should cool off and deescalate this situation instead of making things worse. We all can understand you are not going to be friends or buddies. You should just stay away from each other's feet and that would make Commons "less toxic" as Wilfredor desperately claims (I don't think Commons is particularly toxic, but some areas such as FPC, if not intervened, are on their way to make Commons one toxic dump). Bedivere (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, Wilfredor is a bit behind the curve and stuck in the past. He has a lot of things to say about FPC, even though he is no longer active there. FPC is much better now that some of the worst agitators and disrupters have been dealt with. It doesn't serve the project to linger on old grievances. Today there are instead users hell-bent on being welcoming to new participants and re-building FPC into a positive page. But this will all be for nothing if old combatants can't let go of each other.

  Also I strongly  Oppose oppose this (yet again!) attempt to "have a go" at A.Savin. I've left my opinion on the UCoC discussion if anybody is interested. Cart (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose From personal experience , I can attest that A.Savin is one of the best administrators on Wikimedia Commons. They have been fair and reasonable in every aspect, and I oppose any move to remove their adminship.

RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

 Neutral on deadminship at this time, but I would  Agree with an IBAN between A.Savin and 1989. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment This entry, re-requested by Jeff, has nothing to do with any kind of revenge against A. Savin, as I have clarified multiple times. In fact, I was not the one who suggested it; there are users who are afraid to do what I am doing. I remember that several years ago, I had a public conversation with Jimmy Wales in which he described Commons as a "toxic community." At the time, I defended it, and the community supported me. However, today I am forced to agree with his perspective: the level of tolerance for disrespect has reached an alarming point, and this is not just about A. Savin. It is unacceptable for an administrator to treat other users in such a manner, nor was the blocking of Charles or the way Adam's block was handled appropriate, among others. Perhaps those who support these actions believe they are gaining something, but the truth is, I have not seen anyone apologize for these actions or demand respect. When such behaviors are allowed, there are no winners: we all lose. For now, I will continue to avoid any communication with A. Savin. I am not doing so out of cowardice, as he suggested, but because my objective here is clear: to contribute quality photos for Wikipedia, and nothing more. There was a time when we were a more united community, but recent events involving Arion, Charles, Adam, myself, and other users leave me with no choice but to step back. I have no doubt that sooner or later, someone will come up with any excuse to block me. But until that happens, I will continue to fulfill my role. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  You've already been told you don't have to respond every single comment in this thread Bedivere (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not answering to anyone Wilfredor (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'd also support an IBAN between A. Savin and 1989, if both parties consent to it. Abzeronow (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support Mostly as nomination. I've found A Savin, for as long as I've been aware of them, to be a far from impartial admin with too much of an inclination to personal biases. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Sad

1. About the procedure: At the beginning of the report, when the notification was sent to A.Savin, you can verify there was no "2025" section. I would then retrospectively agree with A.Savin's feeling of "harassment". At least it is a legitimate "feeling" that may be listened (and not automatically sentenced), as part of this process, since this section claims to solve the problems of "harassment", precisely. Oddly enough, the "2025" section actually came later, by 1989: "f.y.i have not spoken to this dude in years". "Dude"?! See Policy:Universal Code of Conduct#3.1 – Harassment Trolling: Deliberately disrupting conversations or posting in bad-faith to intentionally provoke.
2. Another accusation from "2025" that also came later is the use of the words "snitching" and "utter nonsense" by A.Savin, as if the other part had no right to share their own point of view and by the way in this text we learn that 1989 wrote "fuck off" to A.Savin. Between "fuck off" and "harassment", let me guess what is most appropriate as part of a "Code of Conduct"?
3. We can also see that the first reproach in this long list is "On December 2024, he compares another users comments to Vladimir Putin". But read also Wilfredor's political (re)view on "Putler" (= Hitler + Putin) at COM:FPC: "Supporting that image is defending justice and freedom." In the same thread, A.Savin was right to notify us "Such a heated political discussion but no one notices possible copyright problems?". Indeed, the file was deleted.
4. There were / are mistakes in the dates and facts in this report, a few bugs, and it looks like a collection of "bad gestures" or borderline cases. I find this one added by 1989 quite spectacular. Look at the links (example of fair revert by A.Savin indeed "Ponds in Pakistan" shouldn't been included in "Category:Waterfalls in Pakistan") and read the following discussions: COM:ANU#User:1989 and 1989 (desysop). Was the consensus wrong? I don't think so. Then, why is it a problem in 2025? A.Savin was right to revert, 1989 made a mistake by blocking A.Savin, and 1989's desysop was deserved. You don't block an admin like that, when you've been in function just for 1 year, and because the answer to your question doesn't satisfy you.
5. Completely agree with Yann's point of view, above: "AFAICT, this looks like a personal dispute (or worse revenge)". And it is also my personal feeling regarding this opportunistic and unsuccessful request. I also agree with all others who find Wilfredor's action(s) extrememly problematic. Here I share most of Aristeas's views. I also share W.carter's opinion: "FPC is much better now that some of the worst agitators and disrupters have been dealt with. It doesn't serve the project to linger on old grievances."
6. Please save us the next step. We don't need "A.Savin's de-adminship" based on these old, weird and complex elements. We need this user to improve maybe, and continue learning peacefully. We need the administrators here (not just A.Savin, especially the others) to do more useful tasks. Happy new year to everyone. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

   I respond only to the point where I was mentioned (point 3). I will never support any authoritarian regime, regardless of its ideology, be it left, right or otherwise. These are two completely different conversations and, although I understand your effort to link them, I am concerned that you are trying to justify a direct disrespect towards me with something completely unrelated. I come from Venezuela, a country devastated by an authoritarian regime and, in particular, by the influence of Vladimir Putin's regime, which has openly supported that dictatorship. I have lost relatives, families have been separated, food shortages have caused the deaths of many, and millions have had to flee. Because of all this, I find it unacceptable to be compared to Vladimir Putin, and your argument besides wrong, if not completely disconnected from the topic. BTW, Since there has been no apology from A.Savin, I also request an IBAN between the two of you. Thanks. Translated with DeepL.com Wilfredor (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

   If you place so much value on apologies, why don't you go ahead with a good example and apologize to Basile Morin for "xenophobic, narcissist, Anti-Brazilian" etc.? --A.Savin 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

   @A.Savin: , Wilfredor apologized in March 2024, but then made the same mistake in December. Not to mention "sick mind". -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

   Thanks for the info. That's indeed very shameful. --A.Savin 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

   Extremely shameful, yes, because this comment is pure defamation. Deliberate libel. Isn't a user like that likely to be harmful to the project? Wilfredor is "looking for psychological help", ("I am not well psychologically"). But inventing such plots is very damaging. And it is not the first time that Wilfredor imagines completely absurd scenarios that harm other users. -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

   In the event that I have made mistakes in the past, and I'm sure you will find many in my thousands of comments here that have nothing to do with A. Savin, it does not transform A. Savin's mistreatment and disrespect towards me and other users into something good. Wilfredor (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

   Please, let's put things in context, and according to their chronology. Here A.Savin's response likely was a shock reaction to hear from Wilfredor "there's a clear intention to create a toxic environment, almost like a witch's den". Surely many of us have made a connection with Wilfredor's previous "witch hunt" allegation: "This was no less than a witch hunt, driven by a narcissistic, xenophobic, anti-Brazilian user" [...] "A sick mind".... Excuse-me, but I understand A.Savin's frustration. The words were poorly chosen, however we should not take readers for fools either. 1) Proof that ArionStar was blocked for very fair reasons, after this sanction the disrupter continued by creating sockpuppets. 👺 "Witch hunt"?, 2) There is no intention on the part of the FPC participants to "create a toxic environment", just Wilfredor's fake images had to be delisted (or withdrawn) because they were wrong FPs (1, 2, 3, 4... and more). My subjective interpretation is that this shift may have caused a certain resentment inside. 3) When a clear warning "please stop" (April 2024, link above) is legitimate, accepted, and completed, there should be no need for Frank Schulenburg to send another (legitimate) one in October. It's infuriating, yes. Following these repeated slip-ups, Wilfredor took the decision to take "an indefinite FPC break", now please don't come claiming: there are toxic users who kicked me out. On the contrary, Wilfredor was abundantly supported and cared for in this specific context. This exit is the simple consequence of their own harmful actions. 4) Yes, everyone makes mistakes, of course, and being able to apologize is a virtue. But if an apology only serves to start over, it is a sign that there is a real, deep-rooted problem. When an apology is sincere, it should normally be accompanied by a real change in behavior. But when you read the history of events, and the repetitions, you understand that these feelings are not genuine (or not sustainable). There were also some pretty vicious tricks with this user on the FPC talk page. Bad tricks have consequences. 5) By repeating lies, it ends up affecting the other participants. "Xenophobic"? I have lived for 17 years with a person of a different skin color than mine, from another culture, another country, another religion, and I myself live on a different continent than the one where I was born. Why accuse me of xenophobia when I embody the complete opposite? 💡 I even congratulate and encourage a Brazilian user here. It tarnishes my reputation on this other page, and the damage is irreparable. Anyone reading the discussion could now have the impression that Wilfredor is a lone hero denouncing a conspiracy, when it is nonsense. Anyone can have doubts, reservations, and use these false speculations for the purpose of targeted harm. This is an extremely serious event, much more serious than insults. 6) There is no "sick mind" behind the discovery (for example) that "Satan / Santa" is an anagram (like "Evangelist / Evil's agent", "Listen / Silent", "The eyes / They see", etc.) It's just a coincidence. Please come back down to earth and stop attributing bad intentions where there is only poetry or entertainment. 7) At the top of this page, Wilfredor begins: "Commons has become a toxic forum, largely due to A.Savin's arbitrary and problematic behavior". See The Mote and the Beam. When you look at where the hostility started and what form it took, you understand quite well who the main actor is. Like others, I also don't think Commons is a "toxic platform". But there are certainly people in difficulty, even in great distress, who contribute to it. And it is essential to protect oneself. Here, I think above all that Wilfredor was not in a sufficiently stable situation to engage in such conflictual terrain. A bad opportunity was taken, in my opinion, a sad move. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

   I know this discussion revolves around A.Savin, and as I mentioned before, no action of mine, nor those of 1989, Charles, or Arion, justifies mistreating users. I didn’t want the topic to be derailed because I believe it is a separate issue. But I want to speak with an open heart. At the time, I felt hurt and frustrated by the way my modifications in FPC were debated—I believe it was excessive. It wasn’t just the criticism itself, but the feeling that, despite having acknowledged that I didn’t act in the best way, I was treated as if I had tried to deceive the community, something that never crossed my mind. I always tried to be transparent about my changes, but I recognize that it wasn’t enough, and perhaps I didn’t express it in the best way. I know I mentioned that I would apologize privately, but I prefer to do it here, openly, following A.Savin’s recommendation and considering that he has also done so in his own way. If at any point my words hurt you, if I gave the impression of attacking or belittling you, I sincerely apologize. It was never my intention to create conflict or resentment. I see the effort and time that each person invests in FPC—especially you—and even though we’ve had our differences, I know we all share the same goal: to make this a better space. That is why I decided a while ago to step away. Not because I don’t care, but precisely because I want FPC to work better. I feel that my presence no longer contributes to that purpose, and I prefer to step aside rather than continue fueling unnecessary tensions. That being said, I cannot ignore that the atmosphere in FPC has changed, and not necessarily for the better. The departure of critical voices has given the impression of greater harmony, but I wonder if it’s simply because there are now fewer opposing votes in the nominations—votes that actually help improve the technical level. Carter once spoke about the excessive number of men and testosterone involved; perhaps female participation should be encouraged as well, though I don’t know how and maybe there is some alternate reality where these problems never happened.. IMHO, yes it's a technical section, it feels like a pursuit of personal recognition. I don’t say this with resentment, but with sadness, because, we are all here for the same reason, the love of photography. Wilfredor (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

   There is not only one, but two points above, where Wilfredor is mentioned (point 3 and point 5). About point 5, Wilfredor must face the consequences of their own actions. We are humans, sometimes compassionate, sometimes forgiving, but sometimes also exasperated (for good reasons), and you should understand that. Kind regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I've just eaten an hour of my time at work sitting here trying to catch up on what's been going on. Can Commons be toxic? No doubt about it. I'm simply amazed that after moving into passive involvement between 2010 and 2024, when I got my admin bit back, that things had not gotten any better in 15 years. And then I immediately run headfirst into a wheel war with another admin. 🤷

What we have here are people overworked and underpaid (ha-ha!) because there are too few admins around and too few file reviewers and too few active editors and way too many users uploading files who have no connection with the community. And you get into our little areas and then someone comes along and does something that you weren't expecting and makes your work even harder, and things are already so tense, it gets really easy for neurodivergent people (let's admit it, most of are) to let our emotions get out of control and say or do something stupid. And some people have less of a filter than others.

A. Savin should absolutely be accountable for his behavior and at the very least apologize for it. But taking away his admin role seems overly punitive and is not going to make Commons any better. I wish there was a way to do it like a block, take away his admin privileges for 30 days and then he gets them back. But that's not an option.

@Wilfredor, my friend, please don't armchair diagnose people around here. Again, we are a lot of neurodivergent people and many of us already see therapists and don't need that kind of insult added on. I hope you find it in your heart to apologize to Basile Morin for that. I know you in real life and think you're a great person. And that's something a great person would do.

I'm saying this even admitting I'm no better than anyone else but I do try to take my own advice. When I use words or act in ways that hurt someone else—and that can be propagating an argument for an extended length of time—I apologize and try to do something to make up for it.

Commons can be a toxic community but each of us has to do our part to remember we do exist in a community and have similar goals (in general) and there are better ways to handle disagrements. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 23:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

And if any of this sounds condescending, I'm sorry about that. In real life I'm a 58 year old pastor who thinks they know a few things about getting along with others. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 23:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Pastor, for your words. Truly, there are things that only God can change when we choose to place His will above our own. I am a Christian, I believe in God, but I know that this doesn’t make me better than others. God's grace calls us all, and it is in Him that we find true transformation. Wilfredor (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I’ve just realized very well where you’re coming from. It’s difficult to balance all the work and responsibilities, especially when there’s a shortage of admins and active contributors, perhaps because of how confusing and bureaucratic everything has become. The frustrations really pile up, and it’s easy for emotions to get out of hand when things feel overwhelming, which is why I decided to step back from FPC—it was causing me a lot of stress. I agree, there are definitely aspects of Commons that can feel toxic (as Jimmy mentioned a few years ago), and it’s a problem when people feel completely disconnected from the community. As for A. Savin, I believe accountability is important, but I also agree that permanently removing admin privileges might not be the best solution. An apology would have been enough, but the user seems not to understand. A temporary suspension could allow for reflection and growth without causing too much harm to the community in the long term. I also really appreciate you pointing out the issue with armchair diagnosing. I now see that my comment was inappropriate, and I sincerely apologize if I hurt anyone. Then, privately, I’ll reach out to Basile and make sure to offer a sincere apology. You’re right; we all need to be more mindful of how we interact and try to make Commons a better place for everyone. Thanks to Basile for your patience in collecting all that evidence, and you Cari for your interest in making things work better, and your understanding. Wilfredor (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the comparison with Putin's friends, as this really was a completely unnecessary taunt and in general political comparisons should be avoided in user interaction on Wikimedia projects.

My opinion on your past (problematic) actions remains the same of course. --A.Savin 07:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding my behavior, I have already taken specific actions such as stopping participating in FPC indefinitely, if you have any other more appropriate solution, I am open to discuss it. I accept your apologies, I hope you can improve your treatment of other users as well. We come from sometimes different cultures where bad treatment in one is completely unacceptable in another. Wilfredor (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support I ended up here after trying to understand how File:Frankfurt-Rödelheim, In der Au 14-16 a.jpg got deleted with the summary "(WMF-banned user, not eligible to contribute anything)" because that isn't a good reason to delete an image. And if an admin is doing that, they shouldn't be an admin. Mujinga (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to undelete that since it was in use when it was deleted. It was uploaded by a sock of a LTA so the rationale would be en:WP:DENY. You're welcome to request undeletion of it at COM:UDR. Abzeronow (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I believe a sockpuppet account should be blocked immediately and prevented from editing. However, its contributions should not be reverted if they do not violate any rules or constitute vandalism. Am I correct? Wilfredor (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• I believe there is a some sort of underpinning on deleting uploads of socks of globally banned users. I have said to User:MGA73 in the past that I have ambivalent feelings about that as I'd rather see that evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than massively deleting in such cases. (Edit: User:Abzeronow/Archive3#Notice_about undeletion request is where I discussed that.) Abzeronow (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I believe we should not base our decisions solely on the user's status, but rather on the value and validity of the content itself. If the files are educational, properly licensed, and meet the requirements, they should be kept regardless of who uploaded them. Deleting useful content simply because a user is blocked goes against the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, which is to preserve and share valuable media. I agree that each case should be evaluated individually, without allowing sanction policies to interfere with the preservation of important content for the community. To provide more context to this situation, could you indicate which user uploaded this image and what it contained? Perhaps there was a reason for its deletion. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• As A. Savin says, it was uploaded by a sock of Messina. The photograph is of a building with bare trees in front of it and showing part of a street and sidewalk where cars are parked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Regardless of whether the edit is vandalism or not, as a user directly blocked by WMF, do we automatically have the Foundation's support to revert all of their contributions? Wilfredor (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  • @Wilfredor: I can imagine no circumstance where WMF would require us to keep any content added by a banned user. I can imagine only cases where (1) they would specifically want the content removed or (2, more commonly) they wouldn't care which we did. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

    I don't see anything written about reversing non-vandalistic or non-copyrighted contributions from blocked users. I support the position of simply blocking the new sock, but whether the content is valid or not is another matter and should not be related to the block. If that were the case, then all the contributions from the user would have to be reverted. Wilfredor (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

    @Wilfredor: From meta:WMF Global Ban Policy#Implications of a global ban (which A.Savin linked immediately below roughly 20 hours ago): "Any contributions made by a banned individual, directly or indirectly, may be reverted or removed as part of ban implementation." Now can we move on? - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

meta:WMF Global Ban Policy#Implications of a global ban --A.Savin 09:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Messina is banned by the WMF, deletions were correct. --A.Savin 07:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I had been neutral here up to now, because I've had my own issues with A.Savin's approach to adminship, but Wilfredor's continual posting here—over 20 separate posts so far, including several lambasting A.Savin's completely appropriate removal of content added by a banned user—leave me feeling like this is something other than an effort to reach a fair result over specific grievances. Plus, for all of the amount Wilfredor has posted here, the one time I asked for specifics, he provided nothing but a dismissal. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with what Jambel has said above, therefore I also  Oppose. Bidgee (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I find the bureaucratic handling a waste of everyone's time.

When multiple users express similar concerns, that's prima facie evidence for the case and it should be submitted to a vote by the entire community asap.

Not this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=987580991 bureaucracy and then a discussion here among a select group of users. Removal of sysop concerns the entire community. Why should this discussion take place here, "a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another"? Where is the input from other users?

Either the vote should happen, or this pre-vote discussion should take place on com:vp, or a watchlist notice should be made to invite all users to this discussion.

When there is doubtful behaviour problem, there should be a vote.

Whether that doubtful behaviour should result in removal of sysop, should be decided by the community, not like here.

Here should only decide whether there is behaviour problem, and consensus is clear that there is. RoyZuo (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

And why this is a waste of time, and why a quick vote would save time for everyone:

look at Commons:Administrators/Requests/A.Savin (de-adminship), even if both sides were given 7 days to prepare their side of the arguments, the vote could start on 1 feb and the entire case be concluded on 7 feb. and we would know clearly whether the sysop still enjoys community confidence.

the alternative, here, today is 12 feb. and the confidence the sysop commands is still questionable. RoyZuo (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)