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

Note

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

Transplanted copy from User talk:Jameslwoodward, about myself

A Wikimedian began the discussion below on User talk:Jameslwoodward. I have the opinion that that page is not the best venue to talk about the alleged issues, hence I'm grafting the message here. Grand-Duc (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Begin of copy.

Grand-Duc (talk · contribs) He has been filing excessively disruptive deletion requests. I kindly ask that you have him cease this behavior at once.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 B747-346 JAL Japan Airlines(Reso'cha) NRT 09JUL01 (7026968593).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boeing 747-400 - JAL - JA8183 (5723644644).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 Reso`cha Boeing 747-346SR Japan Airlines (JAL) (8637493082).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boeing 747-346, Japan Airlines - JAL Reso`cha AN0309058.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 (8087571163).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8183 Reso`cha Boeing 747-346SR Japan Airlines (JAL) (8639157327).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boeing 747-346, Japan Airlines - JAL Reso`cha AN0344534.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8149 (aircraft)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8183 (aircraft) --Y.haruo (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Far from having him cease, I encourage him to continue. These are all copyright violations and must be deleted. As I have said many times, the rule on de minimis requires that the copyrighted work be unimportant enough so that an average reader will not notice if it is omitted. That is plainly and clearly not true in these cases.

If you continue to make unfounded accusations such as this, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

All of these are de minimis. I believe I have valid grounds for that conclusion, and I kindly ask that you refrain from directing personal attacks at me Y.haruo (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

So, it is all right for you to make unfounded personal accusations against Grand-Duc, but it is not all right for me to warn you that your behavior will lead to your being banned? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I got the ping, so I hope I'm not bothering Jim by writing here too.

First of all, I'd like to know how you, @Y.haruo, come to the conclusion that my DR are "excessively disruptive". Judging by how often my argumentation convinces an admin to close them by deleting, I don't think that my interpretation of Commons' policies on which I base the DR are too far-fetched and disruptive. It's much more of quality-assurance work to better the repositories, isn't it?

Furthermore, I've read and re-read your Japanese posting of law texts and its English translation. I think that the basic intention of the law is to make it legitimate for people to engage in exchanges about hobbies on social network services (SNS) and fan communities, up to and including Otaku ways, also using fundamentally copyright protected works (like Pokémon sculptures or vehicle liveries). The inclusion of that "socially acceptable" wording points to such an interpretation, it being facilitating common communication.

But this media use is quite different from an image hosting service and media repository like Commons is. On social networks, any image is bound to slip into the oblivion of the unseen depths of old feeds after some time, whereas Commons is hosting images in curated archives. The visibility there and the influence, the encroachment upon third-party intellectual property, is much more pronounced than in some random SNS feed.

Trudging on such a borderline between copyvio and OK is hardly recommended in the light of COM:PRP. Unless an appellate court or the highest court of law of Japan (or any other country, for that matter) is interpreting and concretizing the law, we IMHO can't boldly assume that such imagery is OK to host here, not when the wording is still fuzzy (by including both "socially acceptable endeavours" and " legitimate interests of copyright holders"). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek new restrictions. What you are doing effectively narrows the previously accepted scope of De minimis, and that constitutes a new restriction. How many of the administrators who deleted files actually understand this point? Moreover, I am aware that you have distorted the Commons guidance on De minimis and misrepresented Japanese law when filing your deletion requests. This is by no means quality‑assurance work. Y.haruo (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

End of copy.

@Y.haruo: Please elaborate on how I "have distorted the Commons guidance on De minimis" in your eyes; and what exactly constitutes a misrepresentation of Japanese law. Especially the first point is hard for me to understand, I don't see anything in the wording on COM:DM that I have distorted. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

This would only be disruptive if they were closed as keep and Grand-Duc continued to nominate similar images. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You argued that the image does not qualify as de minimis because it is categorized according to Disney motifs, but that is not correct. File:Louvre at night centered.jpg is also categorized under Category:Louvre Pyramid at night, and yet it has never been considered problematic. Whether something is de minimis must be determined by examining the image itself, not by looking at its categories. Your statement — "COM:De minimis not applicable, image categorized according to Disney motifs." — is a distortion of the de minimis guidance. SeeCommons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8904 (aircraft), Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA873A (aircraft) in R2-D2 livery and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:C-GWSV (aircraft). Y.haruo (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you actually read Commons:De minimis#Guidelines? The sentence about categorisation is directly taken from the page you're saying I'm distorting. And, while I stayed quite short with "COM:De minimis not applicable, image categorized according to Disney motifs.", I meant to imply that the whole image impression was not covered by DM. If that was not concise and explanatory enough, then it's on me, but otherwise, the point still stands. The Louvre pyramid example is something maybe worth looking into, but you can't conclude, simply because nobody challenged the legitimacy of imagery within Category:Louvre Pyramid at night yet, the set is assuredly OK. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I certainly have read it. Although it has been in place since 2012, it is only a broad guideline and has not been applied as an operational basis for deletion. Claiming afterward that you “meant something different” does not strike me as a sincere or honest way to engage.

Moreover, in Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/07#Pokemon Jets deletion requests you stated that "a deletion from for instance JA8962 in Pokémon livery (that's the 747-400 example above) can be kept when it's from FRA and has to be deleted when it's made in Heathrow or Narita." This is an unfounded and factually incorrect view with no source whatsoever, expressed solely to strengthen your own position.

Disrupting discussions and making false statements are, of course, grounds for blocking. Y.haruo (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, threatening people you're talking to with blocking because you believe disagreeing with you is making false statements and being disruptive is actually a way people have got blocked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

What a selective reading you've done in that VPC thread, @Y.haruo... You're apparently conveniently glossing over the actual explanation for "a deletion from for instance JA8962 in Pokémon livery (that's the 747-400 example above) can be kept when it's from FRA and has to be deleted when it's made in Heathrow or Narita." (-> it's the combination of Commons' way of doing things: a principle akin to a Home state regulation, combined with COM:FOP Germany#Permanent, the BGH Aida Kussmund case & COM:FOP UK & COM:FOP Japan) and also the analysis that JMabel did ("All of this is complicated by the fact that the risk involved is not just the risk of legal penalties, but also a certain dedication to intellectual honesty. We certainly often refuse to host material where there is a near-zero chance that the rights-holders would ever sue, and the PCP makes it very clear that we intend to keep to that policy, not just do anything we think we can get away with.")

Are we perhaps operating around a language barrier? I dont see where I expressed to mean something different, with "COM:De minimis not applicable, image categorized according to Disney motifs" I only shortened the reasoning about the inapplicability of DM, perhaps too much. But the categorisation argument is still a centrepiece of the DR rationale. Wasn't that visible?

Please let me ask you, Y.haruo: do you know some commentaries of or maybe court rulings about the Japanese DM law you've repeatedly quoted that speak about commercial usages of media produced under that statute? As written above, I think that the "socially accepted as legitimate and reasonable" does not cover commercial exploitations of imagery (besides those immanently happening on social networks). If I'm not mistaken, Japanese corporations and governmental bodies are actually quite strong against IP rights violations (examples: Sony and Nintendo using their might against game streamers, publishing houses having manga reading sites hosted abroad in e.g. Vietnam taken down, the ministry of agriculture, forestry and fishery fighting against "pirated" seeds and seedlings of Japanese-born crop varieties that are used in China and South Korea). This kind of politics present itself as reason to have a restrictive reading of "socially accepted as legitimate and reasonable".

That the Commons:De minimis#Guidelines allegedly hasn't been used as DR rationale in the 2010's is no reason to not do so currently. That idea is apparently quite convincing, most DR where I referred this guidelines actually ended in deletions (barring those still open). And last but not least: if you're making accusations like "[d]isrupting discussions and making false statements", you must be prepared to produce solid evidence for it, otherwise, it could easily appear like slander, I think. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You are diverting the discussion, but the fact remains that you have repeatedly made false statements about Japanese law, and the same happened in the deletion request. In that DR, you invoked the pre‑2020 version of the law from 2015 and claimed that “These character images cannot fulfil this ‘incidental’ clause, as they are objectively prejudicing the opportunity of their IP owners’ illustrations to potential customers wanting to illustrate the characters.”

In my response to that DR, I explained—citing the Agency for Cultural Affairs—that Commons has no such unreasonable requirement, and that the 2020 amendment clarified and expanded the scope of the provision.

Despite being aware of this, you continue to rely on the outdated statute and repeat unreasonable arguments based on it. This conduct clearly fails to represent current Japanese law accurately and serves to push the deletion discussion in your favor. I wonder how many people have been misled by your false statements. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA B747-481D JA8964 Pocket Monsters (5314675945).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:JA8964 B747-481D ANA All Nippon(Pokemon) HND 10JUL01 (7046345265).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8957 (aircraft), Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8965 (aircraft) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pokémon trains, Y.haruo (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's use your posting in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ANA_B747-481D_JA8964_Pocket_Monsters_(5314675945).jpg as base, OK?

You've posted what is apparently an excerpt of Japanese law (I'm a bit irritated by the "Copilot" part in the URL at the end, though. Copilot is Microsoft's AI system, can you guarantee that no hallucinations are included?).

In that translation, I do not see anything that is fundamentally different from what I said based upon older law revisions: this law says that a copyrighted element can be included when it constitutes a minor component of the material [...] —when considered in light of the proportion of the copyrighted work within said material, the precision of the reproduction of the copyrighted work within said material, and other factors; and [...]to the extent justified in light of whether there is a purpose of obtaining profit from the use of said incidentally included copyrighted work, the degree of difficulty in separating said incidentally included object or sound from said primary object or sound of reproduction or transmission, the role played by said incidentally included copyrighted work within said created or transmitted material, and other factors. Provided, however, that this shall not apply if such use would unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner in light of the type and purpose of said incidentally included copyrighted work and the manner of said use.

Please note that the part about unreasonable prejudice is still present! Furthermore, Pokémon liveries on planes and trains are certainly not minor to the usual spotter images, except when one has e.g. captured an airport overview where a Pokémon Jet is indeed a background feature. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd refrain from using translation tools like Google when there is one site with the translation itself or this to compare, unless already acquired near-native Nihongo. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

From a rigorous reading of past deletion discussions, there's apparent hypocrisy amongst the deleting/keeping administration being in play here: the JA8578 taking off was kept (Jcb, Ellin Beltz, and Abzeronow in that order), retired and blocked users (Russavia in particular) having the deciding votes (Jdforrester), and this keeping of a JA8578 (Yann) was dishonoured by your (mis)interpretation (Ellywa), to name a few. Might add more discussions so everyone can notice historical inconsistency from the recent development; sensing a Western bias from a similar experience in a related Wikimedia project.

Would also note that Wikipedia articles across languages have been deprived of PokéJet images because of Großherzog's (and probably a few more's) recent requests here on Commons with these un-ceremonial deletions. Current version of the English (archived 2023). This shouldn't be ignored; so if there's no other alternative, the non-free use rationale template must be utilized on the already-stricken (through temporary undeletion) and what is left untouched. Good luck in what to put on all eight parameters; Großherzogs precedent might be disagreed upon by past administrators. I have been trying to put this JA8357 but unsure of the next step(s) to be given towards the photographer: upload to Commons or individual WP articles by (a heck number of) language(s). Side note, Bulbapedia has been extracting some of them from here before this row! a few were under CC0 (Public domain), how to explain being trumped by your allegations? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

"sensing a Western bias"

Hold on. What the fuck are you saying? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Language please, Whyiseverythingalreadyused. Because of some "precendent" applied just last year, much of the files in Commons have been deleted unceremonally; and this has affected many Wikipedia articles across different languages. Seems that the OP is trying to use the Copyright Law of Japan against at least one native-speaker trying to preserve. Thus, can make a comparison with an experience in Wiktionary when I tried to deal with a controversial administrator there in regards to what considers either a "native reading" or "irregular reading" to a Chinese character. We're being overwhelmed here! ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 09:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Poketalker: Thanks for the official law translation page, that's a nice resource worth adding to COM:Japan IMHO. It doesn't read much different from the translation above, though.

But please stop the nonsense of a Western bias (for what it's worth, politically, Japan is Western-aligned anyway as far as I'm aware) or that I aim to persevere against a native speaker. This is easily disproven as I already tried to raise more awareness from natives, see ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers#Information in copyright matters requested, "De minimis", to get the best possible fact-founded outcome. Any particular desire for Wikipedia illustrations is totally irrelevant in regard to copyright matters, though. There should be admins who're officiating both on Commons and EN-WP, so you could get in touch with them to (try to) have a selection transferred to EN under en:WP:NFCI / en:WP:NFCC, although I admit that it may be difficult to comply with en:WP:NFCC4 as a lot of Pokéjet images were sourced from Flickr. Simply bear this in mind: Commons:Derivative works#But how can we illustrate topics like Star Wars or Pokémon without pictures? with its first sentence, Admittedly, it may be difficult or even impossible to illustrate such articles. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not aware of any legal precedent in which the depiction of an aircraft’s livery in a full‑view photograph has been found to violate copyright law. I also do not see any indication that Japanese copyright law diverges from international standards in this regard. Y.haruo (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

... and we're back

"German man declares war on the oppressed citizens of Japan" Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: Reading your last posting "... and we're back[...]" above, I get the feeling that you're at least approaching a case of en:Godwin's law and likely derailing the fact-based exchange that occurred until now. Would you be OK in removing this sub-thread from "...and we're back" and including any related answers, as it seemingly does not advance the discussion? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: I'm not talking about Nazism or whatever

I was being sarcastic about the below quote

"Seems that the OP is trying to use the Copyright Law of Japan against at least one native-speaker trying to preserve" Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The point is "Being sarcastic" @Whyiseverythingalreadyused, "does not advance the discussion" or this project. -- Ooligan (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Even though the user’s own issue is currently being discussed here, he has submitted several new deletion requests. As usual, his claims are inconsistent with the current international standards for evaluating aircraft photography. However, this situation has revealed something new. I will explain this step by step. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-18007@PEK (20200403123859).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-18916.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:B-18007 (aircraft), Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-18007@PEK (20200403123859).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Airlines MD-11 (N489GX) departing Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:B-18916 (aircraft) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:B-18916 (aircraft),

Commons follows the principle of being a Free Content Repository, and the introduction of Commons:De minimis in 2008 shows that it has long adopted the policy that content is acceptable as long as it is freely reusable, even when it falls under de minimis. Moreover, aircraft photographs showing the full airframe have consistently been considered de minimis worldwide, even when painted designs appear in the frame. Naturally, no court cases can be found in which such photographs were judged to constitute copyright infringement.

However, he has repeatedly filed deletion requests that go far beyond actual copyright law and established practice, and he has continued to distort the de minimis Guidelines while making false claims. This is an attempt by someone dissatisfied with the current application of policy to force a change in that policy, and the rapid succession of deletion requests is clearly aimed at undermining Commons’ fundamental principles.

As with the URAA discussions, this is a matter that must be decided through proper community debate, and such deletion requests cannot be accepted. Please do not allow continued attacks on the official policy. Regarding this matter, Commons:Deletion requests states that ‘Deletion requests are not the place to attempt to change Commons policy, nor may requests be made simply to make a point. Any such requests may be speedily closed. Please use the Village Pump or the policy talk page if you wish to propose a change in policy.’--Y.haruo (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The sentence Commons follows the principle of being a Free Content Repository, and the introduction of Commons:De minimis in 2008 shows that it has long adopted the policy that content is acceptable as long as it is freely reusable, even when it falls under de minimis. is quite the red herring. Nothing in my actions hint at me not fully endorsing the project goals and respecting our guidelines and policies. Naturally, this also encompasses COM:De Minimis.

However, he has repeatedly filed deletion requests that go far beyond actual copyright law and established practice - well, the contents of Category:Pokémon related deletion requests/deleted (especially the pages having titles with airplane immatriculations, like JA***) show that there's not really an established practice in keeping such livery images (compare that with Category:Pokémon related deletion requests/kept).

To further foster my respect and endorsement of COM:DM, look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8956 (aircraft): Nota bene: I did not nominate the whole content of the category, as I think that images like File:AllNipponAirways B747-400 fukuoka 20040926111804.jpg are obviously totally fine and something like File:ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (4262892086).jpg or File:All Nippon Airways Boeing 747-400D Breidenstein-1.jpg is not having enough precision (angled views, not sideways) in showing copyrighted material, so a defence of De minimis is more likely to be successful. In my opinion, File:ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (5699289759).jpg (not included) sets a good borderline between "keepable" and "to be deleted".

This is an attempt by someone dissatisfied with the current application of policy to force a change in that policy, and the rapid succession of deletion requests is clearly aimed at undermining Commons’ fundamental principles. has the look and feel of a bad faith assumption. In fact, I assert that it is the complete opposite, I'm doing the things I do just because I deeply respect Commons’ fundamental principles, including the COM:Precautionary principle. As few if any at all other people have challenged such imagery in deletion requests, the sheer amount of DR I opened is the obvious outcome of having a huge stack of allegedly problematic images all over the place. It's simply the result of the relationship between available manpower and stock of possible copyright violations.

Your sentence Moreover, aircraft photographs showing the full airframe have consistently been considered de minimis worldwide, even when painted designs appear in the frame. Naturally, no court cases can be found in which such photographs were judged to constitute copyright infringement is easily negated (when using scientific standards, with a counterexample being sufficient to disprove a theorem). I assert that there's a technical similarity between a Pokémon livery on a plane and the Aida cruise ship livery with the Kissing lips (the amount of hull / airframe covered by artwork is by percentage similar or higher for the jets). As it stands, the cruise ship livery was subject in a German copyright court case which went to the highest court of law, the Bundesgerichtshof. And far from denying it protection or referring to the De minimis excuse, the court ruled that the work is protected, but could be depicted under the FOP statute; references: COM:FOP Germany#Permanent. With this, everything in your assumption is disproven, as there is a copyright court case known (and documented on Commons) about vehicle liveries in an industrialised country.

The policies / guidelines about COM:DM, COM:FOP, COM:PRP, COM:CSM and COM:CRT are already quite good as they are, there's no need for a change, only the specifics in CSM and CRT could and should be updated whenever new information gets known. In fact, the person who's unhappy by the situation appears to be you, Y.haruo, so it would be upon you to advocate for a more lenient view/interpretation of COM:DM et al., not upon me to work on any change in policies or guidelines. The issue certainly does not reside within myself. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment There are areas (and this is one of them) where Commons has to weigh among conflicting goals, and whereas] we may at any given time have a more or less clear policy, we will always have outliers on both sides, probably even among the admins. On the one hand, we want to carve out strong, broad arguments for legitimate free use. On the other hand, we do not want to overstep and put ourselves or our reusers at risk of violating legitimate copyrights. There are downsides to being either too bold or too timid, and we are never going to all have exactly the same level of boldness.

Following up on that: I don't particularly see and administrative issue here, and would be inclined just to let the DRs play out. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Kontributor 2K

Kontributor 2K (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I have previously posted about the user Kontributor 2K regarding behavior which may fall under COM:HOUNDING. Many of my edits to SVG file pages have been reverted that do not fall under the scope of "fixing unambiguous errors." Previous comments from the user appear passive-aggressive in nature and have spanned across file talk pages and posts on my talk page within the span of two days. ForeverFlying (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K This is inappropriate. Passive aggressive and condescending. Don't treat others like this; if you have a problem with someone acting in good faith, explain yourself properly and treat them like a peer. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@ForeverFlying: could you please link three examples of edits you consider inappropriate, so admins do not have to look through tons of history to work out what you might consider problematic? - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Revision of File:Valle di Cadore-Bandiera.svg (other reversions of my edits discussed at file talk page: File_talk:Valle_di_Cadore-Bandiera.svg#c-Kontributor_2K-20260704195700-~2026-38108-30-20260704190800)
2. Revision of File:World location map (W3 Americas).svg (with the corresponding message on my talk page at User talk:ForeverFlying#Script)
3. Revision of File:Coat of Arms of the DAquino FAM ITA.svg (with corresponding comments at the file's talk page: File talk:Coat of Arms of the DAquino FAM ITA.svg#Display of the new source code on the description page)

ForeverFlying (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I will readily admit to not reading through the bulk of what is below; at a skim it appears to be "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

With reference to the cited edits:

• Revision of File:Valle di Cadore-Bandiera.svg: I cannot imagine a good reason to remove an explicit "author" parameter from {{Self}} unless it is inaccurate. @Kontributor 2K, can you explain why you did this?
• Revision of File:World location map (W3 Americas).svg: several edits here. @ForeverFlying, I don't know which you consider at issue.
• Revision of File:Coat of Arms of the DAquino FAM ITA.svg: @Kontributor 2K, I'd say that in general it is not a good idea to remove content from a page for someone else's file just because you don't think the content is important, especially if (as here) it is well isolated from the description, etc, and is not going to make it harder for anyone to understand what the file is.

Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Regarding Revision of File:World location map (W3 Americas).svg, the issue I have with the removal of the {{G}} template in the revert, although I do agree there were inaccurate parameters introduced by the script to the {{Igen}} field. Specifically, in this post on my user talk page, one comment was "It’s not certain that it’s worth it, mainly to simply convert <gallery> to {{G}} etc., is it?" I interpreted this to mean that the user also took issue with me replacing ‎<gallery>...‎</gallery> with {{G}} through the script, though I could be misinterpreting that sentence in context. ForeverFlying (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel:

• 1 This involves a change to the string that the user generally applies to their files; to me, the question is whether there is actually an error to begin with that needs correcting and if so, the correction should then be applied to all files in that category. And why not to all files of this type, regardless of the user's usual practice? Anyhow, both practices are wildely used, and I wouldn't favour any one over another, at least on someone else's files.

• 3 Here, there are actually 4 interventions which are clearly explained, as far as I can see: Special:Diff/1243850925, Special:Diff/1243851680, Special:Diff/1243914429, Special:Diff/1243914722.

Mainly, in my experience, adding the source code to a page – or any technical information that is too complex – is, for me, primarily a potential source of error, in the sense that, should the file be amended, overwritten, at a later date, this requires an additional correction which is unlikely to be made.

So, generally speaking, I don't allow myself to add such content to someone else's file.

As for adding an {{Author|design}} template, it might be interesting if the author were not unknown, which is rarely the case with family coats of arms, but is quite common, on the other hand, with civic coats of arms – and even with civic coats of arms, there is no obligation to cite the original designer, since the descriptions (the blazons) used to create the images are in Public Domain. Example here, where very few files, not to say none, use that template. And I don't think I have seen it being used elsewhere than on de: or ch: coats of arms, mainly. After that, it's just a minor detail, and I don't really care whether a user chooses to use it or not. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: truth to tell, I find {{G}} annoying, and get your point about "author" but, really, knowing that a given user would rather you leave their files alone, you'd do better to leave alone anything that isn't outright wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I agree, including with the underlying point that suggests that it's strongly advised to keep a certain distance from the contributions, given that they are, ultimately, somewhat ephemeral, vain, as they can be cancelled at the drop of a hat. For an example, some time ago I corrected the categorisation by module errors related to the misuse of {{Igen}} on non-vector files, and I recently had to make identical corrections to files that had just been uploaded (example #1 of 6), which illustrates the fact that, in the long term, nothing can prevent the same errors from occurring again and again. And whilst, in this specific example, the error has virtually no impact – since it does not affect search results, which can be filtered by file format regardless of the categorisation per file format – this serves above all to underline the fact that maintaining a certain distance from contributions is, quite rightly, considered sensible. Details such as these, like others, do indeed have a very limited impact and significance. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Today another edit happened that does not fall under the scope of "fixing unambiguous errors," made just ten minutes after I edited the file: Revision of File:.460 Steyr cartridge-full model MNr°0001.stl ForeverFlying (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@ForeverFlying: Seems to me to be somthing that doesn't matter much either way, but since it's not your upload: are you saying he should stay away from third-partly files that you've edited? That seems to me to be a bit much to ask. Keeping away from your own uploads is reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: No, I'm not suggesting that. Rather, it feels like a continuation of COM:HOUNDING because 1. the edit directly targeted an edit I made on the page, and wasn't just adding new content or correcting different content, and 2. the edit was made just 10 minutes after my own edit. To use the verbiage of the Commons policy, I perceive it to be "following another user around" (unless it is just an extreme coincidence that he edited the exact same file only 10 minutes after my own) and "tendentiousness" (as the edit targets specifically the text that I added, and not for the purpose of resolving an uncontroversial error). ForeverFlying (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@ForeverFlying: your revert is exactly equally tendentious, and your case here would have been stronger if you had brought the issue here without doing that yourself. Still, @Kontributor 2K: it appears this is not a file you had ever edited before. If you are not following ForeverFlying around, what exactly had you come in right behind him and change this? - Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: the invisible category Created with Blender is in my watchlist, for I already worked in it concerning the 1st subcategory Coats of arms created with Blender, if it's necessary to justify the fact that a specific category is in my watchlist (nevertheless there are many others that I couldn't justify as easily).

So, I saw in my watchlist the file being removed from the category, following the removal of {{Created with Blender}}, then I thought there was a misuse of w= (which has no effect except visual) since I didn't see a reason to display, in the file information field, "file" rather than the default value, which, in French is "infographie STL" while, indeed, in English it is simply "image"… (I just checked that, maybe it should rather be adjusted in some template instead).

Let's note by the way that if .stl files are not "images", they stand in Category:3D models created with Blender, itself a subcategory of Category:Created with Blender which stands in Category:Images by software used.

I intervened because I didn’t see why it was needed to replace "infographie STL" (fr) with "fichier" (fr), unless there was a misuse, ultimately, I understand that there hasn't been any misuse of the w= and which was made was deliberate; the misunderstanding of my edit comes from the fact that the {{Igen}} output varies depending on the languages used on commons: if in English the default displayed is "This image", in Italian "Questa immagine", in French it is "Cette infographie STL", in Dutch "Dit grafiek", for an example.

So, it is rather the fact that the work on this function of the module, or of a template, has not yet been completed that led to this misunderstanding – and I don't systematically check the internalisation for this kind of details, assuming it has been completed, or not thinking about it at all. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: I would presume, though, that in this process you would have looked at the history or the diff, seen that it was an edit by ForeverFlying, and could have left it alone.

I'd really like to de-escalate this and resolve it with no sanctions on either side, but neither of you is making that easy. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Yes, I could have left it alone, but I thought I was providing some information in a positive way; eventually I was misled by the bad internationalisation.

Next time, I'll think twice. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon: Thank you for your notification; I admit that out of the context it could sound like you describe it.

By the way, I add the link to the said “previous post”: Link. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Even with the context, stop treating others like that. So condescending. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon: It seems that, by “raising the voice”, somehow, and issuing injunctions, you are trying to show the effect that an aggressive behaviour can have on the person one is speaking to. Isn’t that right?

Or, more simply, is this authoritative tone merely a way of emphasising a certain firmness in the remarks? or a way of showing just how outraged one is?

For my part, I wouldn't say that “Welcome to Hugemessland” (i.e. heraldry & vexillology - in case it's necessary to point it out) is condescending, but rather humourous -this out of any context, in addition to the fact that it's can be grasped easily and sure can help to ease the tension - which, by the way, does not seem to be the direction this dialogue is willing to head in. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

My message is clear. Also please be more concise; could have been communicated in 1/8th the words grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

What I see in “the clarity” of the message is that I have a choice between the three options, from which I choose: “this authoritative tone is a way of showing just how outraged one is”, for which I'm sorry - which is not much, I agree. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

You've chosen to double down on obviously poor behavior. This won't be productive anymore, disappointed that you'd consciously choose to treat people badly. Not healthy for you or the community grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Describing my actions as exhibiting "aggressive behavior" and your tone of voice as being "authoritative" are contrary to COM:Assume good faith. None of the files I edited are files you personally uploaded so I still fail to understand why you claim that I am "touching [your] files" (as mentioned in Revision of File:Valle di Cadore-Bandiera.svg). ForeverFlying (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

? Have I described “your actions and my tone of voice” as such?

Did I claim that you were touching my files?

This was mainly notifying that, on files where usually details are taken care of, your actions were unwelcome, which I clearly reiterated here (last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of my answer).

Let's also remember the context, which is that this diff. message was left following your unverified edits performed the day before, July 3rd, like the one revoked here, in addition to the ones performed by you earlier on the file (seven, from July 4th 06:49)

It might be worth going through the events point by point, in chronological order, to determine exactly what may have led to the ANU, and also, what kind of responses or feedback one is hoping to get, and on which basis.

Let's also remember that initially, the focus was on COM:HOUNDING rather that COM:Assume good faith.

By the way, still on File:Valle di Cadore-Bandiera.svg, incidentally, I have corrected the source field for internalisation compatibilty (diff.), and, as usual, I assume good faith, which means that from my point of view the intervention I corrected, as well as the two previous, were made for objective reasons, by someone who happened to be passing by, with the primary goal of bringing about an improvement.

For my part, I have rather nothing to add to what I already said in the previous ANU and still I'd be glad to answer any question.

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Kontributor, your tone in those messages has been inappropriate and you've not acknowledged that at all. don't approach my files this isn't how you speak to someone who is trying to work with you in good faith. I understand the context, I still don't think it's justified.

Please, please, please, just be nicer. Not complicated. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon: one wonders what you're doing here, since you are not an admin and you were not pinged. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to be here? Is my point above wrong? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If one looks at what was said on Wikimedia community Discord public wall between 7/4/26 9:54AM and 7/5/26 7:47PM (several exchanges) – and which did not go unseen by anyone – one can see that some other contributors gave their opinions too, without actually posting here – opinions which, incidentally, were far from inciting to conflict, from throwing fuel to the fire, and also, following that, from proofreading and approving in advance, like you did (7/5/26 6:59PM), the message that was posted on my talk page –, third party opinions, addressed to the complainant, which are as follows:

1. 7/5/26 2:02AM: “they probably are watching your edits. As for correcting the parts they feel may be inaccurate that’s not fun when you are dealing with someone running a script since obviously the script is going to be faster than they are. So yeah overall its more a passive aggressive "fix your script" rather than anything else while tiptoeing around accusing you of running an unauthorised bot”
2. 7/5/26 2:07AM: “Their concern is likely that you are just clicking ok without looking which is functionality running an unauthorised bot. SVGs aren't really my turf though so their may be details that I'm missing”
3. 7/5/26 7:40PM: “Honestly, that doesn't really sound like hounding, more just a disagreement”
4. 7/5/26 7:47PM: “And your changes seem objectively wrong here and you haven't really made any attempt to resolve the dispute through talking to the other user”

The latter being the last in-topic public post; incidentally, it was ignored.

So, indeed, everyone is allowed to be everywhere, and anyone could come here to give their opinion, but this is an admin board, and what is required here is for an administrator to step-in.

And for the moment, nobody here has asked for your opinion.

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yet, I am here giving my opinion and it's one you should listening to. You're excessively aggressive and doubling down on it. You should know better.

I repeat, and this is the last thing I'll say: This won't be productive anymore, disappointed that you'd consciously choose to treat people badly. Not healthy for you or the community grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Besides the fact that “it's the last thing you'll say”, it's, above all, your opinion, and your opinion is something that nobody here has asked for.

Personally, my opinion is that attempting to steer a debate away from the underlying issues and throw fuel to the fire is not commendable.

That being said, this is just my opinion, so it seems fair to wonder whether it belongs here. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Non-admins are perfectly welcome to comment on admin noticeboards. No one, admin or otherwise, is particularly welcome to bludgeon other users here, and Kontributor 2K, that sure feels to me like what you are doing. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I’ve made a note of that, and I truly apologise if what you describe is felt.

As for the point raised by grapesurgeon, I truly apologise to ForeverFlying: whatever the context this should not occur. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy you apologized but the sudden 180° despite denying everything hard earlier... Please reflect on this. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I truly apologise on the point you raised, but in no way I agree on the qualfication of COM:HOUNDING, and Commons:Assume good faith.

After the 11 edits I reverted on 7/3/26 (the first 11 on the list currently on my talk page), a new edit was made, on 7/4/26 at 06:49, on a file in a category I was working on, and which, as I had edited the file the previous day at 11:11 and flagged it for correction, was on my watchlist; then, the day after, further contributions appeared in my watchlist due to a change in categorisation following the modification of the Igen code (diff. #1, diff. #2).

As these changes were problematic, I naturally checked whether any other files had been modified in this way by the user, and on that basis I took action on the last one, since indeed another one had been modified (3x diff.).

As a matter of routine, whenever I spot a problematic edit, I check it and correct it if necessary (example), and I even batch correct them if several similar edits appear in the user's recent history (exemple #2).

However, when it comes to files that have already been checked – whether by me or not –, that is, files where an Igen code is already present – that is to say, files on which, in theory, it is unnecessary to run a script again, a script which, moreover, appears to be unmaintained and causes errors – reporting the errors goes beyond simply correcting them, especially if the user hasn't bothered to check that the script is working properly and hasn't even noticed its errors. In light of this, it seems perfectly normal to me, at a moment, to intervene on a file's talk page as well as the user's one, especially since the problematic edits occur in a very short lapse of time, and once it became clear that the initial reversions had no effect at all.

So I wouldn't call this “hounding” – but I could be wrong.

I wouldn't speak of “not assuming good faith” either, since I didn't assume that the correction this edit was about, among others, was intended to do wrong, otherwise I wouldn't have opened the related discussion. I didn't assume that the 11 edits from the 7/3/26 I first reverted were intended to do wrong either.

That being said, it was only after you intervened here that I went to check the discussions on Discord, where I discovered that my diff. comments, or attitude, could actually “freak out” others, which is also why it has not been possible to establish a dialogue. And although I apologised, it indeed can't repair anything.

That said, I “assume good faith”, even though I suspect a bit that the last 3 reversions listed on my talk page, that concern edits that were made in the end, i.e. between the 7/4/26 19:20 and the 7/5/26 02:04, could have been with the intention of provoking a reaction, especially given that I had already checked two of those files and that the errors could never be left as is.

But on this point, I would say that my opinion, or what I'd suspect, is irrelevant, partly because if it was a trap, I foolishly fell into it, and ultimately the aim was mainly to highlight the feeling initially evoked by the 11 consecutive reversals, that is to say, the fact that the user [Kontributor K2] “appears passive-aggressive in nature” – or at least “their comments”, but it doesn't make much difference –.

One could say that I could have been communicating in 1/8th the words, to that I would reply: absolutely not, sorry. But what is important is that I eventually led to the central point: the “passive-aggressive in nature” – isn't it?

I admit that I'm sometimes a little careless in exchanges, which I sometimes find myself viewing as the legitimate counterpart to a certain carelessness I often notice in the file edits I review or come across.

It's very hard to excuse, given that the focus is generally on the exchanges, and the procedures, rather than the substance, the object - “generally” also means: without sarcasm and without trying to make a defense here.

In conclusion, I would say that we'd like everyone, in a way, to be as good at acting as they are at speaking, and everyone to be as good at speaking as they are at acting, but this could only happen in a perfect world.

Thank you for your attention. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Last comment—it is rude to be overly verbose in writing. Communication has two sides of social obligation; the speaker needs to speak/write in a way that they can be reasonably well understood, and the listener needs to make a good effort to understand what is being communicated. When you write verbosely it makes it hard for others to understand what you're communicating. Nobody wants to read all of that. You didn't meet your obligation, so why should others? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Others should try and meet their obligations, even if they don't feel the person they're responding to did, because humans have a natural bias to give ourselves, and our allies, the benefit of the doubt and deprive that from people we're arguing with.

It is generally not rude to be overly verbose in writing; it is unhelpful, but so are a lot of annoying habits people have. It's a lot less rude to point out that someone's writing style is making it harder for people to read their posts then it is to elevate that into "being rude" and making it a personal fault.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I do give people the benefit, but here my patience with this user has run thin. When people knowingly inconvenience others I consider it rude. I had already asked them to be more concise and they wrote like a 10 paragraph essay. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I truly apologise on the point you raised, but in no way I agree on the qualfication of COM:HOUNDING, and Commons:Assume good faith.

After the 11 edits I reverted on 7/3/26 (the first 11 on the list currently on my talk page), a new edit was made, on 7/4/26 at 06:49, on a file in a category I was working on, and which, as I had edited the file the previous day at 11:11 and flagged it for correction, was on my watchlist; then, the day after, further contributions appeared in my watchlist due to a change in categorisation following the modification of the Igen code (diff. #1, diff. #2).

As these changes were problematic, I naturally checked whether any other files had been modified in this way by the user, and on that basis I took action on the last one, since indeed another one had been modified (3x diff.).

As a matter of routine, whenever I spot a problematic edit, I check it and correct it if necessary (example), and I even batch correct them if several similar edits appear in the user's recent history (exemple [sic] #2).

However, when it comes to files that have already been checked – whether by me or not –, that is, files where an Igen code is already present – that is to say, files on which, in theory, it is unnecessary to run a script again, a script which, moreover, appears to be unmaintained and causes errors – reporting the errors goes beyond simply correcting them, especially if the user hasn't bothered to check that the script is working properly and hasn't even noticed its errors. In light of this, it seems perfectly normal to me, at a moment, to intervene on a file's talk page as well as the user's one, especially since the problematic edits occur in a very short lapse of time, and once it became clear that the initial reversions had no effect at all.

So I wouldn't call this “hounding” – but I could be wrong.

I had no malicious intent with the edits I made. I did not even know who you were before I made those edits. Literally all I was doing was going through Adobe files with CDATA blocks and Large SVG files, seeing if I could maybe reduce file sizes, and using the script to see if there were any errors in the SVG code. While I have admitted that I should have paid closer attention to the results of that script, in no way did I make any changes with the express goal of messing up files you had edited recently. I believe merely that many of the files you edit are likely SVG files that also belong to those categories, especially of maps, flags, and coats of arms.

As per hounding guidelines, "Hounding on Wikimedia Commons (or 'wikihounding') is the act of singling out editors by joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I believe this applies to the quick succession of messages you posted on my talk page as well as other file talk pages, and the sheer number of reverts done to my edits in the span of those two days. "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of local policy," which I believe many of your reversions go beyond that scope. For example, while ensuring the correct SVG tool is displayed within {{Igen}} would be fixing an unambiguous error, reverting edits (which may include both erroneous and accurate information) in their entirety, or reverting edits because one personally objects to the inclusion of information accurate at the time of the edit (such as filling out the |author= field of {{Igen}} or changing ‎<gallery>...‎</gallery> to {{Gallery}}) are not unambiguous errors. Moreover, the persistent comments that I am "touching your files" (despite me never having edited pages of files you uploaded) or otherwise being careless with my edits are in alignment with the elements of hounding.

That said, I “assume good faith”, even though I suspect a bit that the last 3 reversions listed on my talk page, that concern edits that were made in the end, i.e. between the 7/4/26 19:20 and the 7/5/26 02:04, could have been with the intention of provoking a reaction, especially given that I had already checked two of those files and that the errors could never be left as is.

But on this point, I would say that my opinion, or what I'd suspect, is irrelevant, partly because if it was a trap, I foolishly fell into it, and ultimately the aim was mainly to highlight the feeling initially evoked by the 11 consecutive reversals, that is to say, the fact that the user [Kontributor K2] “appears passive-aggressive in nature” – or at least “their comments”, but it doesn't make much difference –.

— Kontributor 2K, in: Administrators' noticeboard

This statement is contradictory. How can one possibly assume good faith from a person who they believe "intended to provoke a reaction" or intentionally make someone "fall into a trap"? The belief that someone intends to provoke a reaction is fundamentally based on the idea that they act with malicious intent.

I feel that discussing the "assumption of good faith" is relevant because the assumption of good faith is critical to dispute resolution with the other user, a discussion that is required before posting on the administrators' noticeboard.

One could say that I could have been communicating in 1/8th the words, to that I would reply: absolutely not, sorry. But what is important is that I eventually led to the central point: the “passive-aggressive in nature” – isn't it?

I admit that I'm sometimes a little careless in exchanges, which I sometimes find myself viewing as the legitimate counterpart to a certain carelessness I often notice in the file edits I review or come across.

It's very hard to excuse, given that the focus is generally on the exchanges, and the procedures, rather than the substance, the object - “generally” also means: without sarcasm and without trying to make a defense here.

In conclusion, I would say that we'd like everyone, in a way, to be as good at acting as they are at speaking, and everyone to be as good at speaking as they are at acting, but this could only happen in a perfect world.

— Kontributor 2K, in: Administrators' noticeboard

To be clear, I myself have never said that you must communicate in a less verbose manner, and indeed believe it is valuable that users are free to communicate in as few or as many words as they feel appropriate to communicate their ideas. However, using "careless[ness] in exchanges" as a counter to "carelessness…in the file edits" does not convey the assumption of good faith required to resolve such disputes. No one is demanding that every response be perfect, but one can still recognize their shortcomings and examine ways to communicate in a more collegial manner. ForeverFlying (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@ForeverFlying:

• 1 Per hounding, I read: "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if that following is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior."

I wouldn't say that this applies, since the modified files were in my watchlist or showed up in it following a categorisation change, and the goal was not cause distress, and if the actions were ill-advised in terms of their approach, they were not made for no constructive reason, but rather with the aim of warning of a problem, one of these —and by no means the least— being the non-verification of the results of one's own scripted contributions, which goes beyond a simple value correction, especially if the files already contained an Igen code.

What's more, it's a standard practice for me to check a user's recent history if a problematic contribution shows up in my watchlist, and the discussions opened on the 2 files talk-pages (also listed here) and on yours, were intended to attempt clarifying precise points.

After, I admit that this one is unforgivable, wheter or not, at 08:20AM GMT, it just followed the editwar.

That being said, as for the examples, the change from <gallery> to {{G}} is purely incidental in regard to the fact that the script also changed the categorisation by replacing s=wm by s=m; also, there are many examples where the {{Igen}} code currently doesn't match the SVG tool used in the last file revision, mainly because it would remove the file from the user category the code is associated with, like here, or ultimately display unexact informations (for an example, on this file page it would not be advisable to replace image=Jp with image=Jp/tool~T, since this file was actually "created by this user using Inkscape", in addition to the fact that this would create an additional category which does not match the user's habits; also, there are many files that were optimized by a third party tool and that the scripts would as such tag as created by an unknown tool, and on which the users have chosen to keep the Igen code matching the software they're working with.

Then, the "don't touch my files", doesn't mean that you have edited pages of files I uploaded, but is rather meant to suggest, instead, that, in some cases, from my point of view, a more circumspect approach may be called for on others' files; this subjective opinion takes into account the scripted edits made the previous day, as well as the 7 previous edits from 7/24 06:49 to 7/24 07:57 GMT, on that file of my watchlist that I had just put in the user's category and flagged as needing correction (diff).

• 2 I'm usually quite naive; for an example, I thought that this was an unexpected contribution that was going my way, in good faith, incidentally happening after this message on your talk page ("By the way it's rather {{PD-shape}} than anything else"), while it actually happened following exchanges that took place elsewhere (Discord 7/4/26 12:42PM GMT).

So, generally, being aware that I am rather naive, whilst I'm not paranoid, the thought that things might not be quite what they seem does sometimes cross my mind, as well as the fact that, in some cases, there are many things that can be more effective than my impulsive reactions.

That being, if "the assumption of good faith is critical to dispute resolution with the other user, a discussion that is required before posting on the administrators' noticeboard", I think I started a discussion here – and it was in good faith –, but I can also understand that, given the context, the only response was to ignore that message; also, I could have just left the files as they were, knowing that anyway, this kind of errors (inaccurate "subject", i.e. s=m instead of s=wm) appears on many files, and that in that case, User:Ato 01 would irretrievably have fixed the problematic template use with duplicate argument. That said, if I decided to correct it anyway, it's probably because I had already gone through the last file.

Now, what I'm aware of, or what I feel, is irrelevant here, since the only thing to consider, at last, is actually the "passive-aggressive-in-nature" aspect, and if I were trying to say that it's more about the surface than the deep nature, that would also be out of place, and I acknowledge that my communication has its shortcomings, on what, indeed, I have regrets.

And, come to think of it, not just for the case mentioned here. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done I don't think this calls for any administrative action. It looks like both Kontributor 2K and ForeverFlying are inclined to ramp their conflict down rather than up, and like Kontributor 2K, at least, has a better idea of how to do so than when this started.

I strongly advise both parties to try to do this right, not to expect perfection from the other, and to try to be reasonable about this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Kani Beat

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

Continues to upload copyvios after final warning. Jonteemil (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Ce sont des icones de fédération dont j'ai eu le droit de les téléverser, l'objectif est de mettre en avant nos fédération locales. Kani Beat (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Amenazas legales

EduuxNS16 CL realizó amenazas de tomar acciones legales si no se borraba una imagen que atribuye a su autoría. Cabe destacar que la cuenta fue creada hace dos horas (de este mensaje) solo con ese fin. Aroblesm (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The threat was in Special:Permalink/1251176814. Please block EduuxNS16 CL (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) per COM:NPLT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done indefinitely blocked Bedivere (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Transphobic user

• Callofduty49er (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Indef is likely necessary here Yacàwotçã (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Camiyabril

• User: Camiyabril (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Memoria de los artistas 2026.png after block for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Only one copyvio after last block, but this was so blatant, that I decided to block the user. Taivo (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

RaiymbekZh

RaiymbekZh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) recent copyvios after three long term blocks. Quick1984 (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a year (previous blocks were all shorter). Taivo (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Ayratayrat

• User: Ayratayrat (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Creating bad deletion requests like Special:Diff/1252220484 after warnings and 3 blocks.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Only one bad DR, but considering other circumstances (removing block notices from own talkpage), I decided to block the user. Taivo (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Johnj1995

• User: Johnj1995 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: In unactioned Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 127#Johnj1995, the user promised to "no longer make any edits to invalid deletion requests." They broke that promise in Special:Diff/1230468797, which was in response to invalid deletion request Special:Permalink/1230369012, and they did not fix the base page. This was after notification of block warnings for making invalid deletion requests and a block.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

GeniusElephant678

• User: GeniusElephant678 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user keeps uploading fictitious flags of Algerian provinces to Commons (this is not the first user to make such uploads). Despite my explanations — "there are no flags for Algerian provinces"— and my requests to have these files deleted, this user continues uploading them. There are 59 provinces in Algeria (soon 69) I am not going to spend time requesting the deletion of all these flags; I have already made such requests several times in previous years.

Could you issue a warning to this user? Poudou99 (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Poudou99: I warned them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Onmjk742

• User: Onmjk742 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Abusing TPA, in Arabic.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Already done thanks to Taivo!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Mary Joanna

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

Per the advice of EugeneZelenko, I'm bringing this here. Mary Joanna reverted my edit on the user page of Moataz1997, the edit being a fix of one of my bot's prior edits which was reverted because it broke a table. Their edit summary was "don't edit other user pages, stop it now", when I asked them about the revert on their talk page, they reverted my message with the edit summary "you should accept reverts like Special:Diff/1252111844 and don't edit user pages". I believe this is disruptive, given my bot previously edited their user page, and after I stated my opinion on the replacements they threatened to report me/my bot to COM:AN/V if it edits their user page, and their failure to provide a substantive reason to revert the edit reinstating the bot edit without issues. Tenshi Hinanawi (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

self report. see User_talk:Tenshi_Hinanawi#Your_bot_editing_my_talk_page_archive., his edits are unwanted. and this is clearly an editwar from Tenshi Hinanawi against the user page owner. --ɱ 21:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

As I had explained earlier in my message to you, "It seems apparent that the revert was because of the malfunction, not because they didn't want it." Tenshi Hinanawi (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mary Joanna: That is an archive of the user talk page allocated for communicating with you; it is not yours. Tenshi Hinanawi's bot was authorized by a Bureaucrat and Admin here to make such edits at Commons:Bots/Requests/TenshiBot.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Wait, that was a user page, but it wasn't yours. Who elected you as the defender of the user pages?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The admin wrote: "If there are no objections". The objections you can find here. If a bot causes this trouble, the botflag should be reconsidered. And do you really protect editwar like this against the will? --22:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Aside: personally I prefer <center> even though it is now deprecated by the current HTML standard, but I see the value in having the site conform to the standard. - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

the site is not conformed to the standard. for the User:Tenshi_Hinanawi-page it shows zero lint errors. but this is not true: https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser%3ATenshi_Hinanawi - The LintErrors-tool is only good for bossing others around in their user area: User:Tenshi Hinanawi is doing editwar about his bot edits. I'm going sleeping right now, it's late in germany. --ɱ 22:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC) PS: there is princip like en:Error-tolerant design. browsers don't have a problem with <center>. there is no need to remove this from user pages.

See this history. this diff is another edit war by User:Tenshi Hinanawi --ɱ 22:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

My revert was because there was no valid reason given to revert, and neither bots' edits were errant. The second edit was to prevent the bot from editing the page, but the user reverted it, which means the bot is not prevented from editing. It's impossible to follow both "do not edit this page" and "do not let your bot edit this page" when the method my bot excludes pages is via the {{Bots}} template that's on all major wikis. Tenshi Hinanawi (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Bull-Doser July 2026

• User: Bull-Doser (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: More: Another copyio at File:Walmart Coming Soon To Carrefour De La Pointe.JPG; low-quality photos at File:Chevrolet Express (City Of Beaconsfield).jpg, File:'13 Acura MDX -- Front (MIAS '13).jpg, and File:'05 Chevrolet Uplander The407Handyman.jpg since being told to stop in 2006; and discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Walmart Coming Soon To Carrefour De La Pointe.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chevrolet Express (City Of Beaconsfield).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:'13 Acura MDX -- Front (MIAS '13).jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:'05 Chevrolet Uplander The407Handyman.jpg after Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 128#Bull-Doser yet again. Unresponsiveness to concerns on user talk page.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

So what action are you suggesting? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: The files you linked were all uploaded over a decade ago (and the first image was deleted for quality, not copyvio). Are there any issues with recent uploads? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Most recent uploads are fine. I don't understand why this is at AN/U. @Jeff G., can you stop trying to get Bull-Doser blocked? There is no merit to this type of complaint. Cutlass^Ciera 02:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Xeronic2

A sock of globally blocked PageTheEditor, who has been a cross-wiki vandal for a while, specializing in school shootings, left this on my talkpage and put it back. The WMF has been notified. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Now blocked. They made some abusive page creations while they were running around that will need to be deleted, and some revdeletions too. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Everything is now revision deleted for both this account and Xeronic3, which they created after I blocked Xeronic2. Someone else is going to need to take this to SRG, though, because I can't do that on my phone. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done reported at meta:Special:PermanentLink/30869679#Global_lock_for_Xeronic_never_dies. - Jmabel ! talk 03:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Ray033381327 and suspected sockpuppets

• Ray033381327 (talk • contribs • Luxo • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ray5506728 (talk • contribs • Luxo • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Amyalwaysthebest (talk • contribs • Luxo • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ediie888 (talk • contribs • Luxo • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

The user is suspected of uploading a school logo constantly using sock puppets based on the revision history at ms:special:history/Sekolah_Menengah_Jenis_Kebangsaan_Chi_Wen. ~2026-41199-89 (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I do imagine there is a problem with sockpuppeting here, and there may be a scope argument against these many variants of one logo, but I'm not at all sure there are any copyvios here: the logo is pretty simple, and looks like a simple enough combination of presumably PD elements that it may be well below TOO almost anywhere. Thought experiment: if someone created a virtually identical logo for an entity in a different enough field that trademark considerations were irrelevant, would there be any basis for a copyright case here? - Jmabel ! talk 06:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Tyman9348

• User: Tyman9348 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user is extensively uploading image stills from Youtube videos of living people (and putting them in articles on en.wikipeida), without any evidence being provided that the videos in question were released under a Commons-compatible license. User has been warned before about uploading images with invalid/misleading copyright statuses, and a check of one video an image was captured from did not show a CC release, I suspect the others are likely all the same way. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• User (on en.wiki) acknowledged the issue and stated they would speedy delete the images uploaded this way. - The Bushranger (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger: Thankfully, after posting in en:special:diff/1366976682, they seem to be following through (at least on enwiki). Please give some thought to withdrawal when they have followed through here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)