Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

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

^{Translate this page}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~41
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• No license since 9 January 2024: ~10
• No permission since 9 January 2024: ~122
• No source since 9 January 2024: ~33
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-01: ~117

Other:

• Duplicates: ~170
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~20
• Other speedy deletions: ~85
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~10

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~44
• Interface admin: ~14
• Technical: ~2
• Template protection: ~29
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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

---

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

---

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

Note

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

User:Kallerna

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

This is to ask for review recent (sysop) actions by Kallerna.

a) I had blocked Karelj for a duration of 3 days for uncivil comments. Latest was this one, which comes as very disrespectful towards the photographer, however Karelj is well known for other disrespectful FPC "reviews" such as this one, for which I already had warned him, which he opted to ignore completely.

b) Several users agreed on obvious incivility of such comments, such as: Aristeas, SHB2000, XRay, Radomianin.

c) Nonetheless, Kallerna came "out of nothing" and unblocked the user -- completely out of process, without seeking any discussion, neither with me nor on Admins' noticeboard, also there wasn't even an unblock request on Karelj's talk page.

d) The unblock comment was "Groundless block [...] Silencing user who do not agree with you?", which I find libelous obviously false and uncivil, as neither did I ever discuss with Karelj in any sort of disagreement, nor did I vote or otherwise comment in the same FPC nomination whatsoever.

e) Similarly poor was their comment on my talk page ("Please do not block users who do not share the same views as you", etc.).

f) Further discussion on my talk page with Kallerna on this matter turned as useless.

g) Therefore, Kallerna's behaviour should be reviewed in terms of: 1) incivility -- due to false claim of myself blocking a user because of contentual disagreement; and 2) obvious violation of Commons:Blocking policy, in particular: "To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block".

The sysop Kallerna I'm going to notify on this thread.

Thanks --A.Savin 22:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 to what A.Savin said. I also find Karelj's refusal to communicate a major red flag – not just for the above but also for "But the image here looks, like from child, who receivd his first photoaparate and learns, how to operate with it". Kallerna should have discussed this beforehand, instead of unilaterally unblocking and making spurious accusations. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved here, as I am already part of the discussions about incivility on that nomination page. I just wanted to make people aware that Kallerna is one of only 3 people opposing this FPC nomination (which has more than 20 support votes), so when judging the possibility of a conflict on interest one should consider this fact. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This – thanks for mentioning it, as that too hasn't been mentioned before. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that 1. Karelj's comments are quite rude, if not disrespectful, 2. Kallerna's unblock is out of process. If you don't agree with a block, please discuss it instead wheel warring. Yann (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Yann, thanks for your comments. I have explained my actions in the user talk pages of A.Savin and Karelj. There is also a lot of conversation about the possible rudeness of Karelj in the nom page. I reverted the block due to it being inadequat, as pointed by fellow admistrator Christian Ferrer. —kallerna (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: Would you also like to explain your possible conflict of interest as mentioned by Kritzolina above? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: I wouldn't have blocked Karelj at this point, but your hastily unblocking is nevertheless an issue. It sends the wrong message. Yann (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, I should have contacted another administrator here and let someone else revert the block. However, the user had been wrongfully blocked for two days at that point, so I did not want to wait any longer. —kallerna (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A showcase example how not to address a complaint about one's own behaviour. --A.Savin 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Kallerna, if you snarkily try to dodge attempting my question (or A.Savin's) by Dec 2, I will start a nomination to desysop you. Sysops need to be held accountable to their actions; not answering questions raised towards you about your potential misuse of tools is a red flag and is unsysop-like behaviour. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I would support that. Kallerna is good photographer, but definitely not good for the sysop team. As a (possibly offtopic) side-note, look at their talk page (the QI promotions). They have uploaded masses of images of contemporary buildings in South Korea where there is no FoP. Many have been deleted already. A sysop should have at least a very basic knowledge what to upload on Commons and what not. Kallerna seems not to have this knowledge. And this arrogancy is the final straw. Thanks --A.Savin 13:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: courtesy ping – 2 days left to answer my/A.Savin's question before I will start a desysop nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

1 day left, Kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've been travelling the last week all over Europe (at the moment at airport) and have not seen these comments. I'm sorry, but I do not know why you have this motivation to de-admin me. All I did was unblocking wrongfully blocked user. You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you. I'm here to contribute to the project, not to discuss with trolls. —kallerna (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna Are you calling SHB2000 a troll here? Kritzolina (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's some serious baseless accusations right there, Kallerna. "I do not know why you have this motivation to de-admin me" – I want Commons to be a project with sysops that has sysops who know how to use their tools properly. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Currently both sides seems to be rather over provocative. You all should cool down and try not to the escalate situation. -- Zache (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be useful to know exactly how I'm provocative, however at least I didn't insult a long-term contributor and Wikivoyage admin a troll. --A.Savin 14:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

In this case you were from start threatening with consequenses [1], [2]. From that things did go in couple days from mishandled blocking/unblocking to deadmin vote. However, being admin not about competition, but co-operation and i would say that more fruitful course of action would have been just to explain why you gave the block and ask why it was lifted without any threatening. So that there would be understanding between admins why they did what they did. The discussion could have taken so much time that original three days block would have been irrelevant, but it doesn't afaik really matter. If initially blocked user continues bad behaviour there would have been new blocks because that, if not then problem was solved anyway. --Zache (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"Silencing user who do not agree with you" is clearly disrespectful, uncivil comment, especially given the fact that it's also false. Kallerna, you still didn't response how come that I'm "silencing users". This block log comment should be hidden at the very least. --A.Savin 13:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Could a third admin please hide this comment? Thanks --A.Savin 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done I hid the edit summary. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. --A.Savin 17:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@A.Savin, Kritzolina, Yann, and Abzeronow: Since it's December 2 and Kallerna did not respond, I started a desysop nomination which can be found at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship). Apologies in advance for any formatting errors (I'm new to this process). Pinging everyone involved in this discussion. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand that one may see the edit summary as insensitive, but might it be worth keeping it public for the duration of the de-adminship discussion be worthwhile so that the log can be seen by participants? @A.Savin and Abzeronow: Would either of you have an objection to this sort of thing? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, temporarily unhiding is no problem. --A.Savin 03:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with temporarily unhiding if it is necessary. Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Per request/consent. GMG^talk 01:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the de-admin request as inadmissible per policy. Commons:Administrators/De-adminship states: "Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal;". From the above discussion I see nothing that can be called consensus. Personal comment: There should no room for uncivilty, there should be more blocks for uncivilty, and such blocks shall not be removed. Supporting a hostile environment should not be seen as acceptable conduct of anybody, especially not of an admin. --Krd 14:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, Commons really lets sysops get away with such misuse of tools – I thought it was pretty clear from this discussion that Kallerna's behaviour was inappropriate. Oh well... --SHB2000 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, we can of course accuse Kallerna of lifting the block and ignoring questions on purpose, but we can hardly accuse anyone here on Commons of not having commented in this thread. --A.Savin 04:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit I severely overreacted when I wrote that comment above. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think A. Savin hit the nail right on the head in the discussion above: «Kallerna is good photographer, but definitely not good for the sysop team.». Well, sure. I mean, Kallerna might also be an excellent driver, a keen model railroader, or a loving spouse — but it doesn’t matter. Being a good photographer is only relevant for Commons in as much as they publish their good photography with a suitable license. It doesn’t follow necessarily that a good photographer would also be a good curator of photographs and other media, let alone a good sysop thereof. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I think A. Savin's block was harsh but within bounds of policy as Karelj was being disruptive by their behavior of making disrespectful comments. Kallerna's unblock was totally against policy, sends the wrong message as Yann said above, and I'm also concerned that they show no contrition for the unblock or the lack of communication beforehand. They also have not addressed that their COI in the matter. I also concur with Krd that we cannot support a hostile environment. Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• @A.Savin: I would only suggest that the original post needs reworded per COM:NLT. There are many ways we can express our view without using legal terms like libel. GMG^talk 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • • Corrected. --A.Savin 02:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Having had a bit more time to look into the matter... No, one admin should not reverse another's actions without discussion unless it is egregious misuse of the tools that leaves room for little interpretation, something of the type that you start looking for a Steward for an emergency desysoping. I would expect an acknowledgement of this standard as a bare minimum from Kallerna. Having said that, it's a little on-the-nose to be arguing over incivility and the response from A.Savin is "bla bla", which very much comes off in text as being frustrated and not super keen on discussing the issue on equanimous terms. GMG^talk 22:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

In broader terms: undoing a block is almost never (maybe literally never?) an emergency. Unless I'm missing something, in this case the block (whether justified or not) had one more day to run! Commons can do without any individual contributor, myself included, for a day. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: Since you said you were travelling (see above), I waited before writing this. Hopefully you can answer now.

Do you maintain you position, i.e. that your unblocking of Karelj was justified? Also do you apologize for calling SHB2000 a troll? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

+1 GMG^talk 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

+2 --A.Savin 14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

+3. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've been informed privately that Kallerna will be indisposed until at least the end of the holidays. I would suggest that we have a touch of the spirit of the season and recognize that this can be resolved, but that waiting a touch doesn't necessarily constitute a crisis. GMG^talk 20:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo: that's fine with me if Kallerna is genuinely taking a break; there is nothing emergent here if they are not actively using their admin privileges. When they are back, though, this needs to be on the radar. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jmabel here, there's no rush to this. Hopefully, they will answer questions after they come back from their break. Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

    I agree – a lot of people will be on break in the next 3 weeks, myself included. As long as they answer our questions and apologise to A.Savin, that's good with me. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    • Agree with Krd that these tactics more look like "ducking away" rather than like real lack of possibility to respond. Nowadays, even when being on travel (as for most regions of the world esp. Europe), you don't have to stay offline all the time. --A.Savin 15:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

      • @A.Savin: it's not a matter of being unable to access the net, it's a matter of someone choosing to take a break, which is an entirely reasonable thing for someone to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

      Yeah, very reasonable, especially if there are pending complaints about you and you don't have any arguments left in your defence, except "I don't discuss with trolls". --A.Savin 02:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

      I agree. I'm only a little sympathetic because often I don't have internet access while travelling and plan these months beforehand, but I want a definitive date from Kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

      But Kallerna, could you give us a rough date of when you will be back? --SHB2000 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

      • @SHB2000: Given that Kallerna literally hasn't edited any WMF project since 3 December, it is very unlikely that they will even see your question until they are back. Certainly they are doing no harm while absent. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As this seems to take indeed longer, I'm adding a 30 day archive blocker in code here -> (). Best regards --Schlurcher (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

On enwiki it's sometimes labeled "ANI flu". DMacks (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I laughed my ass off when I read that article (and found w:Wikipedia:Oops Defence). SHB2000 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Counterpart

Hi everyone, it seems that my answer is needed here. First of all, I want to apologize everyone involved this waste of time - this is not the way we should spend time on Commons. I also apologize SHB2000 for my choice of words, I should have not called you a troll. I however still wonder your motives to use so much energy on this matter: I suggest focusing on more positive and constructive matters.

So to the case here. Karelj made a controversial comment, and he was blocked by A.Savin. Not everybody thought the comment was evil [3]. I unblocked Karelj after two days of block, and did it without discussing about the matter or asking someone else to do the unblocking. This was obviously a mistake. However, some users agreed on lifting the block and Karelj did only beneficial contributions to Commons while unblocked.

Then I guess we are in the actual start of the problems discussed here. I told A.Savin that I lifted the block, and got quite rude replies (and also removal of comments). I did not want to waste everyones time, and I was passive. This was another mistake.

I see it rather odd that most participants here see controversial block with rude comments less harmful to the project than unblocking active editor. And I also want to emphasize that I do not agree with Karelj on most matters - I only reverted the block because I thought it was inadequate. And like said I should have not done it without discussing about it first. —kallerna (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No satisfactory statement for me. The fact that this "waste of time" (which is actually true) had to be gone through we owe only you, Kallerna.

And I also want to emphasize that I do not agree with Karelj on most matters... Let me reveal a secret -- I *do* agree with Karelj on most matters (at least on FPC), I just don't find it okay at all the way he writes it down, including shallow and often disrespectful comments, poor English, etc. So, here we go again: how did the block have anything to do with disagreement, as you noted in the unblock comment? Kallerna, may I finally have an answer please? --A.Savin 14:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I see, that was also incorrect assumption by me, I'm sorry. The comment was unnecessary. —kallerna (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I am a bit confused by what you think is rude and what is acceptable on Commons, Kallerna. On a scale of 1 to 10 - how rude was A.Savin's reply to you after lifting the block? And how would you place Karelj's comment that led to the block on that scale? Kritzolina (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Both are low on your scale, and either of those comments is worth of blocking the user. It is also noteworthy that the photographer herself was not offended, but the professionally offended around. The reason why I mention the coarseness of A.Savin is purely due to the fact he blocked another user due rude comments. —kallerna (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kallerna: I cannot even guess what "the professionally offended around" means. - Jmabel ! talk 06:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I undestand it in this context like this: Other people in the community, those who are more sensitive or vigilant about offensive content, took issue with the comments. -- Zache (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And where do you see a comment like "professionally offended" on this scale? I actually would love to hear numbers ... Kritzolina (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I also don't see any satisfactory statement. You explicitly pointed out that you were not personally involved, but you are also not an admin who is generally active in blocking or unblocking users. What was your business in removing this block, overriding the rationale of an admin who is generally active in blocking or unblocking users? --Krd 09:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocking an active user should not be made without discussion. Default position should be unblock, not block? Generally I find it again odd that blocking an active user without discussion is ok, but unblocking is not. You are correct that I am not a active admin, but I have done my share of blocking vandals in other projects. —kallerna (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Krd. --A.Savin 15:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

+1 to A.Savin. At least thank you for the apology, kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

If you were wondering why I'm spending so much time on this issue – well, that's because I want Commons to be a place where admins actually use their tools properly; not a place where admins get a snarky layer of protection for wheel-warring. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears there is no more feedback, so it's time to conclude? --Krd 15:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like this thread isn't going anywhere. Killarnee (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Krd and Killarnee: It looks to me like immediately below there is a pretty strong consensus that we should have a discussion on possible deadminship for User:Kallerna. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Krd 20:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Yes, anyway 14 support + 3 oppose votes would be a successful result if this were an RfA, so despite weak participation we can assume consensus. Pinging SHB2000 and Jeff G. As said, I would support desysop although this is kind of a borderline case to me -- which is the reason that this time I wouldn't like to start such a desysop procedure myself -- however only Kallerna and no one else we owe the fact that this actually pretty minor issue had to come as far; so yes, after that half-hearted apologies I still stand by my opinion that Kallerna is a miscast as a Commons admin. Actually, it would be WAY better if Kallerna would spare us the timewaste and resign voluntarily. Thanks --A.Savin 22:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So, are we good to make the second de-adminship discussion? --SHB2000 (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, I'd support. --A.Savin 13:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Reading between the lines of special:diff/838734061, a Admin should close the following section so someone may start the second de-adminship discussion. I am hesitant to even close the following section because I opened it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the desysop procedure should be started first, and then subsequently this ANU thread be closed; similarly as in the 1989 case. --A.Savin 15:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@A.Savin: So what is stopping you from starting the second de-adminship discussion?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to make the second as I flopped the first. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Deadminship for User:Kallerna

•  Support. This subsection should clearly show Bureaucrats whether or not there is a consensus because Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship) was deemed "inadmissible".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Had Kallerna written in this statement sth. like "I've been travelling the last week all over Europe, no time to read this discusion, but meanwhile I see that it was my mistake, I shouldn't have unblocked Karelj without discussion, and it is also not true what I said that A.Savin wanted to be silencing a user who disagreed with him, I'm sorry for that", then we could have closed the whole thread straightaway and move on, but seeing what they actually wrote... No way. --A.Savin 16:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Defending uncivil behaviour by being uncivil and overriding normal procedures on the way is not what I expect from an admin. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support as the nominator of the now-invalid thread; what Kritzolina and A.Savin mentioned. Thanks for starting this subsection, Jeff G.! --SHB2000 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not as extreme as A.Savin, but Karelj shouldn't have been unblocked without discussion, and Karelj hasn't even seemed to hear that the edit comment was as much of a problem as the unblock.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support not to discuss with trolls ... ouch Killarnee (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Neutral on de-adminship, but in favor of starting a formal process to discuss it. It doesn't worry me as much that Kallerna did the wrong thing in the first place as that the way they've handled this (including apparently not understanding that non-admins are allowed to participate in this page, and calling another user a "troll" for doing so). If Kallerna believes this was fine on their part, then that's a problem. If they understand at this point that they blew this -- in more than one respect -- then maybe they are liable to grow into the job. - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose GMG^talk 17:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I do not believe this isolated incident rises to the level of a desysop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  At least an acknowledgement from Kallerna would be good, but no, they've yet to acknowledge why their actions were problematic. Had they done so, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose per above. 1989 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment terrible unblock on the basis of both procedure and what I'd call a degree of involvement (karel and kallerna having more or less the same style of participation at fpc, and this being about fpc participation), but to the extent this is about that one unblock I'd say this should be closed with an unequivocal warning. I'd prefer to see a pattern or at least another example of bad judgment with tool use to support here. Stopping short of opposing though, as I think it's reasonable to say "we should have a deadminship conversation" which is all this section is deciding. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Right, "we should have a deadminship conversation".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment What Jmabel said. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per OP and Jmabel. --Daniele Fisichella 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Jalapeño (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Schlurcher (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC) . The following quote shows are huge misunderstanding of Commons policies: You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you. (the part before the comma should be irrelevant)
•  Support Their only block log entry is the one under discussion here, which has a taste on it's own. The attitude shown above, plus ducking away, holiday season or not. --Krd 08:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Per Schlurcher. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral I agree with Jmabel above. I'm not there yet as far as thinking Kallerna should be de-sysopped, but the de-adminship conversation should be allowed to move forward. Abzeronow (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I have been reading this entire conversation for the last one hour and I could not find a "fair acknowledgement" without ifs and buts. KoH makes a sensible statement that this is kind of a rare incident but as SHB2000 has noted a clear acknowledgment from Kallerna is missing, plus per Krd. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I didn't originally think it justified action outside of a slap on the wrist, if even. But if Killarnee supports it themselves then I don't really see any reason not to take the tools away. Plus as others have pointed out it's not like they have acknowledged the issue. It's weird how unwilling admins are to admit they made a mistake sometimes. Totally a self-own. So whatever. Just take the tools away and be done with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Me? Killarnee (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Killarnee: It appears @Adamant1's mistake. Kallerna and Killarnee are too closely sounding names. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I meant Kallerna. My bad. I struck that part of my comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Support despite Kallerna's comment above. Yann (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Support I can understand that A.Savin's block for Karelj's comment in the FPC nomination appeared harsh. Probably few admins would have blocked here. Still, the comment was disrespectful and I understand the desire to enforce a more civil communication within the FPC nominations. Few admins ever went ahead to enforce civility in FPC nominations. As Karelj had been warned before, this did not come entirely unexpected. It should be noted that A.Savin was not involved in the discussion of this FPC nomination but kallerna was with a comment that was at least as disrespectful as that of Karelj. The subsequent unblock came without discussion despite being involved in the discussion of the FPC nomination. Remarkably, this is the very only sysadmin action by Kallerna blocking or unblocking any user since becoming an admin in 2009. In the unblock comment Kallerna asks Silencing user who do not agree with you? while giving much reason to question their own motives behind the unblock. All this could be a singular event during a long tenure as admin. Then, however, we need a clear path forward which allows us to hope that this remains singular. Comments like I'm here to contribute to the project, not to discuss with trolls are not helpful in this regard. Eventually, Kallerna apologizes for it but not without recommending to focus on more positive and constructive matters while finding it rather odd that most participants here see controversial block with rude comments less harmful to the project than unblocking active editor. I do not find this convincing as it appears half-hearted and comes without any statements regarding a future approach to resolve such conflicts. I think a regular process where we see whether Kallerna has still the trust of our community as admin is warranted. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that the block was unnecessary, and that A. Savin was uncivil, but neither is the issue here. Cheers, Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Support An admin getting de-admin for admin abuse?...if only there were people with balls on that other project.....and they call us the inferior project..--Stemoc 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

---

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

I'm closing this thread, as Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship 2) has now been started. --A.Savin 01:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

User:WC-QHS

以下三張照片：

• File:Students of the National Chung Cheng University at the sports day 2008-10-31 01.jpg
• File:Students of the National Chung Cheng University at the sports day 2008-10-31 02.jpg
• File:Students of the National Chung Cheng University at the sports day 2008-10-31 03.jpg

標題是寫學生，但是卻被歸類為校友，這些都是由User:WC-QHS做出的編輯。可是，目前的分類只有學生歸學生，校友歸校友，並沒有將學生歸為校友的這種分類。因此，我將這問題曾向User:WC-QHS詢問過，等候23天，他還沒有回應，而他也沒有對照片做出修正，所以現在不清楚是標題Students打錯還是歸類Alumni放錯。最關鍵的是，照片中的人全部身穿便服，無法分辨是學生還是校友，這也就是為什麼需要將問題拿來這。如果是標題Students打錯，就需要將照片重命名。如果是歸類Alumni放錯，就需要將分類改為Students。--125.230.91.191 11:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done 我已經為它們重新分類了。下次請您直接糾正明顯的錯誤，無須在此處報告。 0x0a (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Dolores sepiol

He continues to upload copyrighted images and appears to exhibit a pattern of behavior involving uploading other copyrighted images after previous ones have been removed.

• File:Louisa-mak-black-dress.jpg copy from [4]
• File:Louisa-Mak-2023-white-dress-jewelry.jpg & File:Louisa-Mak-Portrait-Closeup-Cropped.jpg copy from [5]

Rastinition (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

So where did he get the META data? Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Guido den Broeder: no idea what metadata you are referring to, but File:Louisa-mak-black-dress.jpg was all over the web in 2020 and was a recent upload here. If User:Dolores sepiol is the author, even then she would have needed to go through COM:VRT to upload previously published work. - Jmabel ! talk 20:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, but a new user wouldn't know that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rastinition: when you bring up someone's conduct on this page, you are supposed to notify them on their user page. You didn't do that; if fact you wrote your post here in a manner that did not even mention them in a way that would give them a notification. I've now notified them. Please be more careful about that in the future. - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@JmabelApologies, as the reported account engages in cross-wiki activities, I will make sure to copy information to various wiki versions in the future. Additionally, when copying that information, do I need to translate the text into the local language of each wiki version? Rastinition (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rastinition: Nothing about "various wiki versions" here. You did not notify her on her Commons talk page, and you didn't use a form on this page like [[User:Dolores sepiol]] or {{ping|Dolores sepiol}} that would automatically notify her. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@JmabelI've simplified the issue. Never mind what I said about him on other wiki versions. I guess here, I just need to add @Dolores sepiol and change the title to User:Dolores sepiol. Rastinition (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe he did receive the notification, but he still chose to upload images with copyright issues (and it's the second time he uploaded File:Louisa-Mak-Portrait-Closeup-Cropped.jpg from the same webpage to here). Rastinition (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm kinda new to this whole thing. I've just figured out how to view these messages here. All the photos I've uploaded was sent to me personally by the person who was photographed in the picture (who this wiki page belongs to), requesting that I help replace her original wiki photo. But as a public figure, a lot of her photos (which she took herself and might have posted onto her own social media) were stolen, or "used", by other webpages. And I believe wiki has even misidentified the source/copyright owners of some of these aforementioned photos that I've uploaded. Would any of you be so kind as to shine a light on the easiest way I could get rid of the original photo without going through a long-winded process of proving I do indeed have permission to use these images, or keep getting my photo taken down because Wiki is unable to identify the correct source of the image? Dolores sepiol (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

1. If we consider the perspective of the original file size and the file information attached to the image File:Louisa-Mak-Red-Dress-Event.jpg, I might believe that it was taken around the same time as the series of photos from https://www.instagram.com/p/CXyKSdzpB6W/. However, the photos in that series have a non-square aspect ratio, while the version you provided is square. Therefore, the version you uploaded is very likely a cropped and reproduced product.
2. File:Louisa-Mak-Portrait-Closeup-Cropped.jpg is clearly not the original image; it has been compressed.And File:Louisa-Mak-Portrait-Closeup-Cropped.jpg also shows clear signs of being cropped. It appears to be cropped from https://www.lukfook.com/tc/category/events-and-promotion/post/2023lukfookraceday.

Rastinition (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have 3 questions regarding (1),

a. the photo in question was indeed taken around the same time as the post you linked. However, even the photos within the posts are cropped in different aspect ratios, what made you arrive at the conclusion that it was the photo I uploaded which was cropped?

b. the photo I uploaded (File:Louisa-Mak-Red-Dress-Event.jpg) has not been published anywhere else on the internet, so why would it be a copyright violation?

b. assuming I am the owner of the photo, can I not crop my own photo, and then upload it to wiki? You are making it sound like it is forbidden to upload any cropped images onto the site. Dolores sepiol (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

1. The image with relatively complete file information is not mentioned for deletion, and I am not asserting that it has copyright issues. I am simply stating the possible status of that image. If my statement is not clear enough, I am stating that the image not requested for deletion is very close to the original.
2. The image mentioned for deletion is clearly a reproduction. Regardless of who provided the image, it is currently being reasonably used by other websites, and those websites have not granted authorization to you. If the channel through which you obtained the image has already granted authorization for its use to you, you should also verify whether the provider holds complete copyright. Depending on the form of authorization, sometimes even the photographer may not necessarily possess complete copyright.

Rastinition (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dolores sepiol: Hello, if you are copyright holder, you need to go through COM:VRT to verify permission. If no, you may ask the author or copyright holder send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Thanks for your understanding. SCP-2000 13:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dolores sepiol: I second what SCP-2000 says here: presumably you can have the author or copyright holder go through the process described at COM:VRT to explicitly grant an appropriate license, and the deleted pictures will be restored. (This also goes for the one that is not deleted, given that you are not the copyright holder.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

And with that, I would hope we are done discussing here, unless Dolores sepiol has further questions. Clearly there is no administrative matter here. The user may have been unaware of how some things work on this site, but clearly did not have bad intentions. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Prototyperspective and "AI Art Application and Improvements Handbook" on Wikibooks

I am noticing a pattern in DRs and I'm not sure if it warrants admin action or not. If it does, it shouldn't be by me, as I am active in many of these and related DRs.

The pattern is: an AI-created image is nominated for deletion as being out of scope, then Prototyperspective (talk · contribs) adds it to "AI Art Application and Improvements Handbook" on Wikibooks, and then someone notes in the DR that the file is COM:INUSE.

Bluntly, the only thing any of the images on that Wikibooks page have in common is that they came up in DRs, and I am unconvinced that the page is anything other than an attempt to game COM:INUSE.

Looking to get others' opinions on this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: That looks fishy to me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: are you saying The Squirrel Conspiracy's characterization of this looks fishy, or Prototyperspective's conduct? - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The described conduct.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

If that is an accurate description, then that is certainly not OK. I'd like to see that backed up by diffs, though, so that we don't each have to go searching for evidence ourselves. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AI_Art_Application_and_Improvements_Handbook - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• I can explain it to you and I've been open about it:
• that handbook is not a priority to me but when I see DRs I a) sometimes see the relevant AI images and think about how they could be useful in the context of the DR and b) may find spending some time to expand the wikibook worth my time.
• Nothing at INUSE suggest that would be "gaming it" and if it is I didn't know but I'd then suggest this is made clear there, that page also says "realistically useful for an educational purpose" where the wikibook makes the application and realistic educational usefulness clear.
• If you don't consider the uses in that book "INUSE" then you can always just ignore them which is already done. While I don't think deleting AI images even when clear usefulness cases have been clarified and remain unrefuted is within bounds of current WMC policy even if they were not used anywhere, if you agree that it would be then I guess it is.
• Moreover, the book is new and so new images are added as I come across them now, I haven't substantially changed it again for quite a while. And for the Roman Kubanskiy images, those were some of the very few available for illustrating a section and I added all the good-quality images for that application to its section, not just these.

Prototyperspective (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: : Sorry, here are the diffs:

• Prototyperspective created the book on Dec 9 using images of Putin from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roman Kubanskiy (DR filed November 15) and images in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator (DR filed December 6).
• Prototyperspective added an image of Sauron on Dec. 16, a day after Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Excuse me sir, where can I find the rings section?' – Fictional being placed into a contemporary realistic daily life setting.png was filed.
• Finally, though this one is not as strong a point as the others: On Dec. 13, the first Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hyju was closed as delete. On Dec. 20, Prototyperspective added a bunch more of Hyju's images, and then on Dec. 27, those were all included in the second DR for Hyju's files. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be suspicious - after all, Prototyperspective put them in the book before they were listed for deletion - but the section they put them in is under the text "Especially useful if no other or only low-quality images are available for the concept", and the things they added were vampires, prehistoric people, and vintage comic book covers, of which there is ample art of already. Prototyperspective was also the only person advocating for keeping the first Hyju batch.

Worth noting that when the Giovanna IV images were deleted, Prototyperspective put the redlinks back in the book, calling it "unwarranted censorship deletions".

I think that all of this taken together paints a pretty clear picture of why the wikibook exists and how it's being misused. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've voiced similar concerns. Nearly every image in that book is, or was at some point, the subject of a deletion discussion on Commons, and it's not because someone's been going through the book to pick images to nominate for deletion, and it certainly isn't just a weird coincidence either. COM:INUSE is meant to prevent the deletion of images which projects are legitimately using, not as a way to "game" deletion discussions on Commons. See also Commons talk:Project scope#Outdated (does not reflect current admin practices): policy amendment for in-scope exceptions. Omphalographer (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Nearly every image in that book is, or was at some point, the subject of a deletion discussion on Commons Very false.

I added images based on their relevance and quality so all of them should be high-quality for the described application. I wonder though why people complain about it here rather than replacing the image with a better one if there is one. In any case, current policy hasn't made clear that INUSE only applies to files that were INUSE before the DR but whether or not that is the case doesn't matter to my freedom to use images as I see fit. If you'd like to restrict this freedom then please add a note like Images that are currently subject of deletion discussions are not allowed to be used in any other Wikimedia project. If they are used there they should be replaced by other users and are not legitimately in use. That would be something to discuss at the policy page. I apologize if my edits to the wikibook I started are considered problematic. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I share the Squirrel's concerns about misuse of Wikibooks, and overall advocacy of out-of-scope AI-generated images when they were told many times that such images are not welcome here. Yann (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• It's not a "misuse of Wikibooks", you and e.g. Squirrel just don't consider the file-uses in it legitimate which is fine to people.
• Out-of-scope images made using AI software should be deleted.
• The deletion requests – which usually nominated large numbers of different files at once – and village pump discussions that I think you're referring to had some people arguing for usefulness and use-cases of AI software in the context of images as well as some against such; there is no policy that says that images made using this novel technology are generally not welcome here but it's certainly the impression I get which may or may not be a problem or a good thing for a good future of WMC. I don't indiscriminately explain specific usefulness cases for images in deletion requests but only those where I can see a realistic educational value (e.g. for few images of a long list of files nominated at once) and voted for deletion in many occasions, while Squirrel wrote here and here Due to both the copyright and ethical concerns, I am always in favor of deleting AI art, especially when we have any non-AI generated images that don't have those concerns.. Again, if you don't see this Wikibook's file-uses or uses of files during DRs as legitimate then users have clarified that ignoring them is fine.

Prototyperspective (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with complaining about someone's advocacy in an actively discussed issue. I could appreciate him being less voluminous, but he's discussing on a live discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Just to add another point to this complaint, @Prototyperspective: 's endless personal attacks and stonewalling based on fallacious arguments regarding policy really needs to stop. As they are both beyond disruptive at this point. Especially their constant need to treat anyone who disagrees with them like the person just hates AI and/or is acting indiscriminately. One example being their comments in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated science fiction, as well as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated cyberpunk, but there are many others.

Either way, the constant, personal badgering and tirades about it really to stop. It's certainly not a collaborative way to participate in discussions. Same goes for the walls of text with multiple bullet points. @Prototyperspective: please just make your point next time, leave out the personal comments when you do it, and move on. Everyone knows what your opinion about AI artwork being hosted on Commons is at this point. We don't need it screamed in our faces every there's a DR for AI artwork. Also, stop bludgeoning discussions by responding to everyone who disagrees with you. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I never made a personal attack. I think you made several against me if you refer to ad hominem. I would see a point about replying too often if it was coming from somebody else but you are just as much replying as me and most of my comments are replies to you, often to correct misinterpretations or twisting of what I said earlier. I noted that I only ever saw you vote delete and the quote above is quite explicit in admitting this even when not considering your comments in regards to AI images in general. I was trying to reduce my volume but I think I'm allowed to make a few arguments when some of my images are to be deleted without even a deletion rationale explanation and unaddressed explicit clear usefulness cases being clarified.

Again, I'm trying to and already did reduce my volume but you are posting as much if not more than me in regards to this subject. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I never made a personal attack "The user seems to be fed up with AI images", "The user is opposed to AI images", "that it can be useful is enough of a reason to not ban it based on your unsubstantiated assumptions and quite clear anti AI bias", just to name a few of the many examples out there. I'm not the subject of the deletion requests and I've also repeatedly told you that I'm bias toward AI or artwork. Yet your still repeating that I am and in discussions where my personal opinions about it aren't even relevant. So yes you are and have been personally attacking me.

Also, in DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated science fiction you made a main point along with adding 9 bullet points that added absolutely nothing to the discussion outside of just being a needless wall of text. Just write a paragraph or two with your main points and leave it at that. There's no need to flood the DR with multiple bullet points. It's just extra noise that comes off like bad faithed Gish galloping. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack but may be relevant to the DR so I mentioned it to provide context. It can be relevant that you only ever voted for delete on the many AI-related DRs you participated in and object to AI images on WMC in general. Can be not is. In contrast, you made several ad hominems against me such as Your probably one of those people who think Bitcoin is going to replace fiat currency any second now to aren't you? Lmao. to name just one. With comments like these I hope it's a bit clear how my volume is hard to make smaller since usually you keep making another reply to which at least a brief response seems needed. No, I've not personally attacked you. All of these point made there pertain to the subject and elaborate specific ways specific images can be useful see COM:EDUSE. You nominate a very large number of images at once so I made a brief text for each. I also asked for why a user who voted delete considers the file "OOS" (out of scope) which I thought was due if more than headcounts matter in DRs. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be relevant to the DR if I had a history of spurious, bias DRs related to AI artwork. I don't though and I've told you multiple times I'm not bias towards AI artwork. So your claims about my position in regards to it is patently false and intentionally so. It's not "providing context" or relevant to a DR to go off about how the nominator has a position that they've told you multiple times they don't have. All your doing is poisoning the well for other voters by mischaracterizing my position when you know I'm not bias towards AI or AI generated images. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User ignoring COM:OVERWRITE when AI upscaling

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

Guise has uploaded a lot of good French literary artwork over many years. More recently they have been returning to files they uploaded themselves years earlier and overwriting them with "better res" versions: in some cases that better resolution has clearly been obtained through AI upscaling rather than taking or finding a higher quality scan of the original source.

For example, File:William Nicholson (1872-1949) - Characters of Romance, Porthos.jpg is a scan of a 1900 drawing of Porthos the musketeer, originally uploaded in 2022. Guise replaced it this week with a double-sized "better res" AI version, improving the line quality but also replacing the simple dots of Porthos's pupils with detailed, glistening AI irises that William Nicholson never drew.

User_talk:Guise/Archive_3 has four archived COM:OVERWRITE warnings from last November, including my attempt to explain why their replacements were going beyond "may be replaced by their uploader shortly after they are uploaded", and asking that they follow the guideline and make these AI versions separate uploads. I'm concerned that they haven't seen these messages, have misunderstood them, or wrongly believe that their edits are only "minor improvements" and not a form of digital restoration. Belbury (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the supposed AI improvement is ultimately disappointing for this Porthos file due to the modification of the pupils. Note that I've read your messages since I'm gradually revising my uploads in order to cancel the files with such a problem (for instance [6], [7], not to mention what remains to be done [8], [9]), in addition to clearly distinguishing original scans from AI-retouched files (as in the Sâr Dubnotal category or the Milady file). Regards. --Guise (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This is almost a textbook example of something that calls for uploading under a distinct name, linked as an "other version" or "derivative work". Also: "better res" is an absolutely misleading edit summary for that upload. It should have said something like "sharpened and upscaled with AI" (and ideally with an explicit mention of what AI tool), which would also be the case if it were uploaded under a distinct filename. "better res" misleadingly suggests a higher-resolution scan, not upsampling. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It is such a textbook example that it's the 5th example of what not to do in Commons:Overwriting existing files § DO NOT overwrite. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Bolitachan

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

Uploaded 3 non-free files after a warning not to do so Kelly The Angel (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kelly The Angel: All three images gave as their sources journal articles under free licenses. In one case, it was the exact image. In another case, the image Bolitachan uploaded and the image in the article were nearly identical except for the color balance and the figure number, so I uploaded the correct version and hid the original. In the last case, Bolitachan uploaded a picture of an entire tree, while only the bottom half of that picture was in the source itself. I nominated that one for deletion. I'm not sure exactly what's going on here, but it would be nice to hear Bolitachan's response. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Most likely, Bolitachan uploads non-free files in good faith and just doesn't know how copyright works. Kelly The Angel (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I have informed Bolitachan about this discussion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

• User: Guido den Broeder (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Tendentious, harassing behavior. In the discussion #User:SchroCat above, the user referred to the posts of SHB2000 as "lies". Yann warned him that was "not acceptable, unless you back it up." After neglecting to ping Yann and me in his replies, the user went on to remove the warning as "no vandalization, nor any other reason for a block; unhelpful warning removed". That is clear en:WP:IDHT behavior. Everything I wrote above is included by reference.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Strongly support an indefinite ban once and for all for their continued incivility and personal attacks. All they do on Commons is stir up dramas; they're banned on 3 other WMF wikis – can we please end their endless blether once and for all? --SHB2000 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  In 2022 when you two tried the same but got nowhere, you claimed that I was banned on 5 wikis, that I had a slew of sockpuppets, and that I was evading a global lock.[10] I guess this is progress. You also announced that you would keep coming after me on Commons, even after Yann and Ellywa told you not to. I don't think that repeating the same discussion with nothing new to report is constructive. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I also don't think snarkily trying to avoid a discussion about your behaviour is constructive. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, I am not banned on any WMF wiki. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, mate, but nice try. SHB2000 (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I get your point, however a block and a ban is not the same in WMF projects, although yes it's very often being confused. --A.Savin 12:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You neglect to mention that I did provide the requested evidence. I rarely ping, as most users (myself included) find that terribly annoying. But I was absent for a year due to medical complications. Did pinging become mandatory during that time? Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Guido: no, in most circumstances pinging isn't mandatory, but it is customary. I take it from your remark above that you'd rather not be pinged.

@SHB2000: when you say, "All they do on Commons is stir up dramas," is that intended to be taken literally? Offhand, [11], [12], and [13] look like productive edits. Are you saying they are not? It looks like he's had a pretty contentious couple of days, but that's a long way from "All they do on Commons is stir up dramas." I take seriously what Jeff G. says above, but please don't muddy the waters. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

No, not literally. SHB2000 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that during all the years that I have been here, I have started only two or three discussions on a drama board. On my own wikis (I have 6) we don't have such boards. We don't need them, and I can't even remember the last time that I blocked someone. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Guido den Broeder: What wikis are those?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 04:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Guido den Broeder: if it is not relevant, then why did you bring it up? - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

What happens outside of Wikimedia is irrelevant to what happens on Commons. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment While I agree on repeated incivilities by GdB and that a warning message to stop incivilities is relevant, still a "stop vandalizing" template was clearly misplaced here. --A.Savin 02:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment Where I wrote I would again calmly refute all your lies, this was in reference to a possible repeat of the discussion of 2022, where I did so, and not to the discussion at #User:SchroCat. Guido den Broeder (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Support a block (3 months?), so that they get the message. Yann (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Could you explain to me what the message is? Why should I be blocked when I am the one getting attacked? Are you still claiming that I vandalized this page or do you acknowledge that your warning was misplaced? Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  The message is, that you should urgently stop uncivil comments like this one. The fact that a wrong warning template was selected does not make the intended warning from personal attacks null and void. The essence is the same, gaming the system will not work here. --A.Savin 14:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is the user problem noticeboard. If there is a problem with a user, it should be safe for everyone to report so. Do you think that the ad hominem by Ikan Kekek that I responded to, a man who decided he's my enemy to me, was fine? Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  You've attacked me ever since I cited COM:INUSE in two or three deletion requests you started. I had literally forgotten about your previous abusive behavior toward me until you started it again in a recent thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  If you're still reading this, you're the one who's attacking everyone, making Commons a less enjoyable place to edit. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Back in 2022 there was a thread here about Guido. At the time, I had this to say: The main concern I've had about Guido is that he seems primarily interested in two things on Commons: self-promotion and noticeboard drama. - This still appears to be true. Just glancing at his recent contributions they are largely dramaboards, a couple DRs, and edit warring with TU-nor to include a link to WikiSage, a website Guido founded, at Commons:Alternative outlets, and then even giving TU-nor a "final warning" about it. We don't have a version of WP:NOTHERE, but basically this is a case of COM:NOTHERE. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  And on Wikisage we promote Commons. Isn't that we we're supposed to do, support each other? Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  No. We provide the best resource we can to our users. That doesn't include linking to another wiki just because they link to us. There is no good reason to link to Wikisage, among all the hundreds/thousands of other online encyclopedic projects out there, as the sole link next to our sister project, Wikipedia, except for your own promotional interests. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  When TU-nor finally took a look at Wikisage, he understood, and stopped editwarring. There the content dispute ended. That is how I solve content disputes, not by running to the drama board. And now you are editwarring in violation of the prevailing consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I removed an unhelpful external link added multiple times by a user here primarily to promote himself and his interests (and willing to issue warnings to those who get in the way). Edit warring is repeatedly making the same edit. You are the only one that has done that here. I find it shocking that even here you're still combative about your abuse of Commons for promotion. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  This here is not a dramaboard per se. You turn it into one, every singel time I have seen you editing here. Try to solve conflicts respectfully and without drama here as well. Kritzolina (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying that I should ignore personal attacks against me? I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  And that is just one way you turn this into a dramaboard. You derail at every possible turn. Kritzolina (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I utterly resent the remark When TU-nor finally took a look at Wikisage, he understood, and stopped editwarring at Commons:Alternative outlets. For one thing, I was not editwarring. I made 1 – one – edit to the page, removing the link to Wikisage with the edit summary "Rmv. self-promotion". My edit was immediately reverted. Even more I resent the creation of a totally unfounded and fictional reason given for my lack of further edits. No, I did not 'finally take a look' at Wikisage. I had already studied it enough to know that the English version is a completely useless arena for writing an encyclopedic article (at least if you want it to be seen). No, I did not 'understand' the reason for keeping it. Truth is, I just could not be bothered to waste time on it, since my main work is in other Wikis. --TU-nor (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done I blocked Guido den Broeder for 3 months. I wasn't aware of the details, but the information given by Rhododendrites, and Guido's answers, clearly demonstrate that he didn't understand what are expected from contributors here. Yann (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, he is now trying to promote "an alternative to Commons, one without the hate and the porn". I wonder if they will, once launched, steal images from Commons, like the one meanwhile banned guy from the so-called "Ruwiki" did. --A.Savin 18:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The message from him is clear: he doesn't belong to Commons. Reblocked indef. without talk page access. Yann (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Indef seems right per NOTHERE. I'll also say that I'd support an appeal down the road if it clearly articulated constructive activities he'd undertake and committed not to engage in any promotional activity. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Removing talk page access simply for leaving a single comment asking people to join him on a different website is complete overkill Trade (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Long overdue; thanks for the block, Yann! --SHB2000 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel, that if somebody will create a "hate-free" alternative to Commons or Wikipedia, it will inevitably become safeplace of racists, antisemites, neofascists, anti-LGBT propaganda and conspiracy theories. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

In essence, that's what X has become after Elon wanted to promote "free speech" on the platform. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This guy already has a Wikipedia-clone with mostly copies of articles deleted at the Dutch Wikipedia and some attack pages. Good block. NOTHERE. Natuur12 (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

In the likely case of launching a Commons' clone with stolen contents from Commons, the WMFOffice should urgently consider a ban, too. --A.Savin 00:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

How does one steal content that are under a free license? Trade (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Content is considered stolen if it's being imported/uploaded improperly, in violation of the terms of a Free license. "Ruwiki" did exactly this. --A.Savin 01:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Would that be in the case of importing/uploading content improperly be if they fail to give attribution and the like? (also, I'm curious: what exactly happened at "ru.wiki"?) --SHB2000 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, most of our content is not Public Domain so proper attribution is absolutely necessary. There is WP article about that resource; en:Ruwiki (website). --A.Savin 02:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, right. Strange (but not surprising) that w:Ruwiki (website) even exists. Thanks for the link. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think WikiSage only has like 38 users to begin with and its mostly garbage. So he probably couldn't even do it if we wanted to. Really his whole thing just comes off like a weird, badly done deep fake or something. I don't know, but there's almost zero shot him of making an actual alternative to Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I've started a global ban discussion at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

request

Please block 弟魯 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user sock of globally blocked user 14.0.174.246 09:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done the other way round: Requesting IP blocked per Special:Contributions/14.0.226.128 and File:Victoria Harbour & Kowloon.jpg semiprotected for 1 year. --Achim55 (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Neat response – I've reported the IP to m:SRG for long-term abuse (they're a known LTA). --SHB2000 (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Achim55: Thanks, cool boomerang.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

user:Komajo.jh.kouhou

• Komajo.jh.kouhou (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

they contributed same school pictures. those photo is include non public areas. maybe the contributor is school staff. those photo include due to law concerns. --eien20 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eien20: You must inform a user when you report them here. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Range block for 2603:7000:B8F0:960

Can someone more comfortable with rangeblocks please block the 2603:7000:B8F0:960 range for a few days per the behavior at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo de hey duggee - 2014-actual.png (and a few other DRs). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

For some clarification, specifically this. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Special:Contributions/2603:7000:B8F0:960:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy, SHB2000, and Yann: Thanks. The most succinct representation is special:contribs/2603:7000:B8F0:960::/64. For reporting, {{ip|2603:7000:B8F0:960::/64}} will do.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Is that (how to refer to a range for this purpose) documented somewhere that it should easily have been found? I would never have considered "special:contribs". - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This is explained in w:IPv6 address#Networks. I just copy-paste the URL. Yann (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Normally I'd just append /64 to the IP in question to get the relevant /64 range. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I concur with Yann. Two colons in an IPv6 address or range are an abbreviation for lots of zeros. I don't remember exactly when or where I picked up "special:contribs" (probably from reading diffs on meta), but I first recorded my use of it in m:srg 3+ years ago in August of 2020 in m:special:diff/20352496 as archived at m:Steward requests/Global/2020-08#Global lock for Itsrobloxhereyt. "contributions" is such a long word, I immediately took to that abbreviation, which works everywhere I've tried it, even on language wikis other than English. Yes, I hack URLs.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree that's the normal way to write an IP range. I still don't get: is the "special:contribs" (or a longer equivalent) compulsory in this context? Because I would never have guessed it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: We don't have user or talk pages for ranges. The best complete alternatives we have are what I wrote at 12:09 and what Yann wrote at 11:34 on the 13th above. An obtuse alternative like "the /64 surrounding 2603:7000:b8f0:960:3274:dab1:db2e:1198" is easier for me to report, but I don't think it's easier for Admins to use.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Daniel5785

Daniel5785 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user This users uploads have been deleted or marked as personal or advertisement photos. He was warned but continues, so he should be blocked indefinitely. Pierre cb (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. One week block, all contributions deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

DellaGherardesca

DellaGherardesca (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user This user is a puppet of e.g. User:Livioandronico2013, User:Fiat 500e, User:Labicanense and User:Rione I Monti. Same camera and same kind of spamming their own photos all over Wikipedia. After being blocked user reappears with a new account. Disembodied Soul (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Readthispage

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

Readthispage appears to be a w:WP:NOTHERE issue/single purpose account. All uploads have been 1) crops of Commons images to focus more closely on women's breasts (e.g., to File:Lana Rhoades 2-2017 cleavage (cropped).jpg cropped from this; File:Tanya Tate at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2016 (25037741523) (cropped).jpg cropped from this; etc.); 2) fan art/COM:NOTHOST AI porn; and 3) screenshots of pornstar's breasts. Their en.wiki contribs provide additional context: they have been exclusively to replace images in pornstar bios with ones that more prominently feature their breasts (e.g., [14][15][16]--all of those reverted) and to create a userpage sandbox article on "Bouncing breasts". Discussion seems needed. Эlcobbola _talk 13:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think your instinct is correct. I'd say indef them and zap their uploads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

+1. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Readthispage for the last images. Yann (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Rostyslav Zhvarnytskyi

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

Could someone explain to the user why the video game Yandere Simulator isn't in the public domain? He seems to have convinced himself that it is for some reason Trade (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Last warning sent. Yann (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Ssr

Ssr (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) rude and aggressive comments, threats: [17] [18] Komarof (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like their goal is to get blocked for personal attacks at every project they have ever edited. May be we should help them here. Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No matter how big contributions are? Just to destroy people you dislike using Wikimedia tools? (Ymblanter is the sole author of a series of unsuccesful diffamation campaigns against me in EWP)

Well, when you make success, what is the advantage for Wikimedia? Destroyance of a many-years contributor and you personal pleasure of that? And you are an admin with this approach? --ssr (talk)

You are lying again. No surprise.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Kill me --ssr (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Did anyone ask you to interfere here? Are you having knowledge of permission problems the topic is about? --ssr (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The point of the topic is your incivility, which you also demonstrate right here. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The point of everything here are deletion requests based on copyright claims. My behaviour means nothing. --ssr (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ssr: Aye, there's the rub.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days. --A.Savin 13:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have had to decline their unblock request, and left a friendly note. I hope they don't make this into an indefinite block but instead learn. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Pamphili

Pamphili (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user This user is a puppet of e.g. User:Livioandronico2013, User:Fiat 500e, User:Labicanense, User:Rione I Monti and User:DellaGherardesca. Same camera and same kind of spamming their own photos all over Wikipedia. After being blocked user reappears with a new account. Disembodied Soul (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Эlcobbola _talk 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)