Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Latest comment: 1 hour ago by HingWahStreet in topic User uploading own pictures over multiple usernames

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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.

Again User:Finoskov

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago29 comments6 people in discussion

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

After the end of his first blocking he continued his behavior, to a greater extent than before. I think he has not recognized his mistakes. He wrote a comment with his signature in a template. See here.

Last weekend I spent many hours correcting errors which he made in the Mulhouse Museum categories. I only did the decades from 1870 to 1930. This week he ruined the work. Of course, he did not engage in any discussion on any of the points.

Now he obviously tried to solve one of the problems with "of the Musée" instead of "in the Musée". But he still put these categories under categories "in museum". That cannot be right!

Two points:

  1. 20 Reverts. Last weekend I had made changes (from wrong to right) and written edit comments. He made reverts (from right to wrong) without comments. That doesn't work! Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. With a closer look: Often I removed the category in this museum. Sometimes he made exact revert, ignoring that some pictures were not made in this museum. Sometimes he added the category of the museum, ignoring that (example) Category:1920s automobiles of the Musée National de l'Automobile cannot be a subcategory of Category:1920s automobiles in museums because some pictures were not made in museums. I don't know if it's okay to press the revert button to make a hidden change. It looks like an attempt at deception for me. This must be multiple misuse of revert.
  2. He didn't move categories properly. He created new ones, moved the content from the old ones to the new ones, and made quick deleting requests on the old ones. Example: old Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) and new Category:Panhard & Levassor 20 CV Sport Type X29 Labourdette torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30. He also simply blanked the category discussion page, see here. This carries the risk that the discussion page will be deleted together with the category. This must be misuse of blanking talk page and misuse of Commons:Rename a category. Other examples: 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s.

I request: A block for a longer period than the first time. If possible and usual on Commons: A ban for specific areas for a long time. Perhaps for the areas of creating categories, moving categories, renaming categories, emptying categories, suggesting for quick category deletions, changing main categories or subcategories, and reverts. Or generally for everything to do with vehicles or vehicle museums. Buch-t (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Buch-t: I am sympathetic, but not all of the above edits look at all obviously wrong. For example, at [1]: what exactly is wrong with adding each of the following to Category:Alfa-Romeo type 8C 2,9 B biplace course (M.N.A. 1118)? Please reply under the respective bullet points for any where you think I have it wrong.
So for this edit, I see one pretty obviously correct change, one other that looks correct, one other that is not a well-named category but looks otherwise correct, and one that is, indeed COM:OVERCAT. If that is typical, this does not suggest high competence on Finoskov's part, but is not usually the sort of thing over which someone gets blocked.
It is really hard to go through a laundry list like the one you posted above and try to work out whether someone's edits or good, bad, or (as it appears from this one) somewhere in between. This took me over 5 minutes just to evaluate on edit in an area where I don't normally work and it came up "not great, not awful." I would much rather see you take 3-5 specific edits of his that you think are wrong and break them down like I did above. In other words: if this is what you want us to look at, please do the heavy lifting yourself instead of making an admin spend an hour on working out whether you are correct.
As for the category moves: yes, that is very wrong, and might merit a block all on its own, especially if he won't promise to stop. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I followed up on that last (about the category moves) at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Finoskov&diff=prev&oldid=973625389. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will give more details of 3-5 specific edits tomorrow (European time). --Buch-t (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
More details to the first 5 reverts.
I have visited the museum in Mulhouse and also the 3-month-exhibition in the museum in Kassel, Germany.
Remember: I wrote edit comments when I deleted wrong categories. He wrote nothing when he reverted me. --Buch-t (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Finoskov: all of this looks very wrong on your part, especially putting way too broad categories under particular museums that might have an exemplar.
Blocks are intended to be preventive, rather than punitive. If you promise to stop this now, and you do stop, I see no need for a block. If you persist, I would advocate either a 3-month block now, to be turned into a year-long block if you come back and do this again, or a complete topic ban from anything about automobiles. - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Finoskov wrote on his talk page that he cannot understand your English words. --Buch-t (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Apparently Finoskov feels competent to override others' decisions about prepositions in English, but does not understand enough English to follow what I'm saying. Also apparently, he believes that the overhead of a cat redirect is something comparable to, for example, downloading images.
French is about my fifth or sixth language, which is to say I can read it moderately well, but certainly cannot express myself in it significantly better than a Google Translate rendition of my English. @Ruthven: I know you are quite comfortable in both English and French, can you possibly take over this situation, or let me know that you can't so I can look for someone else to ask? - Jmabel ! talk 08:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I translated your message. Hopefully, the pretext of not understanding English won't be used now. Yann (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Yann for the translation. I find worrisome that Finoskov sees your message as an "attack", when it's just a warning about a behaviour. Jmabel, would a partial block on the categories ns suffice? Ruthven (msg) 14:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ruthven and Yann: do what you think best. My request to bring in another admin was not strictly a language issue. After my entirely appropriate warning was described as vos attaques, and after what I agree was almost certainly a "pretense" of not understanding me, I was livid enough to impose a long, long block. I figured it should be left to someone else to handle this, because acting out of anger is not generally a great thing to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't look into the details of the case. I will do it later unless someone else block Finoskov first. Yann (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Instead of moving categories Finoskov creates new ones tagging the old ones for deletion (I didn't count exactly, it might have been about 4000 categories). That is massive disruptive behavior because a) one cannot move the cat back if necessary and b) links pointing there from other projects are broken. Therefore I asked Finoskov in 2019 and again in 2023 to refrain from that, but they ignored it. Therefore I herewith request a block only for category namespace for one year. --Achim55 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: , and this also goes for any other admin: it's two days later, obviously no one else is taking this on, and I'm tired of it dragging on. If it is left to me—and if this sits another 24 hours, I'm going to consider it left to me—it is going to be an indefinite block from category namespace. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel: Finoskov has not edited since December 23rd, so I don't know if he deliberately ignored our messages, or just took off some vacation. Yann (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Yann: does that mean you are definitely taking this on, and I can "safely" let go? - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Finoskov had the opportunity to write here, but did not use it. He wrote on his talk page. He did not write that he will be offline from ... to ... --Buch-t (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Minor edit because of the ArchiverBot. --Buch-t (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) (mentioned above) was deleted yesterday by User:Krd. 4 week after the deletion of Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) by User:Yann. The new category Category:Panhard & Levassor 20 CV Sport Type X29 Labourdette torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 is similar. This is a late consequence of Finoskov's incorrect approach in creating new categories, although the category already exists under a different name. --Buch-t (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

No edits by Finoskov since nearly 4 weeks. --Buch-t (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  Info Finoskov was active on Tuesday. Some reverts (not to my edits). Some changes in categories. No edit comments. Nothing on talk pages. Nothing here on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. No reaction to Yann's words in French on his talk page. --Buch-t (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's true, Finoskov (talk · contribs) does not learn! He's immune to the difference between "from" and "in", and reverted my edits, which were 100% correct. Example: [2]. --Edelseider (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done Blocked for 3 months. The rope is long enough... Yann (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wow, that was fast! I do hope that he comes back with a more subtle approach. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I started with the corrections. It also affects other projects like wikidata. We will see what will happen. --Buch-t (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Laurel Lodged

edit
Latest comment: 22 hours ago39 comments8 people in discussion

Online translation: I ask you to block the participant for many offensive edits in the Category:Orthodox Church in America. --Ыфь77 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ыфь77, could you provide more information about your request? Kadı Message 22:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would assume this is regarding redirecting the category to Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate), and the subsequent edits they made there. I'm not expert but I do think those edits were incorrect. The Orthodox Church in America is not under the authority of the Russian Patriarch. Their headquarters is in Virginia and their leader is from Boston.They split with the main church after the Bolshevik Revolution and were formally granted autocephaly in 1970.
For what it's worth, which I know is not much, there was substantial religious category-related disruption by this same user on en.wp [3]. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Online translation: Beeblebrox is absolutely right. The Orthodox Church in America is autocephalous, recognized by 5 other autocephalous churches. And then Laurel Lodged comes along and adds the outdated, non-neutral and derogatory clarification of "Moscow Pariarchate". If you insult one person, you can demand a global block, but here an entire church with over 70,000 followers is insulted. Inciter of religious hatred - is this the kind of glory that Wikimedia Commons needs? Оригинал: Beeblebrox абсолютно прав. Православная церковь в Америке автокефальна, её признают 5 других автокефальных церквей. И тут появляется Laurel Lodged и добавляет устаревшее, ненейтральное и уничижительное уточнение "Московский патриархат". Если вы оскорбите 1 человека, то для вас можно требовать глобальной блокировки, но в данном случае оскорбляется целая церковь, насчитывающая более 70 000 последователей. Разжигатель религиозной розни - это та слава, которая нужна Викискладу? Ыфь77 (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Info: This is the 7th time Laurel Lodged is reported on ANU: 1 2 3 4 5 6 --Achim55 (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I highly doubt LL meant anything by this edit. Saying a church is under the wrong patriarch is not inciting religious hatred, User:Ыфь77. Most of the previous incidents seem to be petty spats over pedantic category issues, so I don’t see any point in bringing it up except to give unneeded credibility to a clearly vexatious ANU filing. No action is needed here. Dronebogus (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Online translation: Action is required: it is necessary to rename the categories that humiliate the followers of the Orthodox Church in America. Moreover, @Laurel Lodged: itself must do this or oblige it not to interfere with the renaming. 2) It is advisable to explain to Laurel Lodge at the administrative level that he is wrong and to limit him in religious categorization, since he himself does not feel where he rules. Ыфь77 (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
By comparison, if he had renamed "India" to "India (British Empire)", would you also have written that no action was required? Ыфь77 (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
You mean like the longstanding Category:British Raj? It would depend on the intended scope.
That said: yes, the top-level category for the Church should reflect its current name and status. If it is now autocephalous, its former subordination to a particular patriarchate does not belong as part of that name. @Laurel Lodged: do you disagree with that? If not, could you explain why you moved the category?
In general, I recommend strongly against moving longstanding categories unilaterally unless the move is obviously uncontroversial (e.g. fix spelling or capitalization; make it uniform with a well-established pattern; etc.), and clearly this was not "obviously uncontroversial." Even as an admin, I don't do that. - Jmabel ! talk 05:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Online translation: No, in the example I was referring to modern India in what I wrote. Ыфь77 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ыфь77: it looks like you started this discussion without informing Laurel Lodged. When you bring a complaint to COM:AN/U, you are required to notify the user in question on their user talk page. I have now notified them. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Online translation: It's not my fault that Template:User3 doesn't notify the mentioned user. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ыфь77: but it is your fault that you did not notify them on their user talk page, as the instructions at the top of this page explicitly say you must do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Rebuttal Thanks to @Jmabel: for bringing this to my attention. To @Achim55: I don't think that our paths have crossed, but you seem to have done some digging. This it is very bad form. In a court of law, it is usual for the Judge to pronounce his judgement in a case before the Prosecutor is permitted to adduce evidence of previous wrongdoing that would permit the Judge to impose an appropriate sentence. In Achim's contribution, he has dispensed with the niceties of trial and judgement and gone directly to sentencing. But since the dirty laundry has been displayed for all to see...In the case of no. 6, the final contribution was "Maybe the perceived harassment is in the mass pinging through multiple nominations... it seems to be a technical issue.". Which was exactly what had happened. No case to answer. Just a trigger-happy complainant. In the case of No. 5, that's just the usual Azeri crew miffed that I've pointed out that there is No-FOP in Azerbaijan. It was blown up out of all proportion. A small problem with a category template. They can lodge no such complaint now that I have switched tactics from nominating whole categories of pics of the President of Azerbaijan opening new buildings to nominating (many many many) individual images. They squeal, but the majority will be deleted. A lot of wiki-lawyering will save some of them no doubt. In the case of no. 4, it's the same Azeri crew complaining that the victory of Azeri forces over the Republic of Artsakh is not recognized in the wholesale renaming of Armenian places to Azeri names. The nomination has not succeeded. I think that everyone (bar the Azeris) recognizes that the mass expulsion of an ethnic group from a city (Stepanakert) does not mean that their heritage disappeared overnight. In the case of no. 3, that was raised by the nominator in this case. As one of the admins in that case opined, "I’m afraid there needs to be restrictions placed on Ыфь77 from making changes to categories related to Christian denominations.". It's a shame that that did not happen. In the case of no. 2, that was just embarrassing - for the nominator. He failed utterly to define his complaint, let alone make a case for any wrongdoing. In the case of no. 1, it was - yet again - the usual Azeri crew annoyed that I would not admit the Artsakh never existed and should just submit to its eradication from the history books. The things complained of then were while the 2nd war was on-going and the situation was still fluid. The Azeri victory in the war has made the matters moot. In summary, these cases show that the AN/U process has been abused for POV-pushing of the worst kind. I advise all to ignore them as they are irrelevant to the current complaint.

I see no evidence adduced of "offensive" behaviour. The complainant is not entitled to make a complaint on behalf of the Orthodox Church in America or the Russian Orthodox Church. He has no standing to make such a complaint. Let the OCA / ROC bring it's own complaint if it wants. The complainant can only complain about behaviour that was offensive to himself. That is, I used language or engaged in behaviour that was personally defamatory, untrue, abusive etc. about him. No such evidence was adduced because there is none. It never happened.

 

What then? Perhaps he meant that the edits were acts of vandalism, designed to ruin Commons. His English is not so good, so perhaps that's what he meant. There are four responses to this charge: (A) Autocephaly is disputed in definition and in practical operation; (B) The granting of autocephaly to the OCA in particular is disputed. The Wiki article on autocephaly specifically says: "... the main opponents in the dispute being the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which claims this right as its prerogative, and the Russian Orthodox Church (the Moscow Patriarchate), which insists that one autocephalous jurisdiction has the right to grant independence to one of its components. Thus, the Orthodox Church in America was granted autocephaly in 1970 by the Moscow Patriarchate, but this new status was not recognized by most patriarchates. It's also notable that the OCA did not attend the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council. (C) Even if a chuch body or ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be affirmed to be truly autocephalic, it is still in a fraternal relationship with the body that granted the autocephaly in the first place. In the case of the five ancient jurisdictions of the Church (Pentarchy), the daughter churches still recognise the authority of one of the five. And of course the Ecumenical Patriarch himself is always acknowledged as the Primus inter pares within the Eastern Orthodox communion. In the chart to the right, it specifically calls out the seven churches that are listed as being "Autonomous under Russia". (D) Even if the OCA does not directly "report" to the Patriarch of Moscow, it is still a useful disambiguator to have for Eastern Orthodox church bodies in North America. The situation is very confused in North America. There are many churches that are daughters of many of the pentarchy and many metropolitans who all claim roughly the same name. It gets even more confused when there are splits and each calls the other schismatic or heretical. Ordinary readers cannot be expected to know this involved history. Some assistance is needed in navigation space. Lesser navigational assistance is needed in article space since there is so much more room to tease out subtle differences. In category space, all we have is parentheses and a lot of information has to be crammed into a small space. Consider Category:Eastern Orthodoxy in North America or better still, Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in North America. Look at what is listed here:

  1. Category:Orthodox Church in America (originally called "Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate)" in my edits
  2. Category:Archdiocese of America (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
  3. Category:Archdiocese of North America (Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch)
  4. Category:Metropolis of the Americas (Romanian Orthodox church)

Don't they all look very samey? And that's just the Eastern Orthodox Church. Seriously, without the disambiguator, how could the average reader possibly tell them apart? I'll rest for the moment. This is already looking like a wall of words. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • I’m going to informally recommend some kind of boomerang for Ыфь77. Declaring yourself a representative of a large demographic and getting offended for them is bad; accusing another user of inciting religious hatred is worse. I don’t think it should be serious, just an narrow interaction/topic ban +/- a formal warning. But their conduct against LL here seems plainly abusive even if, for the sake of the argument, we assume they’re actually right. Dronebogus (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Online translation: In short, is humiliating a church organization a good thing, but standing up for them a bad thing? Is that your opinion? Ыфь77 (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I’m not even going to try and explain why that argument is bad. It should be blatantly obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • @Laurel Lodged: given that you say there is dispute here about autocephalous status, why does that parenthetical (which effectively takes sides in said dispute) need to be in the category name? Is there some other "Orthodox Church in America" with which this could be confused? - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Reply I think that the parenthetical differentiation is necessary to disambiguate for the general reader between churches in North America that have very similar names. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to separate them given the closeness of the names. In article space, it's possible to get around this problem since you can write notes and have "See also" sections. This is much more difficult to achieve in categorical space. There is little room available in the name to contain the information that would not result in an unwieldy title. So while a few extra bytes are acceptable, it cannot to too long. In the case of the category name for the OCA, how do describe that it was started by Russian emigrees, came under the Russian Orthodox Church, disassociated from the ROC after its subversion by Bolsheviks, amalgamation with Romanian and other Orthodox churches, independence as the ROC Outside Russia, re-absorption by the ROC. It's complicated. How could one phrase in parentheses hope to convey all that history? I don't think that it's too mush of a divergence from canonical accuracy to say that it has always been in Eastern Orthodoxy and always within the "family" of the "Patriarchate of Moscow". It's a matter of politics as to whether members of the OCA would regard the patriarchal throne as having been in a state of sede vacante for significant periods of the 20th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Laurel Lodged: (1) what is the "very similar name"? (2) Why are {{Cat see also}} or {{Distinguish}} any less useful on Commons than in Wikipedia? - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Reply to @Jmabel: The similar names are listed in numbers 1 to 4 above.
  1. Category:Orthodox Church in America (originally called "Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate)" in my edits
  2. Category:Archdiocese of America (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
  3. Category:Archdiocese of North America (Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch)
  4. Category:Metropolis of the Americas (Romanian Orthodox church)
While {{Cat see also}} and {{Distinguish}} are useful, they don't appear in the suggestions or the search box when one begins to type in things like "Orthodox Church in America". Again, looking at an article or even a category when it gets selected is all very well, but it does not assist in the first level of the dropdown box of the navigation. Categories are primarily about ease of navigation. Providing relevant information at the first point of contact is better than many re-directs and false navigations. In many cases, you could be at a depth of 4 layers of a tree structure of the OCA before you would begin to suspect that it is affiliated to the Moscow patriarchate rather than the Constantinople patriarchate. That's just a bad navigation experience and there is no need for it to happen when minimal parenthetical disambiguation solves the problem. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
To illustrate the point that there are many strains of Russian Orthodoxy, I have created Category:Russian Orthodoxy. See also here. All are affiliated to Russian Orthodoxy, some more loosely than others. Of course the ROC would claim that any ecclesial body in the category that is not in communion with the Patriarch is uncanonical or schismatic or heretical or all three. And the True Believers would probably say the same about the ROC adding that it is an agent of Russian Security Forces. So as a compromise, I could live with a rename of the OCA to Category:Orthodox Church in America (Russian Orthodoxy). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Online translation: I'm against it again. The Orthodox Church in America is a multinational denomination (including Bulgarians, Romanians, and Albanians) and primarily an American Church. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Laurel Lodged: those other names are not nearly similar enough to create a need for a parenthetical disambiguation in the category name. I hope you are not being disingenuous here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
The point was not to show that the names were similar. It was to show that there are many entities within the family of Russian Orthodoxy. The previous point listed the similar names. Imagine what they would be like without their parenthetical disambiguators. Who would know what family / patriarchate they were in? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Laurel Lodged: "Who would know what family / patriarchate they were in?" Someone who looks at parent categories, or reads hat text, or looks at the corresponding Wikipedia article (or possibly Wikidata, which should have such information but may not). This is not normally information we carry in category names. We don't have "Category:Karaism (Judaism)" or "Category:Church of Sweden (Lutheran)". It's not how we name things. - Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
For the sake of a few extra bytes, why send people down rabbit holes? Isn't it better that the first click gets them to where they want to be? This is categorical space where ease of navigation and predictability of navigation is more important than a strict adherence to the official name of an entity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Online translation: Is the purpose of categorization to inform people? And do people need such at least non-neutral, and at most offensive information? Ыфь77 (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Online translation: I repeat: Laurel Lodging believes that it understands the structure of the Orthodox Church better than the 5 autocephalous churches. Can you see the documents confirming that he is an EXPERT in Orthodoxy? Ыфь77 (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ыфь77: if you continue to insult the user with whom you are in dispute, and to say you know what they believe rather than sticking to the conduct at hand, I will support Dronebogus's suggestion of a boomerang block, which up to now I had not been considering. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Online translation: I will remain silent, but you will also make a decision. Past experience has shown that there may not be a decision despite all the arguments. Ыфь77 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Online translation: This is written by a man who separated the Church of Crete from the Patriarchate of Constantinople (although it is part of it), but for some reason joined the Church in America to the Moscow Patriarchate (although it is not part of it). I see either a biased attitude or an absolute lack of mastery of the subject of categorization. Ыфь77 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is written by a man who denies that the Archdiocese of Crete is an Archdiocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Perhaps his mastery of the subject of categorization is less absolute than he imagines. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Online translation: There is nothing denied in this edit, take a closer look. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Formal request for a w:WP:BOOMERANG against Ыфь77

edit

This user has continued picking on LL after being warned about it and saying they would stop. I would like to formally suggest they are sanctioned for this behavior, esp. since I noticed they’ve already been blocked once before and generally appear to have a history of disrupting this topic area. Dronebogus (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Online translation: Is it an insult to point out that LL puts his opinion above the opinion of the 5 autocephalous Orthodox churches, without being an expert in Orthodoxy? This is just a statement of fact. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
You are not alleging that; you are alleging LL is promoting religious intolerance and hatred. That is clearly an insult against one’s character. Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Online translation: This is a logical conclusion from my previous message. If you can ignore the opinion of a religious organization, then you should not consider the organization itself. So much for religious intolerance. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

User uploading own pictures over multiple usernames

edit
Latest comment: 1 hour ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I have noticed a user uploading its own photos using multiple strange usernames like FlaumeSteeIronm yrrou (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , ZEWIA dumlwp TELEAM (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and RENMIN Leei 2025 HUA (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  over the past few years. Most of these user pages appeared as galleries of the user uploaded using that account and most of these usernames have only less than 500 edits like this and this. Almost all files are named with HK XXX XXX ...(example) with metadata almost from the same device. These usernames were quickly abandoned and then a new strange username was created for the same purpose.

I found it very annoying and difficult to track how these accounts are doing. Can a user upload or edit like this? If not, it should be regarded as sockpuppetry and be banned.

More bunch of these:

興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 06:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a link but I remember that this has already been discussed years ago. IIRC it wasn't treated as abusive behavior. --Achim55 (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, such a large number of accounts by the same user is a problem. I propose blocking them all, except the oldest account. Yann (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
We have category:Sockpuppets of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1. Blocking makes no sense, he never reuses old accounts, always creates new one. Taivo (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Meaning that searching and tagging all users with this kind and after a while, indefinitely repeated. Simply doing this can't solve the sockpuppetry issue. May have to consider giving him a warning or else block his IP. Also, though not damaging the overall reputation of Commons, the use of multiple accounts to do any edits on Commons is both questionable and is a loophole for all Wikis (since a Wikimedia account can be used on all Wikis unless blocked). 興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 13:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
While it's certainly very odd behavior, the photos uploaded are always high-quality, in project scope, with good descriptions, are geotagged and have very good categorisation. So I don't see any problem here. I'm sure they have their reasons for doing that & oppose taking any action againest them, as the contributions are very good. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I concur. As weird as it may be, using multiple accounts in itself is not explicitly disallowed; using them abusively (such as evading blocks) is, but I don’t see that here. Since the user hasn’t done anything out of line, I don’t see any harm in letting them be and treating them as separate accounts altogether. S5A-0043🚎(Leave a message here) 03:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I opened a request for comment on Meta for further discussion. 興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 09:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:HurricanesAreInteresting

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

HurricanesAreInteresting (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : this new user uploads satellite photos from unknown source and claims to be the author. He continues even after being warned. Satellite pictures are from governmental agencies and can be found on GDFL or copyrighted website. The uploader must indicate where he got them. Pierre cb (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done. The user is warned and the uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
UPDATE:This user continues today, even after warning by administrator, to upload satellite pictures falsely claiming as his own work. Something should be done to force him to input the REAL source. Pierre cb (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  Done Files deleted. User blocked three days. Bedivere (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:LeontinaVarlamonva and User:Salto Loco

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago22 comments5 people in discussion

This user, along with User Salto Loco, are both actively trying to push their political agenda onto several maps across Commons. While Salto Loco has engaged in discussion, LeontinaVarlamonva continues to edit war on File:Legality of Cannabis in Europe.svg insisting to insert a factuality dispute based on their political beliefs, despite being told numerous times that this is a map depicting de facto boundaries and de facto enforcement of law. I have been engaging in discussion with both users and other users have similarly responded to their comments as well explaining the use of de facto maps ([4], [5], [6], [7]). I will continue to engage in discussion, however reporting LeontinaVarlamonva specifically as they are continuing to edit war despite there being no ultimate consensus in the discussion to insert a factuality dispute, mimicking their actions from October of this year, aiming to tarnish the reputation of maps that don't align with their political preference. Revert 1 [8], Revert 2 [9] and Revert 3 [10], the last of which specifically comes after a warning of a report and another point to turn to the discussion board. Ratherous (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ratherous: when you report a user's conduct on this page, you are required to inform them of that on their user talk page. You appear not to have done so. Further, by not linking their account in the above, you gave them virtually no chance of even finding your complaint against them. I will inform them on their user talk page, but you should have done this.
In general, if there is dispute over two versions of a map, each side should make their own map on a separate file page, citing their sources for their version of the map. Wikipedias, etc., can then choose between the maps. As a rule, the only basis to mark the map as factually disputed is if it does not accurately reflect the sources that it cites, or if it effectively makes uncited claims. - Jmabel ! talk 19:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I apologize for not linking the user, I rushed with making the report as they were actively edit warring. Your suggestion makes sense, however at the moment, user continues to edit war while a discussion is already taking place while the other use is globally replacing the map across several wikipedia projects without a discussion. I have engaged in all related discussions up to now and will continue to do so, but it is incredibly frustrating to do this while the user continues to make unilateral changes on Commons and other platforms. --Ratherous (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: , Now adding Salto Loco to this report after continuous edit warring despite ongoing discussion on File:Eurozone Internal.svg (1[11], 2[12] and 3[13]). I felt as though we finally reached some common ground, but user went ahead with his version despite objections from myself and Abzeronow and an ongoing discussion. His final response to the request to stop edit warring was "no, that's you who have to STOP EDIT WARRING. i reverted both maps as it is the same situation." While I am trying to stay engaged in all ongoing discussions the continuous edit warring prior to any reaching of consensus after being asked to stop is ridiculous. User informed of report on talk page. --Ratherous (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

As I stated before, your de facto maps are also incorrect because they don't reflect de facto reality. You do not have right to remove this disclaimer just because you don't like it. So your argument that you are making de facto maps, rather than what's recognized in international law, is hollow because you maps don't reflect de facto reality either. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have already responded to this in the discussion page of the map and my reasoning was echoed by Abzeronow ([14]). Your reinstatement of the Factuality dispute once again reiterates that the map should otherwise follow de jure boundaries, which was clearly outlined by Jmabel not to be necessary for de facto maps. If you would like to argue for the inclusion of all of occupied Ukraine, that is a different issue - but that is not what you have been advocating for in the talk page of the map. --Ratherous (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Ratherous

edit

Hello, I am reporting a concern regarding the actions of user Ratherous related to edits involving maps that misrepresent internationally recognized borders. This user has repeatedly engaged in edits that align with Russian disinformation narratives by including occupied territories as part of Russia, despite these areas being internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. When challenged on this, they dismissed concerns and refused to acknowledge established facts under international law. Violations of Wikipedia Policies WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) – The user’s edits fail to adhere to Wikipedia’s neutral stance by promoting the perspective of an aggressor state rather than the widely accepted legal reality. WP:V (Verifiability) – The current representation contradicts verifiable sources, including UN resolutions and the positions of most recognized international bodies. WP:DISRUPT (Disruptive Editing) – Instead of engaging in a constructive discussion, the user has repeatedly dismissed concerns and undermined efforts to maintain accuracy. I have engaged in discussions with this user, attempting to clarify why Wikipedia should not reflect the territorial claims of an occupying force. However, they continue to insist that the issue is “not about sovereignty” and refuse to acknowledge the broader implications of their edits. They have also responded dismissively to multiple editors raising similar concerns. Request for Action I request that administrators review this case and take appropriate action to prevent further dissemination of misleading information. This may include: Instructing the user to adhere to Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and verifiability. Reverting their edits that violate international law and established Wikipedia standards. If necessary, implementing restrictions to prevent further disruptive editing on politically sensitive topics. I appreciate your time in reviewing this issue and look forward to a resolution that upholds Wikipedia’s credibility and commitment to factual accuracy. Salto Loco (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please read COM:NPOV, there is no requirement for media on Commons to be politically neutral. Abzeronow (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm also not the only user outlining this position to Salto Loco - several other users have as well ([15], [16], [17], [18]). Him painting me as some kind of Kremlin-propagandist for adhering to de facto maps for de facto situations, as maps depicting law generally do, and claiming I am being paid by Russia ([19]) I think clearly demonstrate that he's here political goals rather than constructive editing. --Ratherous (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, most maps do not reflect the de facto situation, and you know this very well, we discussed it with you. If you do it for free, then I don't understand you at all. Salto Loco (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
You've been given several examples of maps that do in fact depict de facto borders when appropriate and you yourself began posting on discussion pages for each one with the same message. You've also been explained why certain situations based on context of the map opt for the use of de jure maps while others de facto maps. "If you do it for free" - I'm not even going to entertain this comment. --Ratherous (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
If I send you all the maps showing sovereign Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia now, you won’t have enough time to review them before the year ends. Salto Loco (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Salto Loco: given that Ratherous already reported that he is having a conflict with you, it is pretty out of line to make a report against them as if it were a separate matter. I have indented the section level here to make it clear that this is part of the same dispute. - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

We're just going in circles now from one discussion page to another. Salto Loco, it's not about how many maps you can dig up. Many maps that I personally edit also have de jure borders as it is appropriate for the context (Examples: Maps of international organizations, UN Treaties, inter-governmental agreements), however the maps you have been globally replacing with your versions all depict enforced laws, which is why the occupied regions were presented differently, as myself and several other users have repeatedly explained to you. I included you on the report because you continued to edit war even after a discussion was taking place and after you were directly advised against unilaterally changing the maps without consensus. --Ratherous (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Aside from the edit warring, user has also continuously demonstrated uncivil behaviour.

1. Accusing me of being paid by Russia ([20]) for which he has already received a warning ([21])
2. In response to being asked not to edit war user wrote - "no, that's you who have to STOP EDIT WARRING." ([22]) despite him being the one overwriting the original file
3. When shown examples of other widely-used de facto maps depicting laws, user responded "I don't care about your two propagandistic temporary exceptions." [23]

While I am trying to stay active and engaged in the ongoing discussions, comments such as those make it almost impossible to achieve a constructive consensus with the user. --Ratherous (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ratherous,
I understand your concerns regarding this discussion, but the fundamental issue remains unresolved: the depiction of internationally recognized borders versus de facto control.
You state that the maps I have modified depict enforced laws, but international law remains the primary framework that Wikipedia should follow, not the temporary control of an occupying force. The United Nations, the vast majority of countries, and authoritative legal bodies recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. By altering maps to reflect occupation rather than legality, we risk normalizing unlawful territorial claims, which contradicts Wikipedia's principles of neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V).
I have not engaged in an "edit war" but attempted to correct misleading representations that undermine international law. If consensus is required to modify these maps, then it should also be required for the existing versions, ensuring that Wikipedia maintains a consistent and balanced approach based on verifiable, authoritative sources.
If necessary, I am open to a formal request for comment (RfC) so that the broader community can determine the best approach. However, I strongly believe that Wikipedia should reflect internationally recognized legal standards, not de facto control imposed by military force. Salto Loco (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would like to clarify my position regarding these concerns. My primary goal has always been to ensure that Wikipedia reflects internationally recognized legal standards and does not unintentionally legitimize unlawful territorial claims.
I acknowledge that discussions on sensitive topics can become tense, and I regret if any of my responses were perceived as uncivil. However, my concerns about the integrity of Wikipedia’s maps are made in good faith, based on international law and Wikipedia’s core principles of neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V).
Regarding the specific points raised:
I should not have implied financial motivations, and I recognize that such statements do not contribute to a constructive discussion. I will ensure that my arguments remain focused solely on policy and verifiable sources moving forward.
On the issue of edit warring, I acted with the intention of correcting what I believed to be misinformation. However, I understand that such actions should be pursued through discussion rather than repeated edits. I am open to further dialogue and formal dispute resolution if necessary.
Regarding the discussion of de facto maps, my concern is that the use of certain exceptions could create an inconsistency in how territorial disputes are represented. While I may have expressed this frustration too bluntly, my underlying argument remains that Wikipedia should uphold the highest standards of accuracy and neutrality.
I remain committed to resolving this dispute through proper channels and constructive discussion. My priority is ensuring that Wikipedia does not unintentionally contribute to misinformation or narratives that contradict international law. Salto Loco (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
As was previously brought to your attention, this is not Wikipedia, it's Commons. You very clearly did engage in an edit war with 3 back-to-back reversion as I have previously noted. As for Wikipedia, there is no requirement that all maps must follow international law, but again this is not the space to discuss Wikipedia policy, if you would like to start a community-wide discussion about that, then do so on Wikipedia. --Ratherous (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I share concerns expressed by Salto Loco regarding behavior of Ratherous. Also I will insist to repeat this: what Ratherous claims to be de facto borders are not true. So even from Russian or separatist perspective, his de facto maps are highly inaccurate. The whole argument that we should not care about international law because these maps claim de facto control is irrelevant because like I said they don't reflect de facto reality either. They only reflect preferences of one person, Ratherous, who for some reason created them as they are.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
You keep bringing this up entirely ignoring the responses you've received on several discussion pages you've left this comment on ([24], [25], [26], [27]). The decision not to include all of occupied Ukraine is based on the fact those territories do not have a stable consistent border and instead change on a daily basis - this would require the map to be updated constantly despite the fact that the subject matter is not related to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict in any capacity. It was already clearly explained on this noticeboard that de facto and de jure maps are allowed to be hosted on Commons. If you really want to argue for the inclusion of all of occupied Ukraine, you can make that claim on the talk page of the map, but that's not what you have been doing thus far. The map just being a de facto map does not consitute the basis for a factuality concern regardless of your and Salto Loco's personal objections to the representation of de facto boundaries. I would like to once again reiterate that multiple users have provided you and Salto Loco with the same responses to this issue with the absolute majority of those maps not being my uploads, your claim that I am the only person doing so is blatantly false ([28], [29], [30], [31]). --Ratherous (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Moreover, the decision not to include all of occupied Ukraine is consistent with the template - File:Blank map of Europe (with disputed regions).svg. Most de facto maps of Europe on Commons have not made this adjustment as of yet, this would mean every single one of them would require a factuality dispute according to your logic. If you want to argue for the inclusion of all occupied territories then the talk page of the template map would be the most appropriate place to do so. --Ratherous (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some basics about maps on Commons

edit
  • Commons does not require reaching a consensus about a map. If there is a disagreement about a map, typically the correct answer as far as Commons is concerned, is for us to host both versions. It is up to reusers, including the various Wikipedias, to choose which they prefer.
  • Yes, Commons hosts both de jure and de facto maps.
  • Ideally, especially if any matter is likely to be in dispute, maps should cite their sources.
  • If you believe that a map does not accurately reflect its own cited sources, or if you have sources that disagree about a factual matter, it may be appropriate to place {{Fact disputed}} or another similar template on a file page. Note, however, that "this accurate statement of de facto control does not show de jure control" is not a factual dispute, as long as the map is represented as showing de facto control. A factual dispute would be "this is not an accurate representation of who has de facto control."
Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:副代表

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

After receiving the copyvio warning, this user mass-uploaded the copyvio photos. Netora (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done. That's true. One week block and I will investigate remaining uploads. Taivo (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Wemerson Inácio da Silva

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Sock puppet of Emerson Júnior GSF (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  to evade a block. It (the sock puppet) should be blocked indefinitely. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Emerson Júnior GSF is my boyfriend, we live together and of course we will have the same IP address. Also, it's not like I've uploaded some irregular file. --Wemerson Inácio da Silva (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Boyfriend with the same name but with a W in front, and whose account was created the day after he was blocked? Strange to say the least. And of course the IP is the same! RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  Done Indeffed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should we lengthen Wemerson Inácio da Silva's block for this? - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Jmabel, did you perhaps named the wrong account? "Wemerson" is already blocked as DUCK, you may have meant to ask about Emerson Júnior GSF. About lengthening his block of 3 months: unsure. "Pro" because the user has shown quite the disdain for our rules, "against" because there may still be a good chance to educate him in ways to contribute conforming to copyright regulations (I got this opinion after the exchange here). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, yes, I meant Emerson Júnior GSF. Difficult to keep track of these similarly named sock accounts. - Jmabel ! talk
I won't pursue this further myself, but the suggestion stands. - Jmabel ! talk 17:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Obedyadzo

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See Special:Contributions/Obedyadzo; please bulk-revert these – I don't know how to bulk revert all the edits. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done looks like Pi.1415926535 has already done this. - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Kieronoldham's "public domain" uploads

edit
Latest comment: 4 hours ago33 comments8 people in discussion

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

I discovered an issue when reading Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Kent State LIFE May 1970. Kieronoldham uploaded these images claiming that they were in the public domain because the publisher had not included a valid copyright notice. Someone pointed out in the deletion discussion that there was a valid copyright notice (as would be expected from LIFE magazine at that time). Kieronoldham has uploaded dozens of images with similar claims. I attempted to discuss this with them on their talk page but I found their responses unsatisfying.

As I see it, there are three issues with Kieronoldham's "public domain" uploads. First, the claim of public domain based on lack of copyright notice may be false or incorrect. Although Kieroldham never told me why they claimed the LIFE magazine images were in the public domain, they did say that they were unable to see all pages of that particular issue. In other words, they would not have been able to determine if there was a valid copyright notice. After we had our discussion, I took a closer look at their most recent upload File:John Joubert Lincoln Journal Star July 4 1984.jpg. Although they claimed that they had looked for a copyright notice, I immediately found one on the first page in the banner. It says "© 1984 Journal-Star Printing Co.".

The second issue is that the image is not the work of the Lincoln Journal Star, but is credited to the Associated Press. The credit is directly under the image where it would have been impossible to miss. Even if the newspaper did not have a valid copyright notice, the image would not be in the public domain. (The AP held the copyright. If a newspapaper published an AP photo without a copyright notice in 1984, the newspaper has lost the copyright to their own work but the AP has not lost their copyright to the image. I think this is sometimes misunderstood on Commons.)

The third issue is that some of the images uploaded by Kieronoldham come from somewhere other than the sources given. For example, File:Denise Naslund Ted Bundy Longview Daily News 17 July 1974.jpg is sourced to the Longview Daily News, but it is obvious that the image uploaded to Commons is from a different source. Notice that this is an AP story, so the images are likely also AP supplied and AP copyright. That might be noted in the actual source, so having those sources can be helpful to determine copyright.

I suggest that all of Kieronoldham's uploads be reviewed, if not deleted as a precaution. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, but the normal procedure for something is to list all their uploads in a deletion request. I appreciate you attempting to discuss this on their talk page before taking this here. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 01:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Alachuckthebuck Sorry, I'm not going to take the time to list dozens, possibly hundreds, of their "public domain" uploads only to have someone else inevitably say that it can't be handled as a single deletion discussion.
Some of these may very well be in the public domain due to a lack of a valid copyright notice. It appears to me that Kieronoldham did not do an adequate job of establishing that but I am not assuming they are wrong in every case. Ideally, each of the images should be checked. If that's not going to happen, just delete them all. Since Kieronoldham mentioned it on their talk page, I want to clarify that I am only speaking about their claimed "public domain" uploads from newspapers and magazines. I have no reason to doubt any of their other uploads. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Incidentally, the rule in the US is that "published with a copyright" means "first published with a copyright." The Lincoln Journal Star had permission to publish the photograph, but it did not own the copyright therefore it did not have to publish a copyright mark. AP owns the copyright, and I assure you, they are, and have been for a long time, very good about keeping their intellectual property copyrighted. You should file a deletion request for John Joubert Lincoln picture and anything else uploaded under the auspices of a Lincoln Nebraska newspaper. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 05:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Bastique You're opening up a can of worms there. I think Commons is overdue for a serious discussion about this, but it would endanger an awful lot of images that have been uploaded as "public domain" so I doubt the community is willing to have it. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I think you seriously underestimate this community's willingness to delete images 😂Bastique ☎ let's talk! 02:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Counterfeit Purses, license review is basically trying to find a reason to delete the file that isn't PCP. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Alachuckthebuck @Bastique I have started deletion discussions for two images. These are both images supplied by AP and clearly marked as such.
I don't think doing these individually is a sensible way to go about this and I have reservations about Kieronoldham's judgment in assessing their own uploads. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Individually doing DRs for this many files is definitely a bad idea, I would recommend doing DRs by source, i.e images from the AP, etc. this will make the DR's easy to close, even with 100 files. If they all are copyvios for the same reason, it's not that bad to check, or if they were gathered with an automated tool, only spot checks are needed. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
There is no way of determining if these images are from the AP or elsewhere without checking each image source individually. Notice that one of the files I nominated for deletion today is called "Jackie Doris Gilliam San Bernardino County Sun 16 fEBRUARY" but is sourced to the Nashua Telegraph of 18 February (and the actual image uploaded comes from an unknown source but neither of the two newspapers). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yikes. Honestly, Just doing a mass delete is looking like a good option right now. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Alachuckthebuck: I disagree strongly. Kieronoldham seems reasonably willing to go back and do the legwork to get this right, and there is no reason to think they are not capable of that. Obviously, anyone else can take some of this on themselves, and there may be some clearcut cases (like things that clearly come from AP). But I don't think this calls for a blanket deletion. In particular, most of the content before 1963 will almost certainly either be without notice or not renewed. I would certainly not want to see a mass deletion of that content. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel Kieronoldham may be willing, but I have no confidence that they can do this properly. See their comments here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I don't think a mass deletion is required at this stage. First, obvious cases (AP, etc.) could be deleted without much controversies. Then let's see how many are left, and how much work is needed to clear the rest. Yann (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Yann How do we find these "obvious cases" without going through each individual image and source? Who is going to do that? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Counterfeit Purses: You asked for administrative action here and you got it, even if not the same action you personally might have taken if you were an admin yourself. You are welcome to continue to comment, but do be aware that not every user is required to have your confidence. I can't stop you from requesting a mass deletion of everything involved, but I can vote against it if you do. I'd have no problem with you nominating anything that is clearly AP (or some other wire service), and I'd say that if even one issue of a particular newspaper has a copyright notice on its front page or masthead, that makes every issue of that paper suspect. - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am trying to dispel the notion that there is an easy "fix" for this. There isn't. Admins can choose not to act on the information I have provided here but that means ignoring that Commons is hosting copyright violations. Not probably hosting copyright violations, but definitely, knowingly hosting copyright violations since I have already identified some. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Counterfeit Purses: Please assume good faith. I think that Kieronoldham uploaded these files genuinely thinking that the lack of copyright notice in a newspaper made all the content in the public domain. This is the logical understanding, unless you read the fine prints. However, only the first publication needs a copyright notice to be still under a copyright. Yann (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Yann I am assuming good faith. I believe that Kieronoldham uploaded the images believing that they were in the public domain. I think that they possibly had a misunderstanding about a copyright notice being on the specific page or attached to the image so they did not do a proper check for copyright notices. The issue of other parties copyrights (eg AP) doesn't seem to be sinking in yet. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I nominated some files where 1. 1964-1989 pictures (pre-1964 pictures need a copyright renewal, so they are a different issue); 2. a link to the source is available; 3. it is not behind a paywall; 4. the source says API/UPI, etc. That's what I call obvious cases. Yann (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kieronoldham: I hope you understand the extend of the issue, and you can help us solve it. Some of these images may be uploaded in English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. Please do that if you think it is useful. Yann (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  Question BTW when does the copyright expire in this case, as the photographer is still alive? Is it 95 after publication or 70 years after the author's death? Yann (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Was it a work for Hire? (I'm leaning towards 70 PMA unless made as a work for hire, in witch case it's 95 years. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): As you support keeping some of the files I nominated for deletion, could you please explain in more details here why do you think these files should be kept, in view of others' opinions above? Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Relevant: The Forgotten Technology that Changed the News Forever - The official blog of Newspapers.com. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Someone above wrote: "I assure you, [the Associated Press] are, and have been for a long time, very good about keeping their intellectual property copyrighted" but the Library of Congress concluded the exact opposite. That the AP rarely copyrighted even their most iconic images and the few that they did copyright, they didn't bother to renew them. See: https://guides.loc.gov/p-and-p-rights-and-restrictions/rights#155_wide.html Someone else wrote that only the original publication is required to conform with copyright formalities, but USCO requires all "perceivable copies" to be compliant. We encountered this problem previously where record companies used the copyrighted image from an album cover (conforming with USCO formalities) in their ad for the album in Billboard magazine (non-conforming with USCO formalities), and we host the image.

--RAN (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • RAN is correct here. There is some tolerance for mistakes, but virtually all works needed notice. If you licensed your work to someone, it's your job to exert enough control to protect your copyright by having that notice added. Given the nature of the business, I could even accept one newspaper doing this for a while, but multiple newspapers doing this for years is AP allowing their work to reproduced without copyright notices, which would lose them the copyright. I doubt the AP could win in a court of law versus a zealous defendant on just about anything old enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Prosfilaes Let's pretend that we're somewhere in the US and it's before 1978. Let's say that Alice has a news photo service. Alice takes a picture and publishes it with a valid copyright notice. Who holds the copyright? Alice. Let's say that Bob has a newspaper. Bob publishes his own unpublished photo in his newspaper. Bob does not include a copyright notice. Who holds the copyright to Bob's photo? It has become public domain. Now let's say that Bob pays Alice to use her copyrighted photo in his newspaper. Again, no copyright notice. Who holds the copyright? Still Alice. Bob did not "lose" something because he was never the copyright holder.
    Alice stipulated that Bob credit Alice when he published the photo. Anyone who uses the photo does so knowing that it wasn't Bob's. It would be reasonable for them to expect that Alice would want to be credited and/or paid for it. Alice has no reason to insist that Bob include a copyright notice in his newspaper since she knows that her work is copyrighted and she has been paid by Bob to use it. Anyone using it without her permission is violating her rights, which is the same whether or not Bob has included a copyright notice.
    Although I have heard that things like trademarks can be lost if they are not defended, I am not aware of any similar way to lose a copyright. Do you any pointers to sources? Where do you think I am wrong in my theoretical example? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That you don't cite anything. We could work it from another direction; lawmakers make a law insuring that anyone can look at a copyrighted work and see who copyrighted it and when the copyright started, or else it's not copyrighted. Why would they support someone licensing a work for profit and letting it be published, and then suing someone who trusted that the lack of notice meant no copyright, like the lawmaker intended?
    https://chart.copyrightdata.com/c03A.html#sc03A.1 offers National Comics Publications vs Fawcett Publications (1951), where Superman comic strips lost copyright because they lacked proper copyright notice. https://chart.copyrightdata.com/c10B.html#s279 offers Sieff, et al., dba S & M Tire & Auto Supply Co. vs Continental Auto Supply, et al (1941) where works properly published in their first edition were reprinted without a notice, and lost copyright in them. Unlike Clindberg, I think that pre-1978 photos published in newspapers that AP should have known didn't have copyright notice are public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) When you use the phrase "perceivable copies" do you mean "visually perceptible copies"? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Not sure I have time to read through all of this, but there can be several considerations here. First, it is true that *all* copies needed a notice. If notices were on initial publications, but then lots of later copies lacked it, it would become public domain then. You did not have to register a copyright for the first 28 years; a notice alone was enough to secure copyright after publication. You did need to renew a copyright after 28 years, but that only applies to works published before 1964 and it sounds like most of these are not. It is indeed far safer to host works from before that. UPenn did say that no newspaper outside of New York City renewed issues from before 1945, but it became more and more common after that.
    Another consideration is that the law allowed a "relatively small number" of copies to be distributed without notice but without losing the copyright. If the initial publication lacked a notice though, even that may be hard to claim, no matter how small that run was. I believe court cases have put that number to be up to maybe 2% of all copies. When it comes to newspapers without notice, elements authored by that newspaper's staff should be OK. But when it comes to AP or UPI or other stuff reprinted in many newspapers, it's not clear at all that lack of notice on one newspaper would invalidate the copyright. Secondly, if AP etc. had express instructions to put a notice there, and that was not complied with, it maybe similar. It's usually more about the actions of the copyright holder, and how much they tried to protect it. AP may not have renewed much, but it's probably dangerous to assume PD status on works of theirs since 1964, unless we are pretty sure we are looking at a representative publication. Lastly, since 1978, works without notice could be "rescued" by registering them within five years (which would be available online at copyright.gov) and taking other steps. The lack of registration is usually the easiest to find out.
    Another part is that pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works did not need the year specified before 1978. After 1978, it did not need it when part of "useful articles" like greeting cards etc. The notice on the newspaper should have a year. And while the law specifies the allowable forms of the notice, the guidelines in the Copyright Compendium II (section 1005) goes into considerably more detail on what marks were OK and what were not. A usage like "(c)" was enough, for example. An incorrect name would not lose copyright (though an entirely missing name can). That version of the Compendium is for situations since 1978; there was a Compendium I which had guidelines under the older laws.
    When it comes to placement, some types of works had fairly prescribed places to put it. That is section 1013 of the Compendium II linked above. Books seemed to have to be at the beginning or end of the book, up to the first (or last) page of main body. Periodicals could be in any of those places, plus 1) as part of, or adjacent to, the masthead, or on the page containing the masthead: or 2) adjacent to a prominent heading, appearing at or near the front of the issue, containing the title of the periodical or other serial and any combination of the volume and issue number and date of the issue. I also tend to look at the section with the publisher information. It can't necessarily be anywhere but it does help to be able to see all pages, particularly for smaller newspapers. A notice did not need to be on every page; one notice on the newspaper (even if the wrong name) would cover any contained work. (Except for advertisements -- those needed individual notices.)
    For other elements, taking images that are not from the source without notice could also be a problem -- if there is expression not visible in the source without notice, but does exist elsewhere (such as maybe a wider crop, or color versus grayscale, etc.), the other copy may still have some of its copyright.
    The fact that these are (1964+) AP photos bothers me the most. To me it's pretty thin relying on lack of notice in one particular newspaper for those -- and then copying from a different source has further risks. Works authored by that newspaper on the other hand should be fine, *if* there is no notice, and it can take more than a cursory glance to really look. There can be a lot of nuance in this stuff, and courts looking for reasons to preserve copyright if the copyright owner was trying -- a number of technical mistakes were allowed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) the link you provided states that, "works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office." The images in question are entirely published after 1963. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 05:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

2806:101E:D:5FFF:297E:1CF1:62F7:80

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments3 people in discussion

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Poig97

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Poig97 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

all files the have upload by above named user are under copyright violation - needs admin attention [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

They probably have had more problematic uploads than most, and warning (and explanation to them) would be fine, but there is a large group of files that have not been discussed, and some of which do not immediately strike my eye as likely copyright violations. They may be, but there is nothing here that an admin can investigate more easily than anyone else. - Jmabel ! talk 23:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Modern Sciences: I see you did not inform this user that you have started this discussion. I will do that now for you, but that is required when opening a discussion on COM:AN/U. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel: Thanks, but user undo your last tagging by IP address.[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  Done IP blocked, more warnings to Poig97, files deleted and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Poig97. Yann (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]]: Could you please check all files by this user (including the ones claimed to be from Mehrnews, etc.)? Yann (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: checked and tag added [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:TK2264

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

After receiving copyvio warnings, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio logos and restoring. See the history of ja:小嶋屋総本店. Netora (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done. I found and deleted speedily one more copyvio and blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Violentsia

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

0x0a (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done. One week block. All uploads are either deleted or nominated for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:الشيخ ياسر الدوسري

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

0x0a (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done Blocked for 3 months. All copyvios and useless files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

FireBreathMan

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

FireBreathMan (talk · contribs) has consistently shown to not be here to improve Commons. Nearly all of their edits have been disrupting very contentious topics; many of these including mass-reverting files to reflect their own personal views, and in general just here to what enwiki would call trying to right great wrongs. This had already been brought up here, but it never received a response. The disruption has continued since then. I think this is clearly a pattern of not being here to build a free media repository. CutlassCiera 18:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've started a discussion on Flag Map of Europe in regards to Kosovo. Abzeronow (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

New sockpuppet of banned user Simotissir

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Abdelalimd (talk · contribs) is Simotissir (talk · contribs). Even the shortest glance at his uploads will reveal it. Edelseider (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done Blocked and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Jacsal2244

edit
Latest comment: 22 hours ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Vandalism/F10 images. JayCubby (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks.
I found this through NewFiles, which is polluted with legitimate uploads such as Flickr dumps and the hewiki collaboration. Is there a filtered tool I'm missing out on? JayCubby (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately not, the best tool is eyes and the refresh button. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
There used to be one, the Newbie uploads tool but I'm not sure what happened to it. --Ratekreel (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

New sockpuppets of globally locked User:Wave of Pandas

edit
Latest comment: 12 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion

All these accounts upload useless images of Hong Kong at night. Krok6kola (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

(I also flagged this a few hours ago at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Star Avenue 2018 sock - User:Star Avenue 2018 is an older account than Wave of Pandas, I don't know if it's the oldest.) Belbury (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
  Done McDull Avenue HK blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wave of Pandas is actually a new account here. What's the oldest account? Yann (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=993962549"