Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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
20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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 (index)

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.

Subject: Request for Permanent Block of A1Cafel[edit]

Dear sysops,

I believe that the actions of User:A1Cafel are inappropriate, contrary to the collaborative spirit, and demotivating for other contributors. I request that the possibility of an indefinite block be discussed, as this user has received multiple warnings and has been blocked four times in less than a year for reasons related to the concerns I am raising [1].

Specifically:

  1. Excessive and Unwarranted Deletion Nominations for Images: User:A1Cafel has been excessively nominating images for deletion, often citing reasons related to Freedom of Panorama (FOP) or the lack thereof in a specific country. This includes not only legitimate nominations for images but also nominations for items like plaques affixed to sculptures, which may not be justified.
  2. Stalking Contributions: I have noticed a pattern of User:A1Cafel closely tracking my contributions, with deletion nominations appearing in reverse chronological order based on my recent edits. This behavior, apart from being unsettling, contradicts the Wikipedia principle of "Assume Good Faith." I am not the only contributor affected by this problematic approach; prominent contributors like Chabe01 and to a lesser extent Romainbehar seem to have faced similar situations, and there may be others I have not yet documented.
  3. Intensity of Nominations: The intensity of User:A1Cafel's actions is also a concern. Aside from acting as a self-appointed watchdog, the lack of discernment is evident. For instance, the nomination of both a legitimate sculpture image and an accompanying plaque for deletion highlights a lack of careful consideration. The contributor in question does not allow for sufficient time for analysis and response, with new deletion nominations coming in daily in my case.
  4. Contributor Demotivation: Lastly, User:A1Cafel's behavior has a demotivating effect on contributors. In my own case, I have fallen behind on uploading nearly a thousand photos from three or four countries due to User:A1Cafel's recent conduct. I had maintained a daily upload rate until these disruptions. While this is a personal experience, it is likely that this negativity affects others as well. In any case, User:A1Cafel's actions do not align with the fundamental principles of collaborative work.

Thank you for your attention, --Benoît (d) 13:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, photographing sculptures and statues is a kind of derivative work. You need to either obtain the permission of the artist, or they have been dead for 70 years, especially for those countries with no FoP, or their FoP applies to buildings only. Your country, France, has a non-commercial FoP, but that is not accepted on Commons. Second, I didn't stalk anyone on nominating DRs. I just found the information of the sculptures using French Wikipedia. Lastly, I don't think this is a demotivation of the project. As an user, you should confirm that your uploads are complying with COM:L. If there is any violation of that, they cannot stay here and need to be deleted. I understand you may feel frustrated to see some of your valuable images were deleted, but copyright is copyright, we must respect it. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read me attentively, I don’t complain about COM:L, I don’t feel frustrated by images deletion when they must be deleted. I complain about your behavior. Your answer consolidates my opinion you don’t get the issue, or don’t want to understand, and you are not able to call yourself into question regarding your behavior here. It is my 5th point: unability to reconsider his/her own behavior, is an aggravating factor. ----Benoît (d) 15:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think I make too many nomination that may hinder other's attention, I can slow down the nomination rate. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As an user, you should confirm that your uploads are complying with COM:L.
OK, so why don't you do that? I see two regular sorts of edit from you here, both in great bulk. Tagging others' uploads for deletion under FOP claims, and uploading images yourself which have just the same issue (from your talk: page right now, File:Floralis Genérica (20964656646).jpg & File:Floralis Genérica (16429027530).jpg). Why are you so adamant at enforcing a rule on others when you won't follow it yourself? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are uploaded a few years ago. At that time, I think that they can fall under de minimis. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would have to agree with the nominator here. A1Cafel's actions overall are a nett negative to the project and they've been told about this repeatedly, for as long as I've seen them here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to disagree. Admittedly they had some problems early on, but I deal with them a lot myself and at least from what I've seen recently their DRs are usually pretty spot on. They also seem to know the relevant copyright laws and guidelines well. I guess there isn't a way to check what a nominators DR success rate is on Commons like they have for Wikipedia, but IMO to justify a block there would have to be clear evidence of them repeatedly opening DRs that were closed as keep. Including ones related to the person who opened this complaint. I haven't seen either one myself though. And at least when it comes to the person who opened this they clearly have had a problem with uploading COPYVIO in the last year. Their accusations that A1Cafel is somehow intentionally stalking them and excessively nominating their images for deletion in the process is also clearly spurious since A1Cafel has only nominated 15 of their uploads for deletion in the last 4 months, isn't the only one doing it, and the amount of nominations is directly related to how much COPYVIO someone uploads anyway. But so far it seems as all of their nominations have resalted in delete. So this is clearly an issue with Benoît Prieur not knowing or following the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You mean we should be grateful that they've abandoned their old practice (for which they were blocked) of also threatening to block those they DR'ed? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1@Adamant1 I think on average I close around a dozen of their DRs every day, and besides very few cases where I came to a different conclusion, I think 99% or more end in "deleted per nomination". I also don't see any "attitude" in the DRs, and the rational is mostly above average. Is anybody of the opinions that we should silently ignore FoP violations? Krd 15:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Krd here. I close usually 6 to 10 DRs a day and FOP cases are something I frequently close. I don't notice any particular attitude as far as the user's nominations, and I just added an Undelete category because the user brought it to our attention at UNDEL. I definitely don't think we should ignore FoP violations, and I look on with interest to efforts to bring FOP to countries like the Philippines and South Africa. Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to me that remark from Krd and assent from Abzeronow) should settle the matter. I'm a little surprised to see a claim of "99% or more" in terms of anyone's DRs, though. Do we never (or almost never) end up with anyone getting the relevant permission from the copyright holder, or deciding that something is de minimis where A1Cafel didn't think so, or discovering that a building or sculpure is a older than A1Cafel thought? - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

̈*@Adamant1 Since I need to justify myself, I must clarify that I have an excellent knowledge of the rules related to Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in all the countries where I have had the opportunity to travel. To the extent that I have my own process, allowing me to store images that may be uploaded someday (due to changes in the law, or whatever). I have a personal storage for this, as well as a Flickr account. I am also a contributor to non-wiki projects where I always try to adhere as closely to CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) as possible and use them as secondary storage until the upload is possible on Commons. Examples include [2], [=icreator:%22Prieur,%20Beno%C3%AEt,%201975-....%22], among others.

Of course, I am not infallible, and sometimes photos slip through this initial personal filter (lack of information about the artwork, etc.). What is statistically puzzling is that A1Cafel has identified around fifteen copyright violations in the past four months, given that I typically take an average of ten photos per day for Commons:

  • Lille, France (two days spent, late 2020)
  • Paris, Panthéon, France (one day spent in August 2023)
  • Cibeins, France (20 minutes stopover in 2017)
  • Nice, France (1.5 days in March 2022)
  • Monaco, Monaco (2 days in November 2021)
  • Bourg-en-Bresse, France (I go there often, but these are photos from 2016)
  • Cannes, France (two days spent in April 2023)
  • Dagneux Cemetery, France (an afternoon in 2016)
  • NYC, June 2023
  • Paris, 2021

All these copyright violations are effective and have been rightly removed. the laws of statistics being stubborn, I only wonder how A1Cafel managed to identify all of this in such a short time, unless through stalking me. I am very interested, assuming there was no stalking involved, in learning about the modus operandi (parent category, etc.) that led to such a "coincidence." ----Benoît (d) 17:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Benoît Prieur: Sorry if that de-motivates you, but I would hope you are not saying that we should retain copyvios to keep you motivated, or that your work should not be subject to scrutiny despite someone finding some actual problems. If you can point at half a dozen specific examples in the last year or so where A1Cafel nominated your images for deletion but the consensus was to keep them, I might see this differently. And, if so, then Krd and Abzeronow should reconsider their remarks. But right now, I'm inclined to take their remarks at or near face value. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deletion is not demotivated me at all. I'm clearly happy to see deletion of pictures which must not be on Commons for copyright reason. I'm demotivated by the obvious stalking (I can provide similar studies for others stalked contributors) and by the way of considering it a good behavior as long as it detects copyright violations, whereas I find it completely creepy and in contradiction with our values. Please try to understand that what depresses me is not the deletion of photos (for valid reasons). It's a behavior that I personally identify as toxic. ----Benoît (d) 17:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an FYI, but if I'm reading A1Cafel's edit history from the last few days correctly they have nominated upwards of 500 files for deletion just since yesterday. Of which you uploaded like what, 3 of those? So the accusation that they are singling you out in some way is clearly baseless. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, These are some examples of DR's by A1Cafel on my uploads in the recent 6 months *** All were "Kept":
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nathalie Orozco.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua Kevin K. Sullivan welcomed 222 individuals who had been imprisoned by the Government of Nicaragua for exercising their fundamental freedoms- U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on March 31, 20
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Foto Martin Lätt
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Photo by Gaurav Dwivedi
Which is similar to this still open DR from June - Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Photo by Milburn Fernandes
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Photo by Rakesh Malholtra
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bucha Summit, March 31, 2023.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Attorney General Merrick B. Garland met with President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy, United for Justice Conference, Lviv, March 3, 2023 - 52744852495.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Attorney General Merrick B. Garland met with President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy, United for Justice Conference, Lviv, March 3, 2023.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Jan. 27, 2023.jpg
and this most recent DR for alleged COM:OOS of the now burned famous Lahaina Banyon Tree (largest in the US) Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Maui_-_Shawn_-_5462362804.jpg. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: I'd say that looks like someone who might be too inclined to start DRs, but certainly also indicates that he wasn't particularly stalking Benoît. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Edit conflict) Firstly, I would like to second Krd and Abzeronow that stress that the nomination of FoP violations is not a problem per se. Hence, I do not see here any reason why we should admonish or even block A1Cafel as, so far, we do not have any proof of a practice of abusive nominations by A1Cafel. Secondly, I would like to add that we should take some care in FoP nominations, i.e. naming the relevant country and, if possible after some research, identify the artist and their life span. This makes it easier to undelete these images when eventually the artwork is in the public domain. I asked recently A1Cafel to improve their FOP-related DRs in this regard and my impression is that A1Cafel's nominations got better. Finally, I would like to ask A1Cafel to review their own older uploads in regard to FOP and to make sure that the focus in nominations is not on selected users. If we run across an image that needs to be nominated, then nominate it. But nobody should run systematically through all contributions of an individual user if there is no good reason for this. I do not know if this has actually happened here but I mention it as Benoît got this impression (unfortunately without evidence to evaluate this further). --AFBorchert (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A1Cafel has a long history of cross-wiki sockpuppetry, that's all I know about them. Lemonaka (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AFBorchert I don't agree! A1Cafel has been recently abusing of the DR tool (recently = September 2023), when he repeatedly, and continued after being warned, to nominate WLM files. This is disruptive for the project, because it gets in the way of the main photographic competition on Commons that implies many local chapters besides WMF. These files have regular permissions that are made public by the organisers, thus nominating the files for deletion discourages potential new users, attracted here by the competition.
I fully support Benoît Prieur's request. A1Cafel is here to "delete the project", not to contribute to make it grow. If undef block seems too much (but I wonder why), then I propose indef ban on DRs, so to force him to contribute positively. (of course, any sockpuppetry would imply a full block without having any AN/U, from my point of view). --Ruthven (msg) 14:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Ruthven: you don't provide any links there, so I have to ask: were these WLM files deleted? Or were these things that shouldn't have been DR'd? - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jmabel There are links in A1Cafel's talk page, but also, e.g. Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Biblioteca_Sandro_Penna, Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:The_Infantryman_Monument_(Salsomaggiore_Terme), File:Piemonte (174).JPG, etc. To have them deleted or not is not important, because it stresses the users, kick them out of the project, and reinforce the fear that, "whatever is done, on Commons they'll delete our files". It depreciates WLM in the same occasion. The best solution to prevent this is a block.
    @AFBorchert I reckon that, if there are no issues in his tending categories, he should do that, and no other activity on Commons. Note that I warned him in the past about repeatly requesting file deletion, even after an undel. This is to persist in a negative activity for the project. Ruthven (msg) 07:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ruthven, naïve question of mine: why don’t WLM files have to adhere to FoP policies? RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @RodRabelo7 That's exactly the point. WLM have permission from the copyright holders for publication under a free license. Ruthven (msg) 12:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Ruthven: " WLM have permission from the copyright holders for publication under a free license." Could you clarify that? There's no mention of any special arrangement like that in en:Wiki Loves Monuments nor in Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments. I see that in most countries with little freedom of panorama, we simply don't run WLM. But are you saying that there are countries where there is limited FoP and WLM has permission from copyright-holders to publish photographs of (at least some) subjects that would normally be excluded by lack of FoP? Or have I misunderstood you? - Jmabel ! talk 15:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      The whole work behind WLM, implying local chapters and volunteers, in countries where there is little FoP is to obtain the permissions for the monuments (photograph and publish under a free license). These authorizations are usually put online by the organizers. When a monument is "free" for WLM (or even outside of the competition, if the authorization is wider), there is a little template materializing it in the File page. This is true for Italy, for instance (which is the local version that I know the most, and where there are no copyright rules for many monuments), but the concept is similar for other countries. Monuments that are in the public domain, usually do not need a permission (Italian do have them, because of the no copyright rules above that we can ignore on Commons, but that the local chapter wants to avoid). Maybe some organizers from different countries can explain their workflow. Ruthven (msg) 08:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: I guess by "no copyright rules" you mean the it:Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio (COM:Italy#Additional restrictions for cultural heritage assets). But aside from that, I've seen several times now the claim that "WLM have permission from the copyright holders" (or similar). From what I have seen, WLM has authorizations by various Italian cities, regions etc. to photograph various buildings, monuments etc. As I gathered, these cities etc. are allowed to give such authorizations accd. to the Codice mentioned above, but this is not about copyright, but about non-copyright restrictions. The codice explicitely says such authorizations must adhere to copyright. Also, the cities might be the owners of the various buildings and monuments listed in these authorizations (though I have my doubts if that is really true for every single of them), but does that really make them the copyright holders? I've seen various theories that Italian copyright law (some article or paragraph 11) gives them the copyright in various cases (for works made "on their behalf"), but I also have my doubts about that. The WLM authorizations I have seen did not mention copyright at all. You might want to participate in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Il Grande Ferro R, Alberto Burri, pala De André, Ravenna.jpg (which was not started by A1Cafel).
All of this WLM Italy business is rather unclear, and frankly, I am not convinced that everything is all right as far as copyright is concerned. And I'm an admin here and do know a thing or two about copyright I think.Maybe I'm missing something, but if that is the case, it should be thoroughly explained how everything is in order then in these WLM Italy cases. COM:Italy isn't very helpful here. And if people like me and JWilz12345 (who started the DR mentioned above) don't see it, it must be explained better, and it's unfair to hold it against A1Cafel. --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: thanks for mentioning me. Regarding the very-unique case of WLM-Italy authorizations from Italian comunes or cities (from Ravenna to Assisi) over copyrighted buildings and monuments, the best place is actually at COM:VPC. All involved users must be pinged there for participation, and the deletion requests with mentions to the WLM-Italy MiBAC permissions or city (comune) permissions must be tagged with "on hold" templates pending the finality of the discussion. Or do you want me to start the (nth) thread? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: Please do start the thread, I can't right now (but will participate later). --Rosenzweig τ 09:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig The general idea is that the organizers contact the copyright holders (the City Council for monuments, and the Diocese for churches, generally) in order to have a permission to publish photographs under free license. This solves both FoP restrictions, and the Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio.
As far as I've checked so far, these permissions are correctly stated and OK for Commons purposes.
Then, somewhere it has been asked to validate them via VRT. This is honestly not doable, and we must trust the organizers, simply because VRT hasn't the number of agents sufficient to perform such a large verification. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is this about WLM and permissions documented? It's news to me, and I'm a 20-year veteran of Wikipedia, have been on Commons almost since it started, and an an admin both here and on en-wiki. If I haven't heard about it, and can't find it anywhere, it almost certainly should be more prominent. And I certainly would not have expected any particular user to be familiar with it, or to sanction them for not having known. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC) I see that a separate discussion has been started at COM:VPC, I will ask there instead. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Ruthven: These are strong statements but without any diffs, any statements whether A1Cafel has been warned and how he continued afterwards. The claim that “A1Cafel is here to "delete the project", not to contribute to make it grow” does not seem to be justified given that A1Cafel also uploads files, tends to categories etc. etc. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Anyone need some evidence for their Long-term sockpuppetry? Lemonaka (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you have "... evidence of Long-term sockpuppetry?" -- Ooligan (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you need? Lemonaka (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, please, as that can also be a reason to seek for a global ban. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Contacting me through email if you need. Lemonaka (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Lemonaka, Almost one month ago (8 October) you wrote above,
    "Anyone need some evidence for their Long-term sockpuppetry?"
    You have shared your opinions elsewhere, such as the Italy-related Long Term Abuser (LTA). Please, share a few of yours observations here. Respectfully, --Ooligan (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ooligan Ok, thanks, please take a look on their English Wikipedia talk page, and their previous block logs just on this project. You can easily find some CU request against her, if you want to digging more, you can have a try. Lemonaka (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Italy-related Long Term Abuser, eh, I don't quite sure which one you are pointing at. Lemonaka (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I was unaware of the sockpuppetry. That's very troubling. But in terms of A1Cafel's nominations under their own username, I speak as someone who took great exception to their earlier work as slipshod and uncollegial and say that from what I've seen in the last several months at least (and while I didn't see everything, I do look through COM:DR frequently), their work has generally looked quite good, competent and well-justified, and I've had no objection to their tone, either. In a few cases in which they were shown to have made a mistake, I've seen them accept it without trouble. So at least in terms of their work under their own username, I oppose any kind of block beyond existing limitations. If anyone wants to propose some form of discipline for the socking, that would be different, and I would bow out of a discussion on that basis and defer to the judgment of those who know more about how severe or minor it is, but I have no objection whatsoever to A1Cafel's deletion requests for photos of French art and architecture on the basis of a lack of commercial FoP, although they could probably sometimes be more careful about what might be de minimis. So consider this a qualified vote of confidence for A1Cafel at this point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AFBorchert. Above I wrote a response to @Jmabel-
"These are some examples of DR's by A1Cafel on my uploads in the recent 6 months *** All were "Kept":" (Please, see all recent DR links from my talk page in my above reply).
I offered those examples of failed Deletion Requests as an example of a pattern of behavior that I personally experienced by this User. My response was to Jmabel writing,
"If you can point at half a dozen specific examples in the last year or so where A1Cafel nominated your images for deletion but the consensus was to keep them, I might see this differently. And, if so, then Krd and Abzeronow should reconsider their remarks. But right now, I'm inclined to take their remarks at or near face value."
So, a dozen DR involving me that have all been "kept." Jmabel wanted "a half a dozen specific examples in the last year..." I gave a dozen specific examples in the last six months.
I suggest this is the proof you asked to have provided. It is not specific to @Benoît Prieur, however it does answer respond to the behavior related to your question,
"... we do not have any proof of a practice of abusive nominations by A1Cafel."
and you further wrote,
"Finally, I would like to ask A1Cafel to review their own older uploads in regard to FOP and to make sure that the focus in nominations is not on selected users. If we run across an image that needs to be nominated, then nominate it. But nobody should run systematically through all contributions of an individual user if there is no good reason for this. I do not know if this has actually happened here but I mention it as Benoît got this impression (unfortunately without evidence to evaluate this further). "
Lastly, I want to thank Benoît Prieur for taking his time to make this submission.
Sincerely, -- Ooligan (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: COM:AN/U is not a board to submit requests for further research. Convincing evidence needs to be presented here including diffs. See also this comment (first paragraph) by me on Benoît's talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AFBorchert, Did you see this diff (my 3 consecutive earlier edits) further above? -- Ooligan (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: I completely agree with Benoît Prieur. A1Cafel indeed stalks contributions and harasses users. Take a look at these absurd deletion requests: [3], [4], [5] etc… If you still don’t believe the opening of those deletion requests was pure harassment, let me explain: minutes before they were opened, I removed from this category some duplicates uploaded by A1Cafel. In fact, the whole category was duplicated. (Funnily enough, A1Cafel has some obscure fetish uploading everything they can regarding the coronation of Charles and Camilla, while nominating to deletion everything they had not uploaded themself!) Not to mention this sort of harassment: [6], [7] etc… I don’t have much time available for this, so I won’t spend the little I have left collecting more and more evidences.
    Honestly, their POV-pushing behavior is tiresome, and it was one of the reasons that made me decide to take a break from Commons (in addition, of course, to personal problems, such as a tumor). I always try to learn with mistakes, some of them being sort of childish, but A1Cafel seems not to. I don’t know if a permanent block would be a solution (I am permanently blocked on ptwiki, and I don’t think that is something nice), so I would suggest something like a three- to six-months block. That would have helped me there, I suppose… RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Another comment: I haven’t read the whole discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I suggest a permanent ban for the user from opening whatever RfD. Maybe is beyond their intentions but their actions are disruptive, not helpful at all. -- Blackcat 15:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topic ban of A1Cafel from uploads with Flickr2Commons[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by A1Cafel, yet again. Also Commons_talk:Flickr2Commons#Duplicates_2

A1Cafel has been requested over and over to stop doing batch uploads with Flickr2Commons that duplicate batches which have already been imported. This is a time-sink for other editors, they clearly have no intention of changing their behaviour over this.

Accordingly, they should lose access to this tool. The project does not need these uploads, they are just a source of extra work for others. No other measure, i.e. requests to A1Cafel, seems effective.

Their access to the Upload Wizard for doing similar uploads should also be considered (I express no opinion on that point as yet) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Support Yes! Yes! I entirely support that. A1Cafel must stay away from Flickr2Commons, because he does not care for due diligence. The Upload Wizard on the other hand is a much surer tool, it is duplicate-proof, and anyone should be allowed to handle it. --Edelseider (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Edelseider, New duplicates by A1Cafel today. Here: Special:FileDuplicateSearch/Eclipse anular 2023, Edzna, Campeche (53266776761).jpg and here: Special:FileDuplicateSearch/Eclipse anular 2023 (53267245920).jpg -- Ooligan (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: What can I say? He's incorrigible. Edelseider (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I sadly see no other way of them changing their behaviour. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose It appears that there's been a discussion on Commons talk:Flickr2Commons about it allowing people to upload duplicates since at least 2015 and there's been no response from the dev after multiple comments, new threads about it, and 8 years. So my suggestion is to block access to the tool until the developer feels like solving the issue since it's clearly a bug and isn't something only A1Cafel has an issue with. I don't think it's fair to block someone for something that is clearly an issue with Flickr2Commons though. More so since the developer is apparently unwilling to fix it. If uploads of duplicates are really that much of an issue then Flickr2Commons just shouldn't be able to upload images until it's resolved. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose No ban or site ban. Per previous sockpuppetry, they have many methods for circumventing the rules. Lemonaka (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but if they're a problem here, but they also sock to get round blocks, then we shouldn't bother to ban them? How does that work? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andy Dingley Banning a people sitewide meant that more eyes will be on them if they use socks to circumvent their ban, topic-banning is less noticed when circumventing by socks. Lemonaka (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose, the issue should be handled from the root, not from the leaf. I agree with @Adamant1: 's input. See also this discussion where I commented. I once imported a single file from Flickr, until the file description page begins to claim about an already-existing file on Commons, prompting me to add {{Duplicate}} immediately. Strangely it used to detect duplicates before, until at some point it failed to detect duplicates. At least all batch uploading using that tool should be disabled for all users, including me, until the tool developer fixes the technical issue. Yes the boilerplate notice on top insists users to direct technical concerns on the developer's website, yet I cannot immediately see a button or link on that website for messaging of concerns. I do not want to click any of the links there that appear to be technical in nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose topic ban for the reasons stated by Adamant1. I'd be inclined to support blocking access to the Flickr2Commons tool until the duplicates bug is dealt with. Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: I may agree provided that Flickr2Commons is disabled for all users, including you and me, until the issue is resolved. Though Edelseider mentioned this discussion on the Flickr2Commons discussion page, and that discussion seemed to suggest a low probability of the tool being fixed. A possible suggestion is a semi-manual way of uploading using the regular UploadWizard, but it is not ideal for users who may have some erratic real life schedules or things to do like me, because descriptions as well as {{Flickrreview}} may need to be manually added. I agree to a possible replacement of Flickr2Commons that would be maintained by the community instead of a single user. I may have made an off-topic comment but this is one input that I wanted to say regarding this issue on widely-used Flickr2Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly oppose disabling Flickr2Commons. I use it quite a bit, and would find it very inconvenient not to have it. - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: {{Flickrreview}} is added automatically when Using Upload Wizard, and yes, the descriptions have to be added manually with that toll where there is none, but you have the option to "copy all informations to the other files", i.e. it is enough to write the description, add the categories, supply any tag etc. once. --Edelseider (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support - please note that this is NOT a ban on A1Cafel uploading images from Flickr to Commons. Nor would it affect any other user from using the Flickr2Commons tool. Since the user has, despite warnings, failed to take due diligence in bulk uploading from Flickr, this would require them to use a different tool that makes upload of duplicates much less likely. I upload a good deal from Commons, regularly using Upload Wizard. Upload Wizard is still very easy and a convenient tool for uploading images from Flickr, and seems to much more reliably warn of duplicates. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Comment Since A1Cafel is not autoreviwer, he is limited to uploading 4 images at a time, using UploadWizard. Autoreviewers can upload 500 at once. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @RodRabelo7, do you mean autopatroller? -- Ooligan (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ooligan, yes, sorry. In Portuguese it’s called autorrevisor. My bad. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @RodRabelo7, no problem. Thanks for your response. -- Ooligan (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
of these two files; here (now here) and here
This could have been prevented by using Upload Wizard.
I use Upload Wizard, because Upload Wizard shows a warning for each individual file, if that exact same file already exists on Commons. When I see that warning, I do not upload that file. That is why I prefer to use it. Also, minutes ago I checked on this file on Flickr using the Upload Wizard. Upload Wizard shows both duplicate files by their different file names. --Ooligan (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment - @Andy Dingley, @Abzeronow, @JWilz12345 and @Adamant1
See A1Cafel's talk page for a discussion started in late September about duplicates before this pages's discussion of a "topic ban": User talk:A1Cafel#More duplicates uploaded.
A1Cafel admitted on September 30 that he uploaded 31 duplicate files to Commmons from just one Flickr album. This is the diff
Please, note that is a rate of 36% of the 84 uploaded files from this one Flickr album were duplicates of already existing Commons files. --Ooligan (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly both users need to be banned from using the tool instead of just blocking it /s --Adamant1 (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 Probably a bug caused by Magnus's unfair tool settings, see above for issues linked. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: Thanks. Going by the issues it looks like this has been an on going problem for years and one that he is unwilling to fix. So all the more reason to just block it IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably this is also a signal that whether we can still hope and trust Magnus to focus and resolve our concerns on using F2C tool, somewhat potentially, it might be a time that there should elect a new maintainer to take over the F2C source codes. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Question Does Flickr2Commons run a duplicates check before files are uploaded? If so, why isn't it catching these cases? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: Flickr2Commons does run a duplicate check BUT it does not recognize files that have been uploaded with another tool (for instance the Upload Wizard), and it does not recognize files when their Flickr name has been modified by the Flickr user. This makes its duplicate check quite worthless. Edelseider (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's odd. My understanding is that the upload wizard will give warnings broadly for if the file is on Commons already, regardless of how it was uploaded. Is there an API for this that could be easily incorporated into the Flickr2Commons codebase to improve the existing duplicate check? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: Sadly, Flickr2Commons can only act on files it is used to upload, and I have come to the conclusion that @Magnus Manske doesn't care enough about the problem.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just had to nominate 40 duplicate files for deletion that were uploaded using Flickr2Commons. I can understand where Jmabel is coming from, but the tool should clearly be blocked regardless of if it might inconvenience a few people. It's not like dealing with duplicate images isn't a massive hassle anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose From the above investigation comments, it looks like the initial poster of this thread does also have bad behaviors on Commons, so probably we need help from Growth team to seek if there's a way to teach both parties not to conflict eatch other anymore. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martin Urbanec: Perhaps? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose Fix the tool - A1Cafel is the not the only person to upload duplicates Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose If you dont like to clean up duplicates then push for the tool to be fixed--Trade (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. if users had used f2c properly, that is, if they would add the proper categories, it's hard to miss that some files have been uploaded. they'd arrive at the categories to be added to the files while working on f2c, and see that some files are already in there.
it's possible to sometimes miss it, but long term behaviour and cases like uploading "a duplicate of his own upload on the same day just a few hours apart" shows this user is abusing this tool. RZuo (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RZuoSo, you're guaranteeing that you won't do such behaviors by the current F2C settings? That said again and again, there are bugs within that tool, which may lead many users to easily make unwanted spam uploads, we need to fix it by pull requests, not fish someone by a bug. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"long term behaviour" (misuse) including but not limited to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:West Virginia government's COVID-19 press conference (2020-08-28) (10 700 photos like https://www.flickr.com/photos/govjustice/albums/72157715970584281 ). RZuo (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support +1 to what RZuo just said. I use this tool a lot. I believe the one or two times I've made this mistake I caught it myself within minutes and was able to correct the situation almost immediately. - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably, it's the time to let someone to takeover source codes of Flickr2Commons tool?[edit]

As above opposition comments pointed, there are several bugs within that tool, that Magnus, probably read or not, has placed up for several years, even though some may lead Unbreak Now bugs (by our Phabricator's jargon), and by re-looking up that bitbucket, these are either unanswered, or answered by other bitbucket users who may probably not understand how to make pull requests to fix, thus, I'm currently in doubt on whether Magnus is still competent at maintaining its source codes, should there have a new programmers, that has JS professional, to takeover this tool and start a new working-able issue tracker? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support As Nom. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support The ability to upload duplicates needs to be fixed regardless of the current issues with A1Cafel and I don't see that happening any other way then getting someone else to maintain Flickr2Commons given Magnus' lack of response in multiple issues having to do with it over the years. It's not like dealing with A1Cafel's chronic issues and fixing the tool are mutually exclusive either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And that attitude towards tool developers is why no-one wants to work anywhere near the Wikimedia community. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what's your solution? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even in voluntary open source projects there are still an expectation for developers to reply to reports about major bugs within several years Trade (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Information}} This year the Flickr Foundation has adopted the f2c tool. This has been annonced at VP or HD or somewhere. The WMF people can surely give more info on that. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@C.Suthorn Please fullfill the description, source and author fields for your templates provided, otherwise your comment will be itself problem. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, sorry , i mismatched informtation template for comment template. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template disabled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"This year the Flickr Foundation has adopted the f2c tool." This is not the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Trottapiano[edit]

Trottapiano basically continues what the currently blocked User:GMatteotti did. Should that be considered a block evasion? --Rosenzweig τ 10:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User only uploads copyright violation[edit]

User:RichKiwi, (names looks like my username), since 2014 only uploaded copyright violation. I can see two on the en.wiki en two here (the same file). See: File:Image.remini-enhanced - 2023-04-22T134050.149.jpg. User:Belbury requested the same filename (File:So You're a Man.jpg) for renaming as (the name of) an earlier upload from this RichKiwi. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Only 2 uploads, now deleted. Warned. Yann (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Raphael.concorde and Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory[edit]

"Chris A Hadfield Rocket Factory" appears to be a prank/hoax - supposed US facility named after living Canadian astronaut on the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. Zero results for "Hadfield Rocket Factory" from any government websites. There is a facebook group for it [8], which seems part of the hoax, including clues that it is deliberately dubious like references to its "underground shopping center" (New Orleans is known for not having extensive underground structures due to high water table). See also recent en:w:Talk:Michoud Assembly Facility#"Chris Hadfield Rocket_Factory" does not exist. User:Raphael.concorde seems to be major promoter of the hoax on Commons and en:w. Some of the user's Commons uploads have already been deleted (note in particular Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chris Hadfield interview at CAHRF.jpg; clearly a manipulated photoshop (edit:) same photo seen on Flickr at [9]) but a number of others remain. I think this merits serious looking into. I suggest user's uploads without verifiable 3rd party sourcing be deleted (please note that at least 2 Flickr accounts seem to have promoted the hoax as well - "Daniel Molybdenum" (!) [10] and "Daniel Steelman" [11] {...edit, found a third: "John Chryslar" [12]}). Possibly further action is warranted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Update: User has been indef blocked on en:w by Tamzin [13] - "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term logged-out sockpuppetry (Special:Contributions/147.197.250.54, Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:4872:8600:8DE2:2E64:110C:FFFA/64, https://w.wiki/7tZt—including at least one case of backing yourself up in an argument) and hoaxing (Talk:Michoud Assembly Facility § "Chris Hadfield Rocket Factory" does not exist)." I shall now block them here as well. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I shall now block them here as well. Sounds like a good idea considering the circumstances. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyright violation and fake license[edit]

none of these [14] are own work all taken from google image or websites and also licenses are fake. please delete all


https://www.hamshahrionline.ir/news/282211/%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D9%85%D9%87%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%86-%DB%B1%DB%B3%DB%B3%DB%B8-%DB%B1%DB%B3%DB%B6%DB%B3

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fd0%2F51%2Fd4%2Fd051d4bf7e8ade7caaa467e0cead9da1.jpg&tbnid=etNo2gDmJXg2lM&vet=12ahUKEwjo37aF6JKCAxVfwMkDHQM_DXsQMyhBegUIARDmAQ..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F820851469574936802%2F&docid=Yr81P_jpaL7G1M&w=600&h=736&q=%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%85%20%D9%87%D9%85%D8%AA&ved=2ahUKEwjo37aF6JKCAxVfwMkDHQM_DXsQMyhBegUIARDmAQ

Luckie Luke (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Luckie Luke Thank you for flagging these. I have noted that permissions are required for some. I have nominated copyright violations for SD and warned the uploader. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 10:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Taekhosong[edit]

This user incessantly uploads extremely obvious porn copyvios. I think any positive contributions they produce are clearly outweighed by the negative. Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 1 month. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Butdream[edit]

Another extremely unsubtle stolen porn user. Only two upload— one’s a watermarked scan of the wildly popular manga Berzerk and the other’s Touhou futanari hentai described as “sex during marriage”(!) Dronebogus (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done Both uploads were four days ago. But now that they've recieved warnings, if they upload any more copyvios, I'd be more than happy to block 'em. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Refactor11[edit]

Refactor11 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) All uploads are copyvios. Some re-uploaded after deletion once and even twice after the admin's 'last warning'. Komarof (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Sudiana98[edit]

Abuse, profanity, expressed anger. See this diff. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 09:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done I've already blocked this user for a day after noticing the talk page message. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Reblocked for a week for copyvios. Most files deleted, except one file from Flickr. Yann (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ColorfulSmoke[edit]

requesting file renames repeatedly over 2 years. been declined before. continues after being warned. 3 examples links are listed, but there're a lot more. RZuo (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months (3rd block). Yann (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:2406:3003:2002:4E80:68F9:A881:8841:A0AF[edit]

2406:3003:2002:4E80:68F9:A881:8841:A0AF (talk · contribs) is adding bogus depicts.... Glrx (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, doesn't look ill-intentioned, just clueless. - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nourerrahmane: adds superfluous informational references to files, falsely claims they were used by the uploaders + personnal attacks against me[edit]

This concerns the user User:Nourerrahmane.


1) Nourerrahmanehas falsely claimed that the upoader, @Goran tek-en: , used a Lulu.com book as a source for File:Banner of the Moors (1212).svg by adding this book as a source used by the uploader. Goran tek-en clearly did not the use this source, for proof see Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/2020#Convert Almohad banner to SVG. When confronted about them falsely stating this book was used by Goran tek-en, Nourerrahmane reverted the removal and stated: He should have added it then to precise that this is an andalusi flag, and please don't viable remove sources

For information, w:en:Lulu.com is for self-published books and those books are not considered as RS by enWikipedia (see w:en:WP:SPS and more specifically w:en:WP:LULU).

When told to stop otherwise I would start and admin intervention against them, Nourerrahmane stated: Please do, and one more time, stop removing viable sources.

2) Nourerrahmane has, in another instance, falsely claimed the uploader of File:Almohad flag.svg, @M.Bitton: , used sources they obviously did not use (see [15] and [16]). I removed those sources. Nourerrahmane then reinstated them and stated: You will stop this now.

3) I tried to reach out to Nourerrahmane at their talk page (User talk:Nourerrahmane#Stop adding informative sources!), but to no avail. They simply reinstated that what they did was perfectly acceptable. They even added that I see[m] to be a push POV (sic).

Nourerrahmane has shown no understanding nor will to communicate about their misbehaviour. Thus, I think a sanction is needed. Veverve (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1- Never claimed that any other user used the sources I added, I said they should have added the source since it specifies it was an Andalusian flag and not just « a moorish flag », Also I never mentioned that M.Bitton added anything.
2- you didn’t provide any proof prohibiting the addition of viable sources to existing files, you said « this is not Wikipedia ». Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never claimed that any other user used the sources: are you arguing the books being in the "Source" section and below "Own work based on:" does not indicate those books are the source material of the images? I think you are refusing to get the point and are grasping at straws. Veverve (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still, never claimed that any user added those sources beside me. That’s the point.
also, you haven’t given any proof that prohibits additions of scholarly sources to existing files. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a w:en:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT if I have seen one. I have nothing to add. Veverve (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You’re not WP:AGF.
the point is clear, I added sources to two files, also I never claimed other users used the sources I added.
until now you haven’t given any proof that this was prohibited, « this is not Wikipedia » as you said is not a proof. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never claimed other users used the sources I added Then you have gravely misunderstood what the Source field is for. It is for original uploaders to state their sources, not for you to say where it's from. If the original uploaders listed a source that they used, you should not add other sources which they did not. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry but i didn't knew this was not permissible, my intention was to make the file more credible with more sources. I'd rather have this explanation for deleting my additions rather than "This is not Wikipedia".
In that case, is it possible to recreate the same file with my sources added to them ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say no. The purpose of Commons is to be a repository of images, not sources. We don't need duplicate images just so someone can create an exhaustive list of references to places people can find the image. That's not the purpose of the project. It's not like one or two sources out of the seven that are already listed in the images description are somehow magically going make it more creditably anyway. At that point it just looks like references spamming to try and make something look legitimate through by adding a bunch of weak references when in fact it's probably fake. Not to say the images in question are, but the adding on more references to something that already has 7 seems questionable to say the least. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing is regarding muslim flags is that they are tricky, you might need multiple sources to make them credible, i also saw that many flags were created by sockpuppets of deleted accounts were unsourced and usually used to push an ethnic or nationalist agenda. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nourerrahmane The sources are NOT there to make an image more credible or thru, they are there so I as a graphic worker can show that I haven't copied from or used a source which I'm not allowed to copy from or use.
So only the graphic worker/uploader can know and add the sources which are used.
An uploaded image to commons doesn't even have to be thru, it just has to be within the scope: Commons:Project_scope#Scope_part_1:_Files. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’d say that what Nourerrahmane added would be perfectly acceptable anywhere else on the filepage (or in the talk page), except in the source field of the information template. That’s reseved for the author to indicate the exact source(s) of the exact file at hand and nothing else. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick disclaimer: Nourerrahmane pinged me previously ([17]) about this discussion, as we've collaborated on Wikipedia.
Comment: I think there's some confusion here over Nourerrahmane's intentions versus their understanding of the purpose of specific fields on the file page. Similar to what Tuválkin said above, in my understanding, adding references is fine as part of the "Description", which can be broad in scope and could include references and/or further explanation for users looking at how to use an image, but it should not be in the "Source" section, which on Wiki Commons is purely about the origin of the file itself, including for copyright attribution purposes. Nourerrahmane's addition should be OK in the former, but not in the latter. @Nourerrahmane, is that clearer for you? R Prazeres (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As clear as it should be @R Prazeres, Understood. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nourerrahmane: reverting all edits of this type that you have done would be a very clear way to show you have understood your behaviour was inappropriate. Veverve (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I was planning to my additions in the description field in the files, I sure won’t take any advices from an edit warring user that equally ignores the rules, so next time please don’t revert sources content, and if you do tend to give better explanation than “this is not Wikipedia”, thank you. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nourerrahmane, your latest answer to me is a clear w:en:WP:PA worthy of a sanction, attacking me for the second time (I have noted above you have said I see[m] to be a push POV), on top of the next time please don’t revert sources content part showing you do not seem to have understood how I was the one in the right by reverting you. Veverve (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m not interested in having any back and forth with you, since I don’t find it useful nor worth my time anyways. I will displace my additions to the description field section as agreed here. Please don’t ping me. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@R Prazeres and Tuválkin: just to be sure: was your advice to Nourerrahmane to move put list of books (including an unreliable Lulu.com self-published book) in the file description, as if the description section was a w:en:WP:FURTHERREADING section? Because this is the user's take on your advice ([18], [19]). Veverve (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understanding is that it's permissible and within the scope of image descriptions. Whether each file actually needs these additions, or whether the purpose of the added content is clear enough for visitors, etc, is another matter. I assume that in cases of disagreement, en:WP:EDITWAR rules still apply and editors should move to the talk page instead. R Prazeres (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@R Prazeres Regarding the Old Almohad Flag, i'm seeing it's hung to jealously in a suspecious way, please check the French Wikipédia, as you might already know that flag is fictitious and badly sourced ( source are pretty much a blog of flag amateurs and a misinterpreted primary source ), so i' m planning to ask for a removal of this flag from Commons, since the White Flag is attested in a couple of secoundary sources, not to say we should put a white flag in the infobox, but it should be understood that the unanimously mentionned White flag had significance for the Almohad ideology as the sources point out. So for the sake of not misleading readers because of Nationalist POV i think it's better to remove the red one from Commons. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s not how Commons works. That’s not even how flags work. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How so ? If you have any links in commons I would like to have knowledge about this. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can say have a couple links in Commons, a couple hundred thousand, even. Oh, look: here’s three more: -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was a genuine question, but I will have my answer elsewhere.
thank you Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems good to me. If any of the indicated links is problematic, then the discussion should be moved to the talk page. (But is Ian Heath unreliable…?) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The user has accused me on their talk page of being a POV-pusher (I see[m] to be a push POV). They have later stated in this very thread that I am an edit warring user that equally ignores the rules who should not be listened to, doubling down on their stance that they were right in adding fallacious sources (next time please don’t revert sources content). When confronted about those attacks and their editing behaviour, they stated, again in this very thread: I’m not interested in having any back and forth with you, since I don’t find it useful nor worth my time anyways. Veverve (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UA0Volodymyr[edit]

UA0Volodymyr (talk · contribs) edit warred with anyone on File:Forms_of_government_2021.svg, a block may bring them a shut down and reboot. Lemonaka (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a couple of days after they earned an indef block on the English Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know each project's administration is supposed to be independent, but it's a real bad sign that someone gets blocked for edit warring and then moves over here to continue edit warring. I'd support an indef block here. We're under no obligation to give problem editors a safe haven to continue causing problems. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done? I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joshbaumgartner’s cat renames[edit]

At Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/09#Bad category-renaming you can see how the user was called out about renaming categories in a way that’s not only terminologically subpar but also politically prurient. One full month later, Category:Brown women's eyes still exists, populated with more than 300 elements, let alone grandchild cats and other such cousin cats. This user seems to have stopped editing two weeks ago (last edit: 2023.10.17, 22:09:53), but apparently and against his promises in the ducussion, little was done to repair the acknowledged damage in the two weeks before that. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • @Tuvalkin: We can't really sanction someone for failing to edit, so I don't really see any possible useful action to take other than addressing him.
    • @Joshbaumgartner: I would certainly hope that if/when you return to Commons in any substantial, you make it your first order of business to clean up these categories. If I remember correctly, at our last interaction over this, you not only said you would do so, but seemed somewhat offended that I raised even the slightest doubt that you would. - Jmabel ! talk 01:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meanwhile, crickets… And we keep unearthing further treasures in this vein, such as "Category:Gray girls' eyes". This is not just a bad case of Engrish (with a side serving of Ufology…): this is also a bad case of chutzpah, as Josh created this ridiculously inane catname by renaming/moving correctly named "Category:Girls with gray eyes"… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: as you presumably know, this is AN/U. Can you explain what sanction you are seeking against Josh for complete inactivity? I have already addressed a comment to him above. Are you suggesting that we block him for not editing? That seems a bit perverse: "You haven't edited, so we won't let you edit." Or do you have some other administrative action in mind? Yes, these are bad category names. - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:Manojkvanjara[edit]

Manojkvanjara (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Return of a spammer that was blocked in August and return with more selfies. I marked his uploads for deletion but he should be blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Blocked by Wutsje for 3 months. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Richiek Rakesh[edit]

Richiek Rakesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Uploading copyright violations after final warning. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richiek Rakesh. Yann (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WayneRay (talk · contribs) likely back as Photo Archives (talk · contribs)[edit]

This user was globally blocked from Wikimedia. See metawikipedia:Requests for comment/Global ban for WayneRay. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And for what makes me say this, both users upload pictures of the same topics with the same cameras: Category:Photographs by WayneRay and Category:Photographs by Photo Archives. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
metawikipedia:Steward requests/Global#Global lock for Photo Archives Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK Bye. Was trying to do better but failed again. See ya and thanks for all the help and assistance. Not trying to do any harm just continued dissemination of information. Bye Bye ̴̴ Photo Archives (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW all of Category:A Short History of Japan, Category:A Manual of Parliamentary Law and other files uploaded by Photo Archives have the wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Meteum[edit]

Meteum (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Reinput the same screen capture of a copyrighted website after being warned. Furthermore, by the name, it seems a paid editor for https://meteum.ai/ Pierre cb (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ThecentreCZ[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it doesn't. Real life use applies. False request on here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ThecentreCZ was already reviewed and checked on 4 October 2023 by Commons Administrator Abzeronow as false reporting, which was already in review for months. Thank you, ThecentreCZ (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It still seems like the files aren't sourced to actual flags regardless of the outcome of DR, which I think as you've been told they should be. Plus it looks like your stil having the problem from doing a quick glance over your recent uploads. For instance the author of this flag is supposedly Sociální demokracie. But then looking at the sources they don't seem to be where it came from. Sure, they reposted an image of some protestors waving the it on their social media accounts, but that doesn't make them the "author" of the flag. And that's just from a simple glace at your recent uploads. I'm sure I could find more examples. The ones that have already been brought up in other discussions and still aren't dealt with not withstanding. Plus ones that haven't been brought up yet, like File:Czech Youth Union emblem.svg from a while ago where your the source of the emblem and there's zero evidence of it being used anywhere else aside form Wikipedia and another site that got it from here. File:Flag of the Czechoslovak Youth Union.svg which again your the author of and the links for where it supposedly come from are either dead or don't show the "flag" to begin with. You've clearly had enough time deal with issues like that, but apparently you couldn't be bothered to for some reason. Even though you went on and on ad nauseam in the original discussion about how they are "real flags" that you could provide sources for. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You misunderstood my meaning by "in use". I meant the files were in use by Wikimedia Projects. I deleted the ones that weren't sourced and unused as they would be considered out of scope. For some files, the only reason why they'd be in scope is their use, which local projects would have to decide if there are actually "real". Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This person Adamant1 is again here. He's already been bullying my uploads for 1 year and hasn't accomplished anything, he again broughts up new things he invented. He's doing this for months. He already written like 5 normalized A4 pages with about 5000 words just to justify already disproved by many, including experienced administrators. ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I started one DR for some of your uploads in May around the same time someone else opened the original ANU complaint, but I haven't had anything to do with you outside of that except for this, which again, was started by someone. So in no way have been bullying you for a year or at all for that matter. I'm not really sure what your talking about with the 5 normalized A4 pages with about 5000 words either. Your clearly trying to make this about me to deflect from the fact that you never fixed the sources for the files alike you said you would and are continuing to do the same things that led to the original ANU complaint in the meantime. I'm not at the point of suggesting a block myself, but your behavior really needs to be dealt with in some way. Be that you acknowledging it and fixing the problems like you've been asked to by multiple people ad nauseam at this point or some kind of sanction. I don't really see the first one happening though considering your continued refusal to admit there's an issue or deal with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indo British Wikipedian[edit]

Indo British Wikipedian (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  won't stop uploading fantasy/fake election diagrams and has already been warned by N Panama 84534 in September. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done, blocked for 3 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change of source; odd disclaimers; edit warring[edit]

User:SchroCat recently changed the source parameter of an image I uploaded, File:Edward Oxford tries to shoot Queen Victoria in 1840 by JR Jobbins.jpg. On checking, I could easily see that, while the image on the newly-stated source page depicts the same artwork as my upload, it is not the same as the image I uploaded. I therefore reverted], with the edit summary "restore actual source".

SchroCat has chosen to edit war and revert my edit, without discussion, again restoring the bogus source.

In my edit, I also removed SchroCat's rather unusual note:

* [https://www.alamy.com/english-lithograph-by-j-r-jobbins-of-edward-oxford-attempting-to-shoot-queen-victoria-1840-j-r-jobbins-180-edward-oxford-tries-to-shoot-queen-victoria-in-1840-by-jr-jobbins-image188271420.html?imageid=C06DFA9A-B96A-4E37-BA8B-539EF58BF852&p=650648&pn=1&searchId=f551f5d4176ebc4bfdd58ef7994190cf&searchtype=0 Classed by Alamy as a public domain image]

as I believe we are not reliant on Alamy (not any other commercial agency) for decisions about copyright. That note, too, was restored.

I also removed a similar notice from another image. These notes were apparently added to address concerns raised about a featured article candidate on the English Wikipedia.

I was again reverted with the edit summary "Run along now, little man"

Is this set of behaviours - addition of bogus source, Alamy statements, edit warring, abusive edit summary - acceptable? I'm sure that the latter pair is not, and can find no policy basis for the first two. Should they remain?

I note that this page encourages discussion prior to opening a section, but past experience and the edit summary quoted lead me to believe that the assumption of good faith is not warranted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How tiresome. The source you insist on using leads to a dead page. It was also not archived at any point, so is useless as a source of a historical work of art. If you insist on retaining the source we can always delete the image as being unsourced, while at the same time uploading the exact same image from the source I provided. Such overly bureaucratic steps are a complete waste of time and effort, but as you're not bothering with good faith, then I presume you're up for the least constructive path of having a decently sourced image? I would say please enlighten me, but when you've accused me of edit warring when there is none, I'll leave you to it without bothering to post here again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original source in a case like this generally should be noted, even if additional information should be added. And an image from 1840 would be in the public domain even if its online source were unknown. - Jmabel ! talk
Good call, but what about calling another user «little man»? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: Obviously out of line, but not worth a block unless there's a pattern of such things. I've heard worse. I've had worse directed at me. - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually asked about how to deal with dead links to sources on the village pump a few months ago and sadly never got a meaningful response outside of a few users telling me dead links aren't an issue and that I should just leave them alone. It's something that really should be clarified though. Not only to avoid issues like this one, but also because link rot really doesn't help anyone. Be that users wanting to verify licenses or random visitors who would like to find more works by the creator. Although linking to a different image then one that was uploaded isn't optimal, but there's no reason someone shouldn't be able to change the source to a site containing an exact copy. There's no reason it should matter anyway if the original is PD to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andy brought the matter here (ANU) on behavious grounds. How to deal with dead sources should be discussed elsewhere. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Justifiably of course. I just brought it up because I can understand why SchroCat made the mistake to begin with. Even though how they handled it in the interim was clearly lacking. As you were though ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too. On the other hand, I had dour admonishments directed at me on this page for much less uncollegial quips, so good thing that SchroCat now understands that’s not A-OK. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They do? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[restored from archive]

Do we restore the actual source, nor not? Do we keep the reference to Alamy, or not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redux[edit]

[restored from archive]

The above having been archived I restored both pages to their longstanding form, and have in both cases been immediately reverted.

I see no consensus above, either to change the source of one image to one for a different image, nor to include in each image text deferring copyright determination to Alamy; nor any argument as to why we should do so for only two of the many thousands of images which can be found on both sites.

I also note that the Alamy text is not used on the page for the Tiff version of the second image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I left your precious dead link on the page (although it is an utterly pointless thing to have, given it helps neither man nor beast), but also kept a live link to the image. I'm not sure how you see this as backward step, but each to their own. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=818575628"