Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	122, 121, 120, 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	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	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

^{Translate this page}

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.

Upoladed for promotional use

User: Navabexe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: All the files uploaded by this user on commons are just for promotional use for himself. Please delete all

please see the page

please see the page [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Navabexe is Javad Norouzi himself, then there is a problem with false claims of own work that need to be sorted out (who really took the pictures, and will they provide licenses?); otherwise, these are not obviously out of scope, though they could be. I don't read Farsi, but the contributor seems to be working on a draft article in fa-wiki, and insofar as Google translate can be trusted, the person in question appears to be at least possibly notable enough that fa-wiki would want the article (though it reads a bit much like a CV at present) and/or that we should want the photos. There is no rule on Commons against uploading photos of a person to whom you have a connection. I'm not saying "clear keep," but it's also not a clear speedy deletion, and I don't see a reason for precipitate administrative action. - Jmabel ! talk 05:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: The false claims of own work are concerning. Again per Google Translate, the second link (attempted article) was deleted per "M7 : No indication of the topic's prominence and importance" and salted due to "Continuous creations". I see little likelihood of overcoming those hurdles, so F10 and G10 would do for the files. Pinging @Khoshnevisan as deleting and salting Admin on Persian Wikipedia. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of our old users in wikifa approved that navabexe and Javad Norouzi are same people. Also Javad Norouzi is not famous. I don't know this information is usefull or not.Khoshnevisan (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khoshnevisan: Thank you. I tagged his practice page as spam. He seems not here to improve Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also permission of uploading these files in commons is another issue these files taken with high ranking official such as diplomats - politicians - army officers and so - please delete these files[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tusharbd1

User: Tusharbd1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: This user keeps uploading copyrighted images from the internet.

--আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This after warnings. I sent them a final warning. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jeff warned the user. All uploads are already deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley

User: Andy Dingley (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Kinda minor but still wanted to bring it to an admin's attention because I don't want to escalate it.

So, I was categorising the files in Category:All media needing categories as of 2018. After having categorised most of U-W, I saw which ones were DR-worthy and nominated them for deletion- the rationale being out of scope+ copyright issues for some, as almost all of them are out of scope due to various reasons. Andy came to the DR and assumed bad faith accused me of such COM:Uncivil things as being lazy, and that I was lying about my deletion reason.

After replying to him that such conduct is bad, I went to his talk page to ask him to not commit such conduct again as it's bad for commons. He then doubled down by calling my action lazy again, said I was lying again, and then twisted my words by talking about licenses again and again when I never mentioned licensing(some of the media is third party, which is the source of dubious copyright for some of these images.) He also keeps saying I didn't give any rationale when I did give a rationale, and even added specific rationales for each in a edit in between. Thank you for listening. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to play the 'civility' card here, one of the worst insults we can give any uploader is to try and delete their work. We should always be very careful about doing this and should only do it when there is a real, credible, policy-based reason to do so. Not just because it's 'untidy', or because it's sitting at the end of a work queue we would otherwise like to empty, such as uncategorised images. When the DR is a bulked DR, even more so when it's across multiple uploaders, then we should be especially careful about this.

If you want your DRs to be actioned, then give good policy-based reasons for them, that are clear so that other editors can easily judge what the relevant issues are. If you post a bulked DR with three potential reasons for deletion on each image and ask editors to pick which one that they think applies, then you're going to get called out on that. That is not uncivil.

When you are called out on this, then don't just start describing the replies you get as "yapping about licenses".

You were required to notify me of this posting. Why didn't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did put a policy based reason as I have said again and again. Nominating them was actually harder work- it might take way more time, but categorizing is definitely easier than nominating something for deletion given that the deletion requires a discussion, so like try to think before accusing me of things perhaps?

Were you not talking about licenses again and again?

I did, on your talk page, saying that I had posted it on COM:AN#U and linked to this thread. If you are asking why I didn't use a template, then as far as I'm aware, we don't need to do it specifically that way, any notification on someone's talk page is fine. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Andy Dingley could have toned it down, but as it happens I just was commenting on that DR to the effect that as an admin it is really a pain to have to deal with catch-all DRs like that, where pretty much every individual file is an independent decision to make, on a completely different set of factors. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Andy is correct about the inapropriateness of the DR, though. Bedivere (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is with the name-calling(lazy, liar) though, none of that needs to be said for "should be procedurally kept". I don't have problem with the procedural close, I did get a tad overenthusiastic. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no prejudice in renominating whatever you think appropriate Bedivere (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirhayati

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

I blocked this user for copyvios. There are hundreds of files with uncertain copyright which need review. Knowledge of Parsi would be useful. Yann (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for broader copyright- and scope-related scrutiny of uploads from user:Castroonthemoon

Hello,

I came across Special:ListFiles/Castroonthemoon. I took a look at some of their files and began to harbour doubts whether these are acceptable under two policies: COM:SCOPE and COM:L / COM:DW.

For being educationally useful and hence in scope, there must IMHO be sources named, so that any reader can convince himself of the faithfulness of the depiction of flags, logos or similar. Otherwise, the imagery would simply be art by a non-notable artist.

But: if the faithfulness of the imagery gets proven, then a lot of it is too complex for being below TOO. We're going into copyright problems, then. In any way, I think that several if not most uploads should be deleted; but I wanted to gather more opinions about it through this request. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that you're not familiar with the policies that you're interjecting. The files that I have uploaded violate nothing, are well within Iraqi copyright law, and are well within the realm of COM:TOO when it applies; you're just not familiar with the Arabic language. Castroonthemoon (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy to demonstrate as "false": Not all of your uploads are about Arabian things, File:PopularRevolutionaryArmyFlag.png is from a few days ago and about an American subject. In fact, that you're using graphic material of complex shapes (swords and other weaponry, plants and plant parts, other objects) in a casual manner is IMHO rather suited to demonstrate your own lack of policy and guideline understanding (like COM:PRP). My question here is not about Arabian writing, I should be able to recognise it as such, but about other graphical features. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! It's funny that you mention that, File:PopularRevolutionaryArmyFlag.png concerns a Mexican subject, and as you may not be aware, Mexico is a permenant observer[1] of the Andean Community, which per the Community's threshold of originality[2], is under no violation at all. Just because you believe "swords and other weaponry, plants and plant parts, other objects" are apparently complex things, that does not mean they are complex shapes when depicted Castroonthemoon (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also a bit scummy that you're nominating my uploads for deletion, because in your opinion "there must IMHO be sources named" Castroonthemoon (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that en:Andean Community does not even mention Mexico. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 02:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too, I thought about adding that to the Andean Community article, but I was concerned that it may appear that I was creating falsifications related to this discussion Castroonthemoon (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but here's another example. File:KSaSFlag.png. It contains elements that go far beyond geometric shapes or text. In short, the flag isn't simple, and a flag isn't a logo. And the Iraki license should also be viewed critically, as this group was founded in 2013. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 02:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, it falls under public domain per the Iraqi Article 6 of Law No. 3 of 1971 on Copyright, which states that official documents are exempt from copyright (for which flags fall into this category; which is just one of the reasons why the national flag of Iraq can't be copywritten). The militia for which the flag belongs to is apart of the PMF, which legally is apart of the Iraqi Armed Forces, meaning that Article 6 extends to this militia. Castroonthemoon (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand-Duc: I don't think there is any immediate admin issue here. If the files appear to be problematic, nominate them for deletion (please, not all at once), starting with the ones you think are most likely to be problematic.

@Castroonthemoon: It does appear that you've had some files of this sort deleted as copyvios, such as File:Prosperity Party Emblem.png and File:Baqir Brigade.png. I would suggest that you stop uploading for a week or so, to see where consensus goes on the files that Grand-Duc or others might nominate for deletion, and than take that consensus into account for uploads of similar content in the future. Otherwise, this will become an administrative issue. - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the advice. I think it is worth noting that File:Prosperity Party Emblem.png was uploaded five or six years ago, and was my 33rd edit overall (and if we're being honest, totally falls within PD:text-logo). File:Baqir Brigade.png was also nominated for speedy deletion, and was deleted within ~20/30 minutes; before I could dispute the speedy nomination / nomination overall. Castroonthemoon (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. I take it as advice to put a few uploads at a time in the DR queue to discuss them individually and to do that: see where any consensus may go. In any case, I'll make sure as usual to careful word my upcoming DR. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon. Yann (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Jmabel if the files appear to be problematic, nominate them for deletion (please, not all at once), starting with the ones you think are most likely to be problematic. Castroonthemoon (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you started deleting files before any actual consensus was made too? Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Castroonthemoon: I have no idea who "you" was in the immediate previous post, but you can either petition the relevant admin who deleted them, or can take it to Commons:Undeletion requests. But it looks like the main action is at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon, and I've suggested there what sort of thing you would have to do to get these kept.

PLease, everyone, no out-of-process deletions, flags and emblems can be very complicated for their copyright status, and we should be trying to sort that out accurately.

I don't think there is a further administrative issue at this time; it looks like the requested scrutiny is under way at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the "you" was a response to @Yann, who per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Military Council for the Liberation of Syria.png deleted after an hour of it being up, with only my and @Grand-Duc's feedback. Otherwise, Thank you, I have responded on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon. Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sid Igor

Sid Igor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions): New copyvios after one week block in March 2025. Quick1984 (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. One month block and I'll examine his uploads. Taivo (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sterlyn12kla

User: Sterlyn12kla (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued promotion after warning for doing so.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No promotion here. His only upload was deleted as unused personal file. Your warnings are currently enough. Taivo (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ReneeEdits

This user has been systematically emptying and trying to delete an entire category tree without explanation. Dronebogus (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I emptied out Category:Video game guest characters as most of these categories did not contain media relevant to their parent categories. They only contain other categories of characters unrelated to the parent. For example Category:Soulcalibur characters has Category:Soulcalibur guest characters as a subcategory, which has Category:Link (The Legend of Zelda) as a subcategory, which contains no media relevant to Soul Calibur. The only category that contained media relevant to the concept of "guest characters" was Category:Mortal Kombat guest characters, but even here I moved these files to the appropriate character categories before tagging the category for deletion.

I saw that the report was moved from the vandalism board to ANU, which I appreciate as a more appropriate venue. That said, I was still a bit surprised by the escalation. As a long-time contributor acting in good faith, I would have welcomed a discussion on a relevant talk page before it was taken to ANU. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t just unilaterally nuke entire half-a-decade-old category trees because you personally don’t think they’re useful. You start a discussion about the category. Manually emptying categories to get them immediately speedy deleted is a clear abuse of process. Dronebogus (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renee is entirely correct here - this category tree should not exist. Having appeared as a guest character in another piece of media is not a defining characteristic of a given character. This sort of nondefining characteristic is a clear-cut case with plenty of precedent (c.f. Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Actors by role which I just closed today); we don't need a CfD for every single bad category tree.

The notice at the top of the page says Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. If you aren't willing to assume that a experienced editor in good standing is acting in good faith, and to start a discussion with them before accusing them of vandalism, please don't waste everyone's time bringing it to AN/U. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 121#user:Sbb1413 and “unusual” Was a case where a non-admin nuked an entire longstanding category tree that resulted in the action being reversed. Per User:Andy Dingley: he was assisted in this by an admin following (yet again) C2 speedy deletions for "Delete this empty and useless category" immediately, despite the fact that the category had only just been emptied by Sbb1413. This keeps happening, and it keeps making big chaos out of small chaos. What you did here doesn’t seem to be based in policy (unless you can cite one); it’s more like you went “I agree with this user and am going to endorse and implement their idea based on another idea they had that got broad support which I also implemented”. There was no consensus here like there was there, and no attempt to form a consensus. People should not just get to dismantle or radically alter an entire category tree without any external input. Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we don't need a CfD for every single bad category tree.

Hell, yes, we certainly do need a CfD, especially if it's a whole tree of them.

We do not have a CSD for 'bad category'. Admins do not hold any privileged opinion in our CfD process. We do not have any process for an admin's instant COM:IDONTLIKEIT deletion of 'bad categories'. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, this involved a very small category tree, just four categories (of which only one contained relevant media - three files to be precise - which were re-categorized appropriately). Given the small scope and the fact that the tree structure violates COM:CATPRI I'm surprised at the level of escalation, especially when I could have clarified my reasoning with a simple talk page discussion. The comparison to the "unusual" case cited from AN/U doesn't hold here; that involved a significantly larger and more complex category tree with far more media, making it a very different situation. And thank you Pi.1415926535 for looking into this, and for your clear and principled response. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: may I suggest that you not use COM:AN/U as a first resort? As it says at the top of the page, "Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)" - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farcazo

User: Farcazo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so. Vandalism after warning. CIR issue.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see neither vandalism nor copyvio uploading on current month. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he started writing to me on the user page that I was inferior to him and what I uploaded clearly has the Fake insignia and PD-simple, pd-textlogo Farcazo (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Farcazo: who wrote that you were "inferior to him"? Diff, please. - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dronebogus

Opened countless deletion requests on the same subject [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] (et caetera), making it difficult to properly assess the requests, even though the recent topic had no definitive conclusion. This way, it makes it difficult to conduct a thorough analysis of the images to be deleted. I have better things to do than open dozens of tabs in my browser and analyze Panteleev's excellent images. If there are those who enjoy browsing through images they themselves consider inappropriately pornographic, so be it. This unreasonable moralism is getting out of control. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not moralism, it's simply considering the COM:SCOPE policy and valid DRs. Dronebogus did nothing wrong there, except maybe it would have been better to just have one to three DRs instead of over 10. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is disruption. Dronebogus has been here long enough (and spends enough time on ANU!) to know two things:

DRs on the same issue should be bundled.
Exey Panteleev's work is treated 'exceptionally' on Commons. I make no comment on whether we should or shouldn't host them (that's a separate question) but clearly they have acquired some peculiar status here. So a string of separate, isolated DRs with nomination rationales that begin “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; are just some unconvincing pearl-clutching.

Especially from an editor who has uploaded considerable quantities of work that have as much of a 'pornographic' status as Panteleev's, and as much tenuous and oft-questioned connection to SCOPE.

If you want to delete the Panteleev collection, then go for it. But that would need a single DR, on that basis, it would need to be clear, and it would be an uphill struggle to delete them. There are some here who would support that. But this handful of individual DRs is not the way to go about it, and it's a waste of editor time to set that in motion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) not bundling my deletion requests was lazy and un-exemplary behavior on my part, but it’s not a crime. There are a hell of a lot if files and a non-trivial number of them are in use, making it a bit of a minefield. I take COM:INUSE very seriously and would rather go through and nominate them case by case and deal with the minor inconvenience it poses (sorry) than accidentally hit an in use file and actually violate policy. 2) There is no actual rule that says Panteleev's work is “exceptional”; I asked about it at VP and the overall response was more “no” than “yes”. I nominated a bunch of others (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology), Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChatGPT by Exey Panteleev.jpg) and multiple respectable users (including an admin) voted “delete”. w:wp:Stonewalling is not policy or even legitimate consensus, and arguing that my two or three illustrations of sex positions that have no other images available on Commons are the same as Panteleev's 100s of nearly identical photos of naked women, a subject we have a whole lot of on Commons, is just a weak ad hominem argument. Dronebogus (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you open these separate ones at all, given that it was only 10 minutes since you'd opened one on the whole cat? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because if I’m not mistaken doing a second bundle would just add another section beneath the last bundle nomination, which doesn’t seem any more helpful. Dronebogus (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Why multiple bundles? Why not one bundle? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really know, just me being scatterbrained I guess. Dronebogus (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7: I’m sorry to have inconvenience you by not bundling these deletion nominations; I know how this can come across as vexatious. However I’m not going to stop nominating them because I think there are legitimate, policy based reasons, completely divorced from their explicit nature, to do so. It doesn’t take a huge amount of effort to copy-paste your rationale to each relevant DR. Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: But when you add it up, it does amount to a lot of work for each person who wants to comment to do that, compared to the one-time work of you making something like this (where they will probably all stand or fall together) a mass-deletion request.

I don't think anything here rises to the level of requiring administrative action, but please in the future try to be more careful. It's really hard to re-combine things like this into a mass DR (I know, because I've done it; in my experience, the work averages a couple of minutes per nominated file, even if you are very efficient about it), so it's important to get it right in the first place. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO not a problem requiring a ANUP listing. It looks to me that discussion has at least been leaning towards somewhere in the territory acknowledging that at least some of Panteleev's work is in scope, but there should be no prohibition on discussing if some individual files might be OOS. While there are some good arguments that multiple deletion requests should have been bundled, such is not absolutely required, and IMO having them separate may have advantages as well - one the ones I've looked at so far, I've been neutral on a few, voted keep on one, and delete on another. Easier to do so when they're listed individually. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've voted in some of these discussions (the ones on pages that were already on my watchlist - I didn't see the rest), I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to close this as no action taken, but I agree with Infrogmation that this isn't an ANUP issue. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've blocked RodRabelo7 for three days for this comment, which they've repeated in at least one other DR as well. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bombing several user pages with dozens, upon dozens of deletion requests (just in my talkpage were 24), all with the same copypast argument by an experience user, specially when there is open an concurrent discussion (yes, yet again), by an experience user (and who had previously nominated many of this images fro deletion) in my opinion only has one motive, disperse, confuse, disrupt and short circuit and stonewall any proper debate (a new one after several ad nauseaum and to death debates in the last 13 years). And, instead of discussion in a single place, i had to copypast the same answer to dozens of deletion requests, probably more then 30 times. It is wasteful, a mockery (accidental or not it is irrelevant when speaking of an experienced user) to other users time, patience and attention. Tm (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the supporters of keeping these images are the ones stonewalling by acting like they can never be deleted for even legitimate reasons because a bunch of actual prudes nominated them 5 million times in the past. And no, their is no sinister motive behind my messy nomination style— I’m just stupid and lazy sometimes and I’m not sure how to fix it now. I’m genuinely sorry for the inconvenience. Dronebogus (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case you did not knew or do not remember, at least one, maybe more, was deleted do to the legitimate reason of copyright, do to being a derivative work of a copyrighted work (videogame if memory serves me right as i cannot find the link to that deletion).

So, to the contrary of what you say, the ones that are voting keep or tending, to are not stonewalling, or rehashing the same old tiresome 13 years old arguments that have been sistematically rejected. Adding that causing you causing the dispersion and fragmention the discussions into at least 30 different carbon copy texted and concurrent deletion requests, specially when there is an new open discussion in Village Pump, is comparable to use a cluster bomb, ergo, stonewalling be it on purpose or not, as it is desproportional and wasteful, even if the arguments for deletion were 100% optimal and proper.

In a new or inexperient user, opening the quantity of dr´s that you opened, with same carbon copy text, would be rightly excusable do to inexperience. In your case,, a experienced user, as yourself with alost 33500 edits and almost 5 years of edits and that "has been here long enough and spends enough time on ANU!", it is not. Tm (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took great care to make original, policy based arguments and specifically avoided arguments that consistently failed in the past, namely COM:NUDE/COM:PORN related arguments. You are the one rehashing arguments by leaning entirely on precedent and appeals to external authority (namely, a bunch of awards and media coverage). Dronebogus (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent is more then 40 dr´s closed as kept and several discussions, including in Village Pump, most of them closed based in policy based arguments, namely Commons:Scope. And the mention to media coverage and art awards is also used to counteract the claims that this photographer and project are not notable, ergo that they are in scope. Tm (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the prior DRs started off with a very bad if not flawed deletion rationale and the most common argument has been links to prior deletion discussions and statements like "No valid deletion rationale". Notability of a photographer or series does not imply all files that belong to the series of the photographer or were taken by the photographer are within scope. Commons:Scope clearly shows how these files are not within scope. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We work by policy, not precedent. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Landi2020

Landi2020 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user probably not a single real own work, including 2022's photo of the person who died in 1956. Romano1981 (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I warned the user, all uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Барвенковский

Барвенковский (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user renamed his user and user talk pages [18] making his archives inaccessible from this newly created page. User account "Alex@nder" is not registered. Please revert. Romano1981 (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8bhakt

User: 8bhakt (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after block for doing so.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

MBH 09:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Childish vandalism, so I did not give indefinite block. Thanks for reverting edits! Taivo (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]