Jump to content

User talk:Bedivere

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Bedivere!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Reply

Caso de múltiples cuentas

[edit]

Hola Bedivere, espero estés muy bien, paso a informarte que me tope de un multicuentas que se ha dedicado a subir logos de naturaleza dudosa y fotos sin origen.

El master es Amaar017 (talk · contribs), y tiene los siguientes títeres detectados:

He detectado algunos irregulares del último títere, pero creo que son más de lo que puedo manejar, por ende paso a informarte. Saludos. Taichi (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hola Taichi, bloqueados todos y borrado todo lo que consideré pertinente borrar. Saludos y gracias Bedivere (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to review other similar deletions from the same time-frame. Over caution may have been applied. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rodavila

[edit]

Hola Bedivere, espero estés muy bien. Tengo otro caso de usuario que le da igual los avisos, incluso el de {{End of copyvios}} le da igual y sigue subiendo las imágenes que le borran pero con otro nombre. Tocará ver que hacer. Saludos. Taichi (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bloqueado dos semanas. Si sigue se le expulsará. Gracias por el aviso Bedivere (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Le da igual

[edit]

Hola Bedivere, espero te encuentres mejor, saludos en este lunes. Tenemos un caso de alguien que le da igual, sube unas imágenes de gatos sin mayor contexto ni metadatos, así que asumo que los ha tomado de otro lado. Saludos. Taichi (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hola Taichi, espero estés bien. No sé si las fotos sean copyvios, no son profesionales ni tienen muy buena calidad. Los borré por estar fuera del foco (scope). Saludos! Bedivere (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Could you modify this close? It was nominated for AIIP reasons, not for scope reasons (inuse being a justification for the latter only). If it's kept, it would have to be because there is consensus (or determination by the closing admin) that it does not actually violate AIIP, no? Just like how INUSE wouldn't be relevant if it were nominated for e.g. COM:DW. — Rhododendrites talk00:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I understand your concern, Rhododendrites, but I am not going to modify the close. While it is correct that COM:INUSE alone does not override an eventual COM:AIIP violation, my determination in reading the discussion is that the use of this particular image is simply not unethical. It does not breach the core moral, privacy, or dignity concerns that the AIIP guideline was established to prevent. Also please remember that AIIP is a guideline, not a policy, which INUSE is; the latter is hierarchically superior and also common sense applies. As you could ascertain from my previous DR outcomes, I am not particularly a fan of AI generated media but this one I think is unharmful. Bedivere (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I saw that "when a policy and guideline are in conflict" reasoning in the DR... but they're not in conflict. They're two separate issues. It's like if someone nominated a file for being a COM:CREEPSHOT and someone said "when COM:LICENSING and COM:PEOPLE are in conflict, the policy wins", followed by a "Kept: properly licensed" closure (that ignores that actual reason for the nomination). "Common" sense is clearly not so common, as there has not been consensus to exclude such images from AIIP yet, and strong consensus to support the guideline as written (which does not have a carve-out [yet] for long-dead people). It seems like an IAR closure in an effort to force a guideline to say something it doesn't instead of trying to change the guideline. :/ — Rhododendrites talk02:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply