Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 112

User:Finlands län

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

User is uploading unsourced edits of flag and coat of arms files, overwriting the official versions with their own. User is already banned for sockpuppeting on the Finnish Wikipedia side, being linked to a well-known sockpuppeteer and vandal account. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user indefinitely. Greetings from south! Taivo (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Amaterasu 1-1

• Amaterasu 1-1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user is short blocked due to mis-using license tags and lacking eligible license proofing. There are some similar behaviors with already indef blocked Japanese logo socks; User:Cobalt_1031, User:Ramsal18.

1. Amaterasu and Ramsal have uploaded Olympic Game logos and both some ones are deleted due to copyvio.
2. Ramsal uploaded the 47th G7 summit logo File:G7_Cornwall_logo.svg ja:Special:Diff/93809768. After removed it by copyvio and indef blocking, Amaterasu also tried uploading the same logo in jawp. ja:Special:Diff/99249865 ja:Special:Log/Amaterasu 1-1 ja:File:Logo G7 Cornwall.svg.
In File:MHLW logo.svg and ja:Special:Diff/99101757, both users tried uploading copyvio logo as well.
3. talk page laundering? Netora (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Netora: You may wish to report such actions to m:srg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit waring and vandalism by User:Микола Василечко

I had added Category:Unsorted postcards to File:Berezhany. Zamok 1916.jpg because the original description said it's a postcard. The edit was subsequently reverted by User:Микола Василечко and they removed the reference to it being a postcard, which was added by the original uploader. Which I reverted. They then decided to edit war me over it because supposedly that's not what it is. I guess they know better then original uploader. It's obviously a postcard reprint of an original photographer and there's nothing wrong with adding it to a category for postcard in a such an instance. Although removing perfectly valid information about the format of the image is clearly vandalism. Can an administrator please revert their edit and tell them not to do it again? Adamant1 (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I also have disruptive behaviour by this same editor to report. Should I add the evidence to this thread or open a new case? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

whichever you feel like. Probably just adding here would be better as long as it's not super long. I have no problem sharing the ANU complaint though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Найперше, прошу адміністраторів звернути увагу на наступну репліку користувача «Your just being a control freak». Чи це не відверта образа? Прошу дати оцінку цій фразі. По-друге, щодо самого файлу. Це не виглядає листівкою, нема ніяких фактів, крім хіба запису завантажувача, але це без доказів. На листівках зазвичай є написи, тут їх нема. Чому нема? Бо це як не оригінал, то копія оригінальної фотографії, а не листівки. Тим паче я навів докази, що фотографія має автора і в нього не одна фотографія була опублікована в путівниках. Оригінальні плівки, гадаю, зберігаються в одному з музеїв чи архівів Польщі. Завантажувач був очевидно, не достатньо інформований про зображення, яке він (вона?) скачала десь з інтернету. Перезавантаження здійснив інший користувач з https://polona.pl/ . Laurel Lodged — тобі не тільки я вказував, що ти вигадуєш забагато. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

On the leaflets, there are writings, there are none here. Why would there be writing on the front side of the postcard? That's not where people write the message. Also, insulting other people as children really doesn't help your side any. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ось це листівка. І напис там, де треба. І це вже доказів не потребує. А тут не листівка, а фото. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a photograph of a postcard that's a reprint of another photograph. As I told you on your talk page they aren't mutually exclusive. Your talking in circles though. Are you really going to argue the person who took the photograph and uploaded the image lied about it being a postcard? They would know since they have access to the back of the card. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Користувач, який завантажив файл, не фотографував його! Нема exif-даних камери! Він скачав його, очевидно, десь з інтернету. Тому й не володів інформацією, що це таке. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The original was uploaded by User:SofoPodilska from Polona, a Polish library and I assume that's where they got the information from that it is a postcard. So again, are you claiming that the original uploader and/or Polona is lying and doesn't know what medium the photograph is in? And what's your actual evidence that it's not a postcard besides pure speculation? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

«The original was uploaded by User:SofoPodilska from Polona»: book «Przewodnik po województwie Tarnopolskiem» (1) — 1928, (2) — 1936 (File:Berezhany. Zamok 1916.jpg is page 183). In book published photo, not postcard! All the photos in the book are from the authors' original photos, not from postcards. --Микола Василечко (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I never the image wasn't ever used in a book. The version uploaded by User:SofoPodilska is clearly a reprint on a postcard of the original photograph though. No offense, but I feel like your gaslighting. Just because the photograph was used in a book once doesn't mean it can't also be reprinted on a postcard. That's not how things work and the version of it uploaded to Commons is clearly a postcard. Or are you really going to act like it's a 1/1 recreation of the page from the book that you linked to? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support Assuming I interpret Adamant1's translations correctly (based on responses), I would support an initial 3–7-day block for edit warring. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  Adamant1's translations is not correctly. --Микола Василечко (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

which part of my translation is incorrect? Even if it is, your still edit warring and lying about the image not being printed on a postcard. I hate to say it, but a 3-7 day block really seems like the only remedy to this since Микола Василечко clearly isn't willing to admit to or fix their mistake. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case, could you please provide us with the translation yourself? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Adamant1’s edits. I just saw you changed one of my images to unsorted postcards, and it was clearly the right decision. These cat changes should not be being reverted. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Chris.sherlock2: may I assume that you are saying you agree with Adamant1's edits, not Микола Василечко's or SHB2000's? The placement and indentation of your comment makes it hard to tell. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, that is correct. I support Adamant1. I have corrected the indentation. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:The patriarchy are emasculated

Can someone please block User:The patriarchy are emasculated since they are clearly only here as a troll account? Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Endorse. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done: VOA indeffed. --Achim55 (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

User:XitZ2012

Consistent uploading of COM:COPYVIO bus images from Flickr from late 2023 onwards, falsely claiming them as "Own work" even after multiple requests for deletions after finding originals. User often tends to edit images in some way and, on occasion, adds their own watermark. Their talk page is worth a look for further evidence. Hullian111 (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

SPA User:Crispybcritters

User:Crispybcritters is an SPA. On 2019-02-14 they nominated File:Lesley Barber at the 2017 Slaight Music Residency Showcase (34730771094).jpg for deletion. Their nomination was a nonsensical claim the image wasn't free. The deletion justification was nonsense, as the image passed flickrreview.

In November 2019 an anonymous IP launched a second nonsensical nomination. That anonymous IP is very likely a sockpuppet of Crispybcritters.

Today Crispybcritters made a third nonsensical nomination.

Since they are prepared to use sockpuppetry a block may not end their attacks, but I think it is a good first step. Geo Swan (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

They are only here to make trouble, I suggest an indef block. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done request closed, user indefinitely blocked, only here to waste our time Bedivere (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:FrDr

If the user's talk page is any indication they seem to have a long history of uploading COPYVIO and have already been reprimanded for it by at least one user as evidenced by the comment in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FrDr from Patrick Rogel. Although I'm not sure if punitive action is justified at this point, but it would be good if they at least received a more formal warning and were told to stop listing themselves as the author of works they didn't create. Since it seems like they didn't get the point when Patrick Rogel asked them to stop doing it. Adamant1 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

These are derivative works, but why FoP wouldn't apply? Yann (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I responded in the DR. You can be my guest and exclude it though. They still have a pretty long history of uploading COPYVIO and attributing works to themselves that they didn't create regardless. So it would be cool if you didn't miss the forest for the trees by acting like this only involves one deletion request or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Stop opening invalid DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tourist signs in Liège‎. This looks like harassment to me. Yann (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: How can I show evidence that the images violate copyright when you closed the DR without giving me a chance to? I don't really appreciate you treating me like I have to meet some bar of evidence that doesn't exit just because you can't be bothered to look into it yourself or assume good faith. Same goes for your false claim of harassment. Like I said, FrDr has a long established history of uploading COPYVIO and miss attributing files going back multiple years that I've had essentially nothing to do with. I should be able to report someone without you trying to attack and harass me every time I do. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you have it on reverse. Most of these pictures were taken in public places. So it is up to you to show that there is a copyright violation. Sure these files need a a {{FoP-Belgium}} template, but that not a valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I did. I said the images were taken on private conservation land multiple times. Including on your talk page. What part of that are you having such a hard time with? You can't just ignore comments and close DRs based on nothing when I've said multiple times in multiple places that the images were taken on private land. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Where did you see that the land is owned by Natuurpunt? This association manages the nature reserves, but I don't see evidence that it owns the land. That is usually not how it works. This kind of association works with public funds to manage publicly owned land. Please keep the discussion in one place. Yann (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

And if you don't see the evidence then it must not exist right? Do a Google search. There's plenty of results. For instance this one which is like second to the top that says "the aim of Natagora is together with Natuurpunt, the second Belgian BirdLife Partner, to protect the remaining nature in Belgium through buying and managing land, protecting species, running awareness programs for a general and specific public and lobbying local and regional governments." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually this at least shows that Natuurpunt doesn't own the land, only manages it (probably creating the information boards). It seems that some land is owned by Natagora, but I doubt it is the default setup. Yann (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Also what is important is not who owns the land, but if it is open to the public. So far, it is seems that these reserves are open to the public. Yann (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Both Natuurpunt and Natagora own the land. Your moving the bar since your original claim was that it was owned by the government when it clearly isn't even if Natuurpunt isn't the owner. And you can doubt it is the default setup, but I told you I looked into the specific places where the signs were located and they were privately owned. I don't really care about ones that aren't. That's what the conversation or DRs relate to.

As to your last point, sure technically "ownership" doesn't ultimately matter. But it's an indicator of how accessible to the public something is. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Belgium "the provision was intended to apply to locations that are permanently accessible to the public, such as public streets and squares, and that the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public." I don't really see how a private nature reserve would be any different then a museum when it's clearly not permanently open to the public. Although that doesn't mean there isn't a conversation to be had about it, but that should have occurred in the DRs instead of you just knee jerk closing them out of process and then forcing the conversation to take place between you and me in this ANU complaint where it's clearly the wrong venue. As it's just a deflection from the user and behavior I reported. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I think you have this backward. Assuming the nature preserve is normally open to the public in the daytime, how would that be any different than a public park that is closed at night? - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: From what I've found and people who live in Belgium has said the standard for something to qualify for FOP is if it has "controlled access" or not. With private private nature reserves in particular they have barriers, fences, signs restricting people from doing things and accessing certain areas of the nature reserves, parts of the reserves are closed off seasonally, and is enforcement through patrolling, along with being closed at night. Being closed at night is just one factor of several for why I think there is "controlled access" in private reserve though. So be my guest and disragard it. That's not the only reason I've given for why I don't think they qualify for freedom of panorama. It's never a single thing anyway. People on here apparently just don't have the nuance to consider multiple factors to something for some reason though. So I was trying to stick with one variable out of several for the sake of brevity. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yann, I can see how you might think it is harassment, but from the discussion above it looks like a good faith request to me. Given that the debate has now spilled into ANU, perhaps the deletion request should be reopened so that others can weigh in? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No. There is no basis for these DRs, and |requesting deletion of hundreds of pictures under invalid reason is harassment to me. Yann (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it was hundreds and a good percantage clearly violated FOP because they were taken inside of buildings. Its possible I was wrong about some of them and your allowed to disagree with my reasons for nominating those images for deletion, but its not like I didn't have any and that people don't get things wrong sometimes. No one has a 100% success rate on here and its just ridiculous to claim the whole thing is harrassement just because I got a few wrong. Especially since your the one who prematurely closed the DRs in the first place so the there could be no discussion to figure out the unclear cases. Which also led to the files that legitimately violated FOP because they were taken inside of buildings being kept. The whole thing is a circular Self-fulfilling prophecy on your part.

The only reason there was no basis for the DRs though is because you wouldn't let me or anyone else provide one before closing them. You can't just close a DR out of process immediately after it was opened with no knowledge of the thing, discussion, or allowing the nominator to respond, and then use your own actions and disagreement with the DRs as evidence that they are baseless and the person who opened them is harassing the uploader. That's not how this works. You should have kept them open for the normal time frame, let other people comment, and allowed the images that clearly violated FOP to be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop talking nonsense. All your actions are the opposite of what you says, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tourist signs in Liège. Yann (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Really? So File:Collégiale Saint-Barthélémy Liège 10.jpg wasn't taken inside of a building huh? Oh yeah, what happened to making personal? Practice what you preach. If I can't say this is an axe grinding campaign on your part then be my guest and stop making personal, insulting comments about how I'm talking nonsense. People are allowed to make mistakes sometimes. You clearly have zero clue what your talking about though and are just on an axe grinding campaign, which is why you refuse to answer the question I've asked you multiple times now in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Natuurpunt. You clearly have answer. Except to cry about how what I'm saying is nonsense. Otherwise answer the question instead of wasting everyone's time with the pointless rude comments. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This was taken inside a church, which is certainly a public place. Still nonsense without any valid rationale. Yann (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yann, I don’t think characterising Adamant1’s responses as nonsense is very helpful. There is a reasonable disagreement here, it can be discussed without getting personal. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I mean without any valid rationale. Yann (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I personally tend to side with your view, btw. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Your moving the bar again Yann. I said some of the images were taken inside of buildings, which you called nonsense even though they clearly are. Just admit you were wrong. And what evidence exactly do you have that churches are considered public places in Belgium? Oh let me guess, you have none and it's just your personal opinion? lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Ready Street

Ready Street (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is doing mass uploading of photos from Nigeria with a multitude of categories not related or redundant like this. I have warned him on March 21st and he replied that he would be more selective but has continues to overcategorize since. An administrator should warn him further or maybe block him for a while. Furthermore, he mass-uploads redundant photos of doubtful use. Pierre cb (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I will stop the mass uploading of photos from Nigeria with a multitude of categories not related. Ready Street (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ready Street (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Mass uploads of redundant photos of Nigeria. Should be stop, otherwise will clog Commons. Pierre cb (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: One report wasn't good enough, you had to write another after five days?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: It looks like they are still uploading duplicate images. So the prior report clearly wasn't effective. There's really no reason they should continuing doing it either. So I can't say I blame Pierre cb for opening another report. It should have just been dealt with on the 25th when they opened the first one. BTW, they also seem to be uploading a lot of COPYVIO along with the duplicates. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Support temporary block per Adamant1. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  In Nigeria As long as you follow appropriate community standards, you are free to take pictures or record videos of anything and anyone on any public site. In general, taking pictures or recording videos of a tourist attraction—whether it is held by the government or privately—is accepted as lawful unless specifically forbidden by a statute or law.

  You can decide to delete the photos or keep them. Please do not delete pictures.

  I work for Ready Street Ent, Nigeria. Ready Street Ent is a marketing and general contracts company. Ready Street (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  I hate to say this Ready Street, but you will need to verify that you actually work for Ready Street Ent - see our policy of this here. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. One week block should be currently enough. Next blocks can be longer. Taivo (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Taivo I think they need to follow the username policy before they are unblocked. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

The account Ready Street and the organization belong to me.

I am the owner of the Ready Street Ent.

If you require any additional information about me or the company I shall be pleased to send it to you.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr. Adeola Ready Olayiwola.

(I have sent the above letter to info-commonswikimedia.org). Ready Street (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User:The Squirrel Conspiracy and DR procedure

User:The Squirrel Conspiracy often suggests images for deletion, which is very helpful, thank you for that, and more recently especially AI-generated images, about which they seems to have some quite respectable ideas. So far so good, on the contrary. However, their actual practice sometimes consists of following this chronological procedure:

1 Requests the image's deletion

2 They removes the image's use on a wiki project where it is used in the main, for example on fr.wiktionary, where he has done this 8 times (and had never contributed before).

3 The DR debate is not closed, it continues, then the DR ends, possibly with the image being deleted.

They has done it for at least 8 images used on fr.wiktionary https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Squirrel_Conspiracy

1 DR starts at 05:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

2 The_Squirrel_Conspiracy removes the images from the main on fr.wiktionary, on February 15, 2024, in the wake (even before the DR, there is at least one case).

3 It is evidently a non-editorial act, as they had never contributed to this project before. The debate continues and ends on February 22, 2024.

I don't know if there are other similar situations with other wiki projects and if there is a frequency of this modus operandi. It appears to me that this modus operandi is in full contradiction with the rules on DR, I would like to have confirmation.

Kind regards, --Benoît (d) 12:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? Unless these AI pictures are added for clarification of the article I see no benefit. Furthermore, some images are crosswikispammed and do not meet certain wiki rules for ie. subtitles and alike, but I won't out such users here. In such cases, I would have done the same as TSC. What is certainly wrong, would be removing images and then claiming they were never used. Best, A09 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Like this one? [5], removal from fr.wiktionary (5:31), DR creating (5:34). ----Benoît (d) 13:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I have done the same too some times, so I can't really condemn TSC's actions as I see them as legitimate Bedivere (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I looked through his fr.wiktionary contributions and all of the contributions seemed to be reasonable. In all cases he didn't just remove the images, but replaced them with more suitable alternatives — there is no reason to use AI images for subjects where there are free images avaliable. For example, we have dozens of real images of pastel de nata, why use AI ones? Also seeing all of the images in those articles were added by you, I'm really doubting your motives — what was the reason to use AI images in those articles? --DJ EV (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

COM:Redundant specifically allows for this. It states that:

”Before requesting a bad quality file for deletion, make sure that the file is not in use anymore by using GlobalUsage. You may replace uses of the file on local projects by superior versions, subject to the local project’s policies. If at the end of the discussion period a deletion is agreed upon and the file is still not in use, it can be deleted.”

(bad quality also can mean redundant). They appear to have followed the rules to the letter. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is equal. Following your logical statement, why do a DR and not a speedy deletion in that situation? ----Benoît (d) 07:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Low quality and redundant images are not candidates for speedy deletion. Regardless, I am unclear as to which statement you are referring to. Which is the statement that is illogical? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose Any action per Chris.sherlock2's comment. It seems like everything was above board here and no offense to people who like AI artwork, but there's zero point in including images created by AI in Wikipedia articles if there's none AI alternatives. Although I wouldn't necessarily advocate for said images being deleted from Commons based on that alone. There are plenty of other reasons why we shouldn't host anything generated by AI though. Regardless, I don't see anything wrong with The Squirrel Conspiracy's actions here. Especially since they were following the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the user should be stopped from trying to change Commons' assessment about the use of images by Wikimedia projects. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Commons does not directly influence other projects. If, for example, the French Wikipedia has a problem with the images being replaced, they should take action. They have not done so. This is outside of the scope of Commons. We don’t dictate their policies, nor do our policies or guidelines tell us to do so - in fact we are careful to state actions should only be taken based on the local project rules and guidelines. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The users goes to edit projects influencing their DRs here. It's a crosswiki action. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

He replaced AI images with better quality and real images on the French Wikipedia. He then listed the images here for deletion. That’s the direct procedure we recommend. The image replacements are within the policies and guidelines of Wiktionary. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you stated your view above already, but you forget to repeat that you consider AI images to be of bad quality. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

For all we know The Squirrel Conspiracy saw the images on our end, thought they weren't appropriate for the project and replaced them on Wikipedia instead of just leaving the articles with dead links if the images got deleted. It doesn't really follow that they did it the other way around. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if he did, it’s irrelevant. Their actions were within the rules of the project, so its a valid set of actions to have taken. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure I see your point. The images were replaced by better quality non-AI generated images on an entirely seperate project. The AI images were deleted because there are replacements of sufficient quality. It went through the deletion process here and got deleted. Them’s the facts. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, we don't all need to agree about the inappropriateness of cross-wiki actions. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We do need to make a decision whether any actions need to be taken though. And in this instance, whilst we can disagree about the actions taken, it’s pretty clear that there are no admin actions required. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• If the user agrees to not remove AI images as "bad images" going forward, no further action is required. Also, it would be helpful if they were transparent about their actions in the DR. We don't need a remake of "burn all gifs". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Can you point out where the images were directly characterised in this way? I checked a few of their deletion requests and they are all quite transparent. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

AnkurPl

AnkurPl has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted imagery related to Kolkata despite multiple notices asking him not to do so. According to their block log they have been blocked twice for this. Given that they have continued uploading copyrighted images (like this), I request that they be reblocked until they are able to understand that commons should not be used to host copyrighted images. Sohom (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. One year block (third block). Taivo (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User:HollyJollyCarl

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

These kind of titles are not appropriate. I have no clue if the symbol have any deeper meaning tho. Not gonna bother requesting a rename because i dont think it belongs here in the first place--Trade (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Starting to sense a pattern here--Trade (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Globohomo is certainly a homophic term. The fact that they didn't add a description makes me think its not purely to document it either. So the user probably deserves at least a warning, if not a full block for the homophobia. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Vandal blocked, uploads nuked. Bedivere (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Personality rights

• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza16.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza18.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza19.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza20.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza23.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza24.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza4.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza8.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza25.jpg
• File:Elijo-Crecer-2024-Medoza26.jpg

All by User:Beatriz.V1.0 All this pictures show minor in a political event to protest against goverment in Argentina, so I thing parental consent is required, what we do, speedy deletion or deletion request? Second opinion I need, thanks in advance --Ezarateesteban 23:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not just list them for deletion via the regular process? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please create a bulk deletion request and nominate them all. The situation is not urgent. But I personally rather support deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Terabhaiseedhemaut4L

The mentioned user is continuously removing the license tags of various files and nominating them under the criteria "no license". Any admin pls take necessary action against him.--Junior Jumper (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Junior Jumper as per rules specified above, you need to inform the user about the report. I have done it for you this time. Also, I will just add two links where he did this.
  • At File:Samrat Chaudhary and Nitish Kumar participating in Rajya sabha nomination (cropped).jpg removes the license at Revision as of 15:37, 8 April 2024. Then nominates for deletion for no license at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samrat Chaudhary and Nitish Kumar participating in Rajya sabha nomination (cropped).jpg.
  • At File:Lalu Prasad Yadav.jpg removes the license at Revision as of 09:36, 9 April 2024. Then nominates for deletion for no license at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lalu Prasad Yadav.jpg.

This is clear misuse of editing privileges. ShaanSengupta^Talk 12:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I am new to Wikipedia hence I didn't know Terabhaiseedhemaut4L (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it will not happen again Terabhaiseedhemaut4L (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Also to note. Maybe the username too violates policy. It is a combo of four hindi words. Tera, Bhai, seedhe, maut. It means, Your Brother (is) Straight Death, respectively. Just mentioned my thought. ShaanSengupta^Talk 15:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

A try to makeup after the report? I highlighted this at the deletion discussion just behind your nomination. Yet you went on with doing the same thing again. Any explanation for that? ShaanSengupta^Talk 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thiên_bình_t10

Thiên_bình_t10 (talk · contribs) repeatedly copyright violations. Lemonaka (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked one week. Bedivere (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/217.21.224.203

Special:Contributions/217.21.224.203. Is he just completely confused? Is it vandalism? No clue. He's actually changing license on my media. What in the world? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like at least 90% bad edits, and enough of a pattern to say it's all one person. I lean towards blocking (no urgency), but if someone wants to try somehow to reach out to an IP and discuss first, go for it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

E.g. this nonsense: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Europium.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=866033335 where he just makes the license wrong: https://images-of-elements.com/ Completely insane. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Now he's Special:Contributions/217.21.233.208 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Nvdnguyendung

Nvdnguyendung (talk · contribs) Uploading Spam files. メイド理世 (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user indefinitely and deleted last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Bulk color image uploads by User:Mariagata1959

• Mariagata1959 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user is currently uploading a large number of color sample images, e.g.

• File:Aero -7cb9e8.png
• File:Aerial View -a0b2c8.png
• File:Aegean Splendor -9ba0a4.png
• File:Aegean Sky -e48b59.png
• File:Aegean Sea -508fa2.png

When I asked the uploader what the purpose of these uploads was, their reaction was to accuse me of censorship - so I'm bringing the issue here. These images seem exceedingly unlikely to be useful, especially given how frivolous many of the names are (e.g. "Adventure of the Seas", "Admiration", "Actor's Star", "Acid Sleazebag", etc), and it's not clear they need to be images in the first place, as wikis can display color samples using CSS colors. Given how many samples the user has uploaded that begin with "A", it seems like they intend to upload a lot of images, so I'd like to get in front of this issue before it gets too far along. Omphalographer (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a day seeing their answer, and past upload history: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mariagata1959. Yann (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Popefauvexxiii: refusal to AGF

User:Popefauvexxiii stated in a comment I have created a deletion nomination in bad faith.

I then warned the user at their talk page and told them that their comment was violating a WCommons policy of WP:AGF. They replied by stating: I stand by my statement. Good luck on your digital crusade. When, in the same thread, another user stated such an accusation of bad faith required proofs, Popefauvexxiii replied: I believe our respective activity logs paint a very clear picture for anybody who cares enough to scratch the surface (link to talk page section: [6]).

Popefauvexxiii, without any proof, claims I behave in bd faith. I think sanctions need to be taken against Popefauvexxiii for their refusal to AGF. Veverve (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Admonished. And I don't think this calls for more than that. - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I accept my admonishment and foresee no further incidents as I am no longer a contributor here. Popefauvexxiii (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't actively advocate melodramatic flouncing, but I guess it beats vituperation. - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Dishtankir

• Dishtankir (talk · contribs)

Copyright fraud. This poster is very clearly not from before January 1, 1929. --Trade (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done File speedily deleted. Already warned. Bedivere (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Eriksvepare

• Eriksvepare (talk · contribs)

Copyright fraud. This photo is very clearly not from before January 1, 1929.--Trade (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done File speedily deleted. Already warned. Bedivere (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

User engaged in edit war, does not seem to understand category's purpose

Evrik (talk · contribs) Keeps on inserting an inaccurate category at File:X, 1980.jpg. On my own talk page, he said this is an edit war and I said "In that case, it needs to be restored to what it was prior to the dispute" and then he stopped editing. His misleading edit summary just now implies that he is restoring it to what it was previously, but it's just his preferred version. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

To put a finer point on it: he is removing Category:X (musical group from the United States) and replacing it with Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States). If you look at any other "members of band" category, the "members of" category is for 1.) subcategories about said members (e.g. Category:Michael Stipe under Category:Members of R.E.M.) or 2.) images of individual members. They are not intended for photos of the entire band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

And the same issue at File:X1979LA.jpg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Show me where your interpretation is documented as being the correct way. Please. Evrik (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I have protected the file for a period of one week because of this counterproductive edit-warring. @Koavf. You guys shouldn't be reverting and reverting and reverting each other. @Evrik, whether anything is correct way or not, edit-warring is of course not right. Talk-pages are the places that should be used as earliest as the first revert. Please. ─ Aafī (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aafi: , I said this, "Your reversions of the two X files is not productive. I simply sorted all the files where they should be. If you disagree, please start a discussion someplace. Otherwise, you're not being helpful." I'm always willing to discuss things, when the other person is as well. Evrik (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You came to change things, so the impetus is on you to start this conversation. You can't just go about changing everything and tell everyone else, "Got a problem with it? Talk about it. Bye." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that it's necessarily wrong what Evrik is doing. Usually the name of a category should be taken literally when it comes to question what files to sort into. That means, if the category is named "Members of X (musical group from the United States)", then yes it's appropriate to add it to all files that depict members of X (musical group from the United States), be it one member, two, or all in one picture. Of course the ideal solution is to have separate categories for every member, which is not yet the case here, but please feel encouraged to create the missing categories. If that is done, then definitely pictures showing members should be in the relevant member's categories while the Category:X (musical group from the United States) should serve merely as parental category and, if available, for files related to the band but not showing its members. For example, File:X on 2016-11-28.jpg should be in Category:Concerts of X (musical group from the United States) (which it already is), and in the four categories for the persons depicted (which is still lacking). --A.Savin 21:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

But if we're taking these categories literally, then that means that the photo should be in Category:X (musical group from the United States) as well, since it depicts X, correct? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No, see COM:OVERCAT. --A.Savin 21:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Koavf I have to agree with A.Savin. But this is not the place to discuss this. Take it to CFD or the image talk page. Regardless, no admin intervention is necessary. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at File talk:X, 1980.jpg. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Michael w

• User: Michael w (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reason for reporting: Making this edit (adding a delete tag without year, month, day, reason, subpage creation, or transclusion) after reminder and failure to respond to the reminder on talk page for two years.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't seem to see that diff. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: As it has been deleted, only Admins can see it now (sorry). It was a bare {{Delete}} tag, placed without preview or followup.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ähem Jeff; the user created Category:Supercharger Herrieden and within 16 minutes tagged it for deletion, which is his right and an established speedy-rationale (G7). His only fault was using a delete-template with the wrong syntax instead of a speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Túrelio: I told him to stop doing that two years ago. He is still doing that. "We cannot work here with people who are not willing to follow our procedures, in particular for deletion requests" per AFBorchert.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@User:Jeff G.: Thing is that many contributors are not regularly active in meta area and overtime some may forget the proper syntax even if they once knew. Sure, it would have been better to simply ask another user. Anyway, I've explained to him your (assumed) rationale. --Túrelio (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm boldly marking this as  Not done at the least per this, where it appears that @Michael w has taken my feedback. Making a few malformed DRs aren't the only contributions from them nor their major contribution, and as @Túrelio has noted above. ─ Aafī (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Should I nominate User:Tulsi for removal of adminship?

Consensus is that even if Tulsi engaged in paid editing, it does not warrant the removal of adminship (per COM:PAID). Further evidence of the abuse of admin permissions is required to warrant de-adminship. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Now there are both en.wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard and Meta RFC, shown somewhat a panorama that Tulsi is probably supporting cross-wiki paid editing, and looked like not all are disclosed (which already result their two global permissions: Global sysop and Global rollbacker, removed 4 years ago). When peoples (include other Commons administrators) ask for clarification, they either simply ignored and archived, or replied by "I don't know" or likely clauses/its (Nepalese?) translations. If concerns from both sides are also true for Commons, then... Just wondering, are there "paid uploading" shown regarding the topic user? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally please do not bring problems from other projects into Commons. Especially after 4 years. Do you have evidence, that he has involved in undeclared paid editing in Commons? Taivo (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Taivo: Unless I'm reading the edit histories wrong or something it looks like he at least let some files through VRT that are blantent advertising. For instance, File:Sunny Leone snapped at Mehboob Studio.jpg is clearly meant to advertise the Indian website bollywoodhungama.com. Really the file should have just been deleted on site as blatant promo. Although I'm not claiming they paid Tulsi to give the file a pass either, but it is questionable considering that they are now blocked on Wikipedia for paid editing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

BollywoodHungama is a major source of free images from a professional media outlet (just like Mehr News, VOA, etc.). All he did was a LicenseReview, which is a very normal thing for an admin to do and does not imply an endorsement of the suitability of the content for Commons, only that it is freely licensed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Good for them. The image is still blatant advertising with the way it's watermarked. I get the feeling you didn't even look at the image before deciding to try and educate me about what kind of source they are though. Like I wasn't aware of it already, but that doesn't negate the fact that the image is blatant advertising that shouldn't have passed VRT. I don't think their approval not being an endorsement of the content is a good excuse either. As it becomes much harder, if not impossible, to delete an image once it has VRT permission. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Adamant1, the image specifically was not passed at VRT by any agent, and the tag comes from {{BollywoodHungama}}, which itself has a history of fourteen years or more. I have myself raised queries related to BollywoodHungama but that's a different debate, which doesn't contribute to this discussion anyway. ─ Aafī (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aafi: Fair enough. Thanks for the added context. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

enwiki's bullshit drama should never leak onto commons or we'd end up blocking half the contributors here, paid editing has nothing to do with commons, we provide images only I have dealt with bollywood hungama thing for years, thats not paid-editing lol. Since his activity on commons is limited, its quite possible he isn't abusing his rights here. The "paid-editing" part of wikipedia to me is kinda stupid cause it applies to articles but not images apparently, you can monetize of adding images to commons and getting free publicity by enforcing your images on related enwiki articles but if you decided to make an article of a person who might barely meet the notability criteria, then you are obviously getting paid to do it..If anything, looking at his logs, Tulsi deleted a lot of images of indian people over the last few years for failing commons copyright policies... Stemoc 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Taivo. We would need evidence that they engaged in undeclared paid editing on Commons itself or evidence that they abused use of the tools on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Just as a reminder: paid editing, either disclosed or undisclosed, is totally allowed on Commons (see COM:PAID), so that alone wouldn't support removal IMO. Of course, if there are any concerns regarding his administrative actions or VRT permissions (although he hasn't had the VRT permissions global group since 2023), or if he lied, etc., that could be an issue. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We would need more evidence, and even then, as Mdaniels5757, paid editing is not grounds for removal of adminship per se. Bedivere (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't either see any substantial evidence that Tulsi has abused advanced permissions on Commons. Nonetheless, as Mdaniels5757 has noted, UPE claims do not merit initiating an RfDA. Tulsi resigned from VRT voluntarily a year ago, so I don't think that's a place to look around too much as he seems to have very fewer VRT actions in 2023 itself. ─ Aafī (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

UPE, undiclosed paid editing (?), is apparently not the same as mere paid editing. Both are abhorrent to me, but COM:PAID, official as it is, goes out of its way not only to allow it, but to allow it going on undiclosed. And now most people commenting on this thread think it’s great to keep in a trusted position someone who admittedly (?) / apparently (?) engages in paid editing. Just wow. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like a policy on commons, you are free to propose a change. We aren't going to remove an admin for not violating policies on Commons.

Don't bring the drama of enwiki's admin's noticeboard here. I will always regret having created that damned thing. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I don't think paid editing is that much of an issue on Commons as Wikipedia. It certainly isn't something that would be worth removing admin access over. At least without serious evidence that it's negatively effected the project. Although I would remove VRT privileges from someone doiong paid editing just to air on the safe side. Since as I've noted above it's much harder to delete an image on here once it has VRT permission. Plus someone doing paid editing shouldn't have access to that kind of private information anyway. Although it appears that Tulsi isn't working in that area anyway. So I guess it's not really an issue in this instance. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"paid editing, either disclosed or undisclosed, is totally allowed on Commons" Why is it tho? Trade (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Trade: Commons:Requests for comment/Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. - Jmabel ! talk 14:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't bring enwiki drama onto Commons. Can an admin please close this thread? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would ask that the thread not be closed quite yet. I want a little bit of time to look through Tulsi's administrative actions, and encourage others to do so as well if they would like to. But, as I said above, my view is that this is likely going nowhere absent more than the allegations I've seen. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I've finished looking for now, and didn't find anything of note. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence Mdaniels5757. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

We already have more than 16,000 files from Bollywood Hungama, uploaded by many different users, so claiming that this file is advertising is... well... nonsense. But that's becoming quite a habit... Yann (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, you never do miss an opportunity do you? Lets not make this about me and your personal beef please. If I can't say your axe grinding when you make comments like that then you could at least have the scruples to knock off your end of it instead of being petty and insulting. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this divisive thread? There are no admin actions needed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Parwiz ahmadi

• Parwiz ahmadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Uploading copyrighted files despite multiple warnings ever since account was created. funplussmart (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello sir , my account was created about 1 year ago , I did not known about wikimedia regulations.

but know I know about it.

unfoutrunately the last photo was mistakenly uploaded by me othervise currently I know carefully about regulations. please consider my cotribution in last 4 months. this is the only picture that mistakenly uploaded by me.

please give me a chance

thank you Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

the copyright holder send me this photo , I can prove it Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Parwiz ahmadi: It doesn't really matter who sent it to you. What is the evidence that it is free-licensed? - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems obvious he got the permission through email Trade (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Trade: He makes no statement about the copyright-holder offering a free license. He only says they sent him the image. If I were to email you an image on which I own the copyright, that is not tantamount to a free license! - Jmabel ! talk 14:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted all his remaining uploads as copyvios and blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Mithoron

• Mithoron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Excessive number of copyright violations. Doclys👨‍⚕️👩‍⚕️ ^{🩺 • 💉} 06:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I nominated 5 of his/her uploads for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

188.170.76.167

• 188.170.76.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Free copyrighted images attributed to the California government for no reason whatsoever. Trying to delete the image. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

User:El Golli Mohamed

I opposed an FPC nomination by this user.
He then opposed one of my nominations at FPC and a significant number at QIC.
I posted a message on his talk page and he has responded with an expletive. I'd be grateful if someone could ask him to cool down. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Locked image with wrong licence

This image File:Simon Harris, April 2024 02 (cropped2).jpg has a wrong licnece and is locked for admin only editing. Obviously it is not a logo and the source page copyright link clearly states the licence is cc-by-4.0. Please correct it. Ww2censor (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

181.117.182.46

181.117.182.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 105.102.227.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be related to a LTA, ([edit summary was removed by Achim55)]. Bidgee (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked both for vandalism and hided one edit summary. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Smash'mallow

The user Smash'mallow uploads copyrighted contents regarding French musicians since many years, and has been warned. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

User:D430987

Obvious recreation of blocked account User:N333902 who is a recreation of globally-locked user Derzelis (CentralAuth). Uploading exact same content. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding User:CE933726. Uploading same photo, same username pattern. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding User:WAR555552. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Already globally locked. Yann (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Giaan2023

Giaan2023 (talk · contribs) Uploading spam files. メイド理世 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done This was already reported elsewhere. Yann (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Sara1997Xeneize

Sara1997Xeneize (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Uploading copyvios after final warning. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 04:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done 3-month block. They don't have any meaningful contributions on any projects. An es.wiki admin may want to take a look at their edits there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

User:AshtonJDE

User:AshtonJDE repeatedly uploads images out of project scope. GeorgR (de) (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Indefinitely blocked. Files deleted. Bedivere (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

A1Cafel

BLOCKED INDEFINITELY:

A1Cafel has displayed various problems in his time on Commons. A common thread, on all of them (except socking), is a lack of adaquate communication. Time and time again, people come to A1Cafel with concerns about his edits. And time and time again, A1Cafel does not respond (either at all, or meaningfully). This is a collaborative project; communication is required.

And although communication is required, communication alone is not sufficent. Sometimes A1Cafel does say the right things in response to concerns. All too often, however, he then continues doing what led to the concerns in the first place. This, too, is not acceptable.

I do not believe that any topic ban, or combination of topic bans, would be effective at this time. I have therefore decided to block A1Cafel. I have done so indefinitely.

Why indefinitely? Because I am not convinced that any time-based block could lead to a change in behavior once the block expires in, e.g., a year. A1Cafel has been blocked many times, and has therefore had the opportunity to use that time to reflect on what he would like to change in his behavior. But such a change has not happened, as far as I can tell.

Indefinite, of course, does not mean infinite: an acknowledgment of what led to the block, and a credible commitment to discontinue it, will lead to a successful unblock request. Before submitting one, however, A1Cafel should do some introspection to figure out what needs to change, and how he will change it. Reviewing administrators may also wish to consider whether additional topic bans should be imposed as an unblock condition.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A1Cafel (talk · contribs) Long-term mass uploading junk/poor-quality/out of scope/duplicate files often without correct titles, descriptions and categories after multiple warnings and requests from other users (see talk page). Persistent toxic behaviour, refusal to talk with others (User_talk:A1Cafel#Request: Please, name files with good file names, before you upload. User_talk:A1Cafel#Your_White_House_upload_has_only_hidden_categories.). Strange behaviour: adding bad "criticism" category Category:Files from Flickr with bad file names white itself continuing to upload files with problematic titles from Flickr, and even adding the category to own upload (!) (Special:Diff/863845500). The user is also known for long-term "FoP-trolling" and deletionism, with nominating files for deletion due to FoP-and-derivative work-related problems (often without understanding of licensing and COM:DM), user hiding behind an article in the law but itself A1Cafel often mass-upload of DW and FoP-violating files (only recent cases) (User_talk:A1Cafel#Notification_about_possible_deletion_2, File:ESPR 0459 (53657780323).jpg, File:ESPR 0461 (53658023290).jpg, File:ESPR 0462 (53657780393).jpg, File:ESPR 0464 (53657779868).jpg, File:ESPR 0465 (53657557041).jpg, File:ESPR 0469 (53657557096).jpg, File:ESPR 0470 (53657780438).jpg, File:ESPR 0472 (53656683937).jpg, File:ESPR 0473 (53658023990).jpg, File:ESPR 0471 (53657557081).jpg). Previous ANU topics:

• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_93#A1Cafel_and_yet_more_abusive_deletions
• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_106#User:A1Cafel
• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_108#Subject:_Request_for_Permanent_Block_of_A1Cafel
• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_109#Permanent_Block_request_for_violation_of_Topic_Ban_by_A1Cafel.

Five blocks in 1.5 years did not help. Regards, 84.126.228.207 18:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@84.126.228.207: Do you have a specific complaint that has not been addressed in previous discussions? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

At least, there is an issue with A1Cafel uploading derivative works of non free content (which I deleted), while being a zealot creator of nominations for copyright violations. Also removing this thread twice is not OK. Yann (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose Any action. Although I agree that A1Cafel could probably name files better, but there's no guideline about how to name files. Let alone is someone creating bad file names grounds for banning them. Especially on it's own and the rest of this really just comes off as a rehash of issues that have (mostly) already been dealt with. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose actions against A1Cafel. However, I'd like to note that the removals of this thread A1Cafel attempted should not have taken place. An anonymous editor is not less than a registered user, and the thread is not a personal attack or abuse, so it should stay. --Bedivere (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support per SHB2000 essentially. Bedivere (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Adamant1. I don't think any blocks are warranted at this stage. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I have struck my vote and will now  Support a 2-week block after the evidence provided by Andy Dingley. I should stress that I am not supporting based on the IP's arguments, but rather A1Cafel attempting to remove this discussion twice. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Two weeks won’t cut it for this behaviour. I’m proposing a year long block. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned 2 weeks since I think that is enough down time for A1 to reflect on their behaviour, but I wouldn't oppose a longer block if that's what the community believes works best. According to Bedivere, the last block was 2 weeks, meaning the next would be 1 month, and I'm happy with that if that's what we think works best. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that an indefinite block is not the right call, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support Block, just for their vandalism here: [7] [8] of AN/U.

Yes, vandalism. Maybe 'misguided', but that's the whole problem with A1Cafel. Per AGF we assume that they 'mean well', but is their judgement up to CIR? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose the evidence presented is not sufficient to block someone. Maybe A1Cafel should be blocked for “refusing to get the point” but you can’t use bad file names and a single (debatable) “vandalism” incident as a gateway to double jeopardy someone. Dronebogus (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a pattern. If you look at their talk page, they have consistently uploaded Flickr files that are completely problematic in more ways than just file naming conventions. One of the worst issues is a disregard for copyright policies. The problem is that this causes a. a lot of work for others to fix, b. leaves us potentially liable for copyright enforcement actions, and c. completely goes against the goals and ethos of the project, which are to provide truly freely available images for the general public and to society at large. A1Cafel has been around for a long time. They routinely submit images for deletion for valid reasons like copyright infringement, so it’s not like they don’t understand the concept.

A message needs to be sent and the project needs to be protected. They have been apparently blocked five times in the last year and a half. Shorter blocks won’t work - give them a severe block - one year. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support per Andy and SHB2000.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Support the sheer quantity of files they have uploaded that have been deleted, the vandalism of ANU, the hypocritical “policing” of others images, the lack of responses to fair questions on his user page, and the inability to name files correctly despite many, many people imploring him to muse sensible file names indicates to me this was see needs a long term block. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support - abuses Flickr2Commons on a regular basis without following simple commons policies on what should and should not be uploaded here by mass uploading just to up his edit count and then ignores people who report his uploads to his talk page. Has previously proven he doesn't understand simple common policies and refuses to acknowledge his mistakes or fix them, i prefer an indef block but thats not gonna happen with this 'protected' user.. Stemoc 02:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support an indefinite block. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think an indef/perma block would solve anything. I would expect 1) A1Cafel gets a block (1 month since last block was two weeks?) 2) A1Cafel makes a compromise not to disrupt the project and take comments positively and constructively. Bedivere (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I promise I respect every users (including IP users) and not to disrupt the project, and I apologize for my pre-mature behaviour. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Problem is you have made promises in the past and have not kept up to those promises. What about the mass-up loads from Flickr, in some cases duplicates and in others that have FOP/TOO issues. Bidgee (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  The question of a block aside, you might at least just avoid using Flickr2Commons altogether at this point since it seems like your incapable of not getting into trouble with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  As someone who was quite badly treated on enwiki, I don’t support an indefinite block. A long block in this case is needed, but given I’ve seen users act here in immature and silly ways, but are still valuable contributors, I think the harshness and unfeeling attitudes towards those who mess up are frankly pretty pathetic. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Bedivere, administrator Mdaniels5757 stated, in A1Cafel's third to last block, that the next one would "be longer, or perhaps be indefinite". In the meantime, the "next block" has already occurred, and it wasn't indefinite. The next of the "next block" has also occured. Will the upcoming one be indefinite or not? Will it ever end? RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm willing to give A1Cafel one last chance, I think they are contributing positively in a genuine way. However, I agree with your concerns too. I don't think an indefinite block is needed at this point but, since there is near unanimous consensus to block, a block is to be issued for sure. Everybody has made their points quite clear and A1Cafel should take note of every comment and avoid these areas that are becoming troublesome: Flickr2Commons, for example. If they are found once again, after this final block, to be making disruptive edits like those that have been pointed out, they should be indefinitely blocked undoubtedly, and there is consensus for that. Anyway, indefinite blocks are not meant in every case to be a forever-lasting one. Bedivere (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  We can absolutely give them a chance, but bad behaviour of the nature of A1Cafel comes with consequences. A year long block is a severe but proportionate response to their actions. It prevents their disruption abandoned protects the project, and gives them a chance to return afresh. If they return and exhibit the same behaviours, another year long block could be reimposed. One only has so many years of their life. This would give them a chance to reform, but not give them much chance to continue disrupting commons. The block would be a proportionate and still compassionate response to their behaviour. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support Undefined block. ----Benoît (d) 11:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: One of the most taunting, cynical, and destructive users Commons has seen in a long while. Apart from having, for instance, attempted to speedy delete photographs of a deceased volunteer, the destruction left by A1Cafel on the project is hard to measure for one simple reason: because, precisely, it's been deleted. To give you an idea, I once stumbled upon an image deleted by them: File:Lula and Castro9851.jpeg. Digging a bit deeper, I found out they had nominated for speedy deletion over 300 images uploaded by a volunteer inactive for about a decade, despite having uploaded images from the same source just a few days prior. Needless to say, this simply wreaked havoc on countless articles, as a large portion of these images were COM:INUSE. Alongside DarwIn, I was trying to gradually restore them, but I was caught off guard by personal issues that I need to address with more urgency than dedicating myself to volunteer work. As Chris.sherlock2 pointed out, a long-term block against this account is warranted. I agree with Stemoc that this block should be indefinite. A1Cafel's harassing behavior must come to an end. Otherwise, the mentioned threads wouldn't have been opened by Edelseider, Benoît Prieur, Ooligan, Wilfredor, etc... RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I support something like a year long block. Not an indefinite block. Being out of the project for an entire year absolutely gives the editor cause for thought. If they come back and start doing the same thing, then give them another year block. People go through life stages, none of us know about A1Cafel’s life circumstances. A year long block at this point does a few things - first, it protects the project. Second, it shows the barest minimum of mercy we should supply for the behaviour exhibited - but it does give a chance to allow A1Cafel to get their life together in the meantime. Alternatively, such a long absence might give them a chance to move on to more productive areas of their life - it could be we are breaking some sort of cycle.

  so, no indef block please. A year block would be sufficient, with a warning that if they return after a year a similar year long block could and likely will be imposed upon them. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Chris.sherlock2, when I mentioned an indefinite block, I imagined that the user could request unblocking after some time. Judging by the reactions, apparently it's not like that here on Commons. So, a long-term block seems fair enough to me. I'm also indefinitely blocked on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, and I wish it hadn't been like that—I agree absolutely with you that "people go through life stages". Cheers, RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  The whole “begging my betters” to be unblocked doesn’t sit right with me. Indefinite blocking on an admin noticeboard smacks of lynching. I’ve seen it first hand - sometimes ironically those participating in the lynching were indefinitely blocked themselves. It’s not a culture we want to encourage on commons. Outside of Wikimedia projects, those who commit terrible crimes (except for genuine lifers) have fixed periods of punishment. I don’t see why any Wikimedia project thinks disproportionate blocks are a good idea. I can count on one hand the people who deserved to be blocked indefinitely on a Wikimedia Project. Severe punishment is fine, but it has to be proportionate to the behaviours exhibited. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps it's time to build up a penal code ;-) Joke aside, I do agree indef-blocking long-term users who have commited grave mistakes is not a good idea if the purpose is to give them a lesson. Bedivere (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  lol! god help us.

  It’s a combination of lessons in consequences and protecting the project. It’s pretty clear that a severe sanction needs to be imposed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Dear Commonists! I want to further clarify what problems with A1 we have there to help the community to deside how they may be fixed and possible impacts if will no actions:

1. Out of scope/junk/low-quality uploads. This is the most significant problem with the user. Why? Out of scope/poor-quality-junk uploads severely discreditate Commons as a useful source for media-files. They crowding categories and makes finding of really useful files much difficult. This is only physical side of the problem. Moral side it is just unpleasant to see these files. 2. Toxic behavouir. Also heavy problem. Mass FoP-and-deletionist trolling discourages users and it may cause to a user left the project and at least minimize work here. Uploading duplicates/files with bad names/without basic categories and descriptions, refusal to talk with others, removing the topic twice, calling my actions as trolling represent that AGF cannot applied here. Concerning to recent DRs, I do not understand why this file (and many similar) violate FOP. The murals is severely distorted and not in focus, and fences are too simple to be copyrighted. 3. If a user want to become a fan of FoP-and-DW-related DRs he himself must be impeccable. However the user persistently upload FoP-and-DW-violating files. I do not know whether he is doing so accidentally or deliberately, I assume the first and A1 simply do not check what exastly he want to upload. I have nothing personal against A1.

P.S. @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Please do not ping IPs, they will not see your ping. I did not read previous long discussion fully. I do not known whether all the problems have been discussed or not. Even all of them have been discussed and there is no specific complaints, this request is valid because later ANU topics and blocks did not affect the user's modus operandi. I hope that I answered your question. Regards, 109.205.139.189 10:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Perhaps it's time to build up a penal code It is kind of dumb to block people things that aren't even against the rules to begin with. Although I know A1Cafel has chronic issues, but there was just a proposal for implementing some standards for how to name files that was shot down. So are really going to give someone a year long block for that? Come on. What other behavior is there here that's recent and/or already hasn't been litigated in other ANU complaints though? Because I don't see anything. I'll also point while I'm at it that RodRabelo7 brought up that A1Cafel had File:Lula and Castro9851.jpeg, without mentioning the important detail that he nominated the image for deletion because it a lacked a source, which is anyone's prerogative. I think the main thing here is axe grinding over A1Cafel's DRs of images that violate FOP, as should be evidenced by the IPs editors message saying enough. Otherwise, again and regardless of the consensus, what actually warrants a long-term block here? Claims of "Mass FoP-and-deletionist trolling" shouldn't cut it. As if reporting or blocking people simply for being extremely active in the area of deletion requests doesn't also discourage users or cause them to leave the project. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Have you looked at his recent upload history? It’s chock full of files from Flickr that clearly aren’t valid files. Meanwhile I see him nominating images of y others for the same reason. There is a pattern at work here, it’s not just badly named files. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Chris.sherlock2: Yeah I have. Some of them are low quality, but that's just Flickr for you. Images from there tend to be crap. There's no quality guidelines anyway. So what exactly do you mean by the files not being valid? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  There are absolutely stacks that violate FoP from the countries the photos were taken. Check the notifications on his talk page. It’s not like he doesn’t know about the rules around FoP. It’s extremely concerning. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Now that you mention it, I was looking through them early and I don't really see what the issue is with a lot, if not most, of the images that were nominated for deletion. Like File:Czech pavilion EXPO 2020 © JinJan, WeAreConted(s) 2.jpg is just a bunch of random wires. There's nothing original about that. Same with File:Governador João Doria durante visita à Expo Dubai (51634704902).jpg, which is some block letters. But sure, lets indef block A1Cafel because they uploaded some images of metal wiring. Sounds reasonable lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  You are missing the ones that were actually deleted. I have never called for him to be indef blocked. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah well, it's kind of hard to judge deleted images, but if they are anything like the ones that were nominated for deletion then.....And I know you didn't. That seems to be the sentiment. Although I have the same opinion about a one year block then I do an indef. Neither one seems justified given the lack of evidence and clearly bad motives involved on the side of the person that opened this. A1Cafel is a pretty important editor when it comes to dealing with FOP violations. I'd hate to lose someone that's a heavy editor in that area, and a badly needed one at that. Lets not turn this into Wikipedia where we run off all the "deletionists" based on essentially nothing but drama farming like they have a tendency to do.

• Make it a couple of months block with the condition that they won't use Flickr2Commons or mass import anything from their again when they are unblocked since that's where most, if not, all of their problems come from. I'd totally support that. Say like a 3 month block to cool off and think. Then no more mass-imports from Flickr after that? (Just to be clear, I don't see an issue with them using the upload wizard to import a few images from Flickr that they have put the time into reviewing before hand though). Anyway, I think that's more then fair. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Perhaps it's time to build up a penal code" - I clarified that was only meant to be a joke. I have also said that just escalating to a one-month-block, with A1Cafel making a compromise not to repeat the same mistakes again, is a good and safe turnout for this discussion. Bedivere (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  That’s fair. We probably need to a rapidly escalating block though. And yes, I don’t want to see enwiki lynch mobs. It always saddened me when I saw non-editors raining down judgement on long-term editors who had produced (*gasp*) articles - and then you look at the lynch mob participants and all they did was category work or hung out at ANI. Amusingly, some of the most vociferous participants have later been indefinitely blocked themselves. So, yes, let’s not be like that cesspool. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Bedivere Fair enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

   Comment While I agree with many of the points mentioned, I come to limited defense of A1Cafel on the accusation ""FoP-trolling" and deletionism, with nominating files for deletion due to FoP-and-derivative work-related problems" Quite simply, A1Cafel's deletion discussion listings for FOP/DW problems are very frequently (though not always) correct. (I recall a while back a different user was listed here for frequent arguments to keep on deletion requests that some found a bit obnoxious - and this user also was very frequently (though not always) correct. Copyright law is sometimes convoluted, and some things that might be assumed to be ok by casual observers are actually violations, and some things that might be assumed to be violations by casual observers are actually ok.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support indef. block, net negative, per RodRabelo7 and others. Strakhov (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm totally fine and ready for this. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support Since the user apparently consents to their own indef block. I think that settles the question. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)— Preceding undated comment was added at 15:54, 21 April 2024‎ (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, I don't view this comment this way. But I'll close this discussion shortly. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dafzzz

Dafzzz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Consistently uploading copyvios, AI upscaling images (to avoid detection?), removing CSD without resolving the issues, removing corresponding talk page notifications for said copyvios after final copyright warning. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month for massive YT license washing. Files deleted and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dafzzz‎. Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

User:OperationSakura6144

OperationSakura6144 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Created a category Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available which contains a vicious personal attack against MacOS Weed (talk · contribs).

"MacOS Weed is a shameless piece of crap. I thought him to be helpful but turns out he isn't. He didn't understand my worries well. Now, I'm never gonna beg help or even talk with him anymore, he's ungrateful. I hate him."

This is a completely unacceptable way to talk about other editors. 155.133.20.118 10:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I know, but he could have refused my request without using vulgar language. I'm sorry if I personally attacked MacOS Weed. Please grant me a 3-day block for this. I'm just sharing my experience with MacOS Weed. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps start by removing the offensive comments. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed the offensive comments. Please tell MacOS Weed to not use vulgar language while talking with users, especially newcomers, and apologize to me for that. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide the diff where they did this? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Here's what MacOS Weed replied (found in User talk:MacOS Weed):

MacOS Weed: Hi, I'm not sure to understand, it seems to have already be done haha

Me: Stop joking. Each "original" (PNG/JPG/GIF) file is used by each Wikipedia article. It's too easy to replace them with SVG files. Please do it.

MacOS Weed: Okay, first, don’t ever talk me like that, I was trying to be nice understanding your request because It sounded you asked me to rename the file, your request wasn’t clear.

I'm not your dog, I don't owe you anything and I'm not at your immediate disposal. I don't know who you think you are, but you're not my boss, and I'm not in any way subordinate to you.

I've got enough complicated problems in my life without someone sending me a fucking message that even my boss wouldn't dare write like that.

You just had to be clearer in your messages.

I’m not even the vectorizer for the images you posted. If you want them to be used in Wikipedia, do it yourself.

I'm not the slave here.

If It’s “too easy” to do, then do it and don’t ever bother me again.

Here, MacOS Weed at first didn't understand me and said it's "done already". I clarified it, said that each "original" file (PNG/JPG/GIF file in this case) is used only by each Wikipedia article I can't edit (Sorry for unclear messaging with MacOS Weed), and urged him to replace them with their vector versions, telling it's so easy to do it.

And, then, MacOS Weed became unhinged. He vilified me as if I was enslaving him and condescendingly replied to me. He used dehumanizing words like "dog" and "slave" and swear words like "f*****g" against me as if he's superior to me and suggested me to do the job myself if it's so easy for him to do, which I can't, due to my blocked IP address. (Please don't suggest me VRTS or Wikipedia unblock review. They turned out to be failures for me.)

I was surprised by the way he talked to me. I thought he'd help me and, unexpectedly, he turns out to be opposite. (I'm autistic BTW. I can't tolerate those vulgar messages and unexpected sentimental chaos.)

He could've replied in simple language without even treating me as a villain. I don't know why he could talk like a barbarian (I'm not personally attacking MacOS Weed), just because my tone is bad while talking or I don't have a clear and understanding messaging, which, in turn, can be gently addressing by him without using questionable messaging. I am sorry for the choas happened due to the conversation with MacOS Weed, and I'm responsible for this, and should MacOS Weed.

Anyways, whatever it goes, mistakes are bound to happen. We need to learn from them to improve themselves (I think I've became a philosopher XD.). That's my case when I learned that begging help from WikiComms/Wikipedia users to do my job is never really going to help me at all, and created Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available where WikiComms users can help me and I help them in return.

I've learned my lesson after all, and MacOS Weed needs to learn his one of not using vulgar and condescending language to users. Therefore, I end my statement now. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You can't claim to have "learned your lesson" if you got blocked for 3 days for how you behave on people's talk pages and then after that block is over go and do that exact same thing, with the exact same language, on someone else's talk page. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record again, I'm never doing this anymore. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, he has also requested and harassed some other users including @ReneeWrites and @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd. Strenatos (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I did, but I got blocked for 3 days for that. Don't you know this? Now, I am not requesting anyone to help me. I created Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available, so that you and many users can help me if you like to. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

have you seen my comment in the category for it? Strenatos (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I did, you said you removed the category info, saying that I don't need to talk about the history of the category. Also, you also said the vulgar replies I talked about had valid reasons. I agree with it, but they could be gently addressed without the use of swear words and vulgar language, right?

To be correct, you are wrong about the IP matter. My IP was blocked by Materialscientist‬ on 28 October 2023 in the English Wikipedia, that is almost 6 months before I even created my WikiComms account. The Persian and Spanish Wikis would have the similar timelines as of the English Wiki.

Before you disagree with me, please think calm and understand my situation. It's all my fault harassing people in WikiComms just to have my job done. Now, I repented of that tragedy and created the category to have the job completed with no problems.

Also, you replaced File:Aizubange Fukushima chapter.JPG with its vector version. So, I appreciate you for this little thing. You also replaced File:Flag of Narusawa Yamanashi.JPG with its vector version. I appreciate it too.

Now, please tell me what you think me of now. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

MacOS Weed told you that he did not want to be treated like a dog and that he is not your slave, this was in response to you acting in a rude and entitled manner on his talk page. He was completely in the right, and nothing about how he worded his reply was vulgar or inappropriate, especially not considering the context these replies were written.

You on the other hand, in response to this, called him a "shameless piece of crap" and then edited that comment to also call him an "ungrateful moron". ReneeWrites (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Come on, User:ReneeWrites. I removed the derogatory comments on MacOS Weed in Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available. Now, I agree that I harassed MacOS Weed and that was wrong after all. I am responsible for the chaos happened. For the record, I'll not request anyone to do my job anymore, and I'll say it again and again, if you don't get me well, because I created Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available, so that I don't need to request anyone to help me.

Now, what do you expect from me? Should I stop harassing everyone and obey the rules or do you want me to leave WikiComms for good? I need an answer. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I don’t think the original message was intended to be rude, just really, really poorly communicated. I’m not all that surprised that MacOS Weed responded like they did due to the abruptness, though that was also fairly over the top.

MacOS Weed’s response never denegrated OperationSakura6144, he never called him a dog or swore at him (though swearing was involved). I suspect that both parties have gone off the deep end.

OperationSakura6144 your category page was incredibly uncivil and uncalled for. FWIW, you’ve removed that text now, but you need to figure out a way of regulating your emotions a little better. I’d suggest to you that if you were a little less abrupt in your initial communications this could have all been avoided. Perhaps it’s your autism that caused this? Next time, try to couch the terms more like a request: you could have said “it’s really easy to make SVGs from these, would you be able to create them?” That becomes a polite request, and not a command. Just a thought.

The only actionable issue here is the category page you created. Don’t go off on a diatribe about someone in category space. (Do t do this anywhere, but in particular category space!) can we get assurance you won’t do this again? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Finally, that's what I was waiting. I'll never go out of the line, harrass users, attack anyone, and go crazy and get washed away by my emotions. For the record, I am not gonna request anyone to have a handful of images I got to be replaced with vector files, because I created Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available for this purpose. If anyone is interested to help me, they would go to the category and help me by replacing the images with their vector versions. I hope this problem gets resolved, or is it? OperationSakura6144 (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I can’t make the final decision on this, but it goes to your credit you apologised and removed the offending material. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I blocked Operation for two weeks. Even though they've apologized for their disrupting behaviour, it's the second time they've been reported here for such behaviour, and that short three day block was meant to be a lesson for them. Please take this time to calm down and, when you come back, don't make the same mistakes again, else you'll get an indefinite block. Bedivere (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Wasting resources

Can someone look into, delete the uploads of and potential even block the user User:Jarrod stanley ? This user has been uploading multi gigabyte, 7 hour videos of blackness and noise. This is extremely wasteful and behavior like this risks that uploads of this size might have to be restricted to a small group of privileged users, if we don't deal with it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Already here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jarrod stanley. Yann (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a block is needed at this stage, but would support a temporary block if their behavior continues. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The War of Edits User:Laurel Lodged

Extended content

Прошу заблокировать участника Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) за неконсенсусную категоризацию и развязанную из-за этого войну правок. Online translation: I ask you to block the participant Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) for non-consensual categorization and the war of edits unleashed because of this. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Oppose By "non-consensual", he means, "Things I don't agree with". I have tried, respectfully, to explain my point on his talk page. He replies fail to address the core points and are often disrespectful, lacking in civility and do not assume good faith. See this diff which he has erased from his talk page. See also this diff which he has also deleted. In it, he grudgingly admits that I was correct ("Catholicism = Catholic Church + Old Catholic"). I think that his main grievance is contained in this diff (which he has also deleted). Basically, it boils down to the necessity to differentiate in category names between bricks-and-mortar church buildings versus churches as institutions or denominations. Relying on a single word - churches - elides this semantic difference and is a hinderance to user navigation. Because he refused to truly engage with this semantic difference and went on mis-categorisation, I was obliged to intervene. And yes, that did result in edit wars. For this I apologise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Есть консенсусное название категории "Christian denominations in <State>" (см. Category:Christian denominations by country), Laurel Lodged заменяет на неконсенсусный вариант "Christian denominational families in <State>". Online translation: There is a consensus name for the category "Christian denominations in <State>" (see Category:Christian denominations by country), Laurel Lodging replaces with a non-consensual version "Christian denominational families in <State>". Ыфь77 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC) What is a denominational family? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC) See Category:Christian denominations by denominational family and illustration on right. The two are not the same. For example, Category:Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland is a denomination; Category:Presbyterianism is a denominational family. There are many hundreds of denominations within Presbyterianism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Где на этой схеме "Jehovah's Witnesses" и "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", которые входят в деноминации, но не входят в семейство деноминаций? Online translation: Where in this diagram are "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", which are included in denominations but not in the denominational family? Ыфь77 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC) I've started to create Category:Nontrinitarian denominations to hold these religious groups. Many would not regard them as mainstream Christianity; others regard them as a branch of reformed Protestantism. While not explicitly called out in the diagram (which admittedly is a simplification of a complex structure), is that the annotated Council of Ephesus may be taken as the theological dividing point between Trinitarian and Nontrinitarian branches of Christianity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Здесь Вы не правы, потому что учёные-религоведы не могут однозначно классифицировать эти деноминации, поэтому самое правильное их положение - сразу в христианских деноминациях. Online translation: You are wrong here, because religious scholars cannot categorize these denominations unambiguously, so their most correct position is immediately in Christian denominations. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Where have you been discussing this? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Я не собираюсь обсуждать с тем, кто правит без консенсуса. Все прошлые попытки договориться в формате "1 на 1" не привели к результату. Online translation: I'm not going to discuss with someone who rules without consensus. All previous attempts to reach an agreement in the "1 on 1" format did not lead to a result. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) So let's get this straight, you are demanding that someone stop doing something and you are not willing to discuss it, but you claim they are acting against consensus. And you've gone straight to ANU to ask to have him blocked? I think you need to reconsider your position. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Laurel is on point here. Everything he has said so far checks out. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 2. Где на этой схеме распростанённая категория "Eastern Christianity", которая входит в деноминации, но не входит в семейства деноминаций? Online translation: Where in this diagram is the widespread category of "Eastern Christianity", which is included in denominations, but not included in the denominational family? Ыфь77 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Did you fail to notice the reference to Great Schism in the diagram? That is generally taken as the dividing line between Eastern and Western Christianity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Ещё раз для тех, кто плохо знает лексику: "Eastern Christianity" входит в деноминации, но не входит в семейства деноминаций, поэтому будет создавать ненужное дублирование категорий при принятии варианта "denominational family". Online translation: Once again, for those who do not know the vocabulary well: "Eastern Christianity" is included in denominations, but is not included in the denominational family, therefore it will create unnecessary duplication of categories when adopting the "denominational family" option. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Eastern / Western is not a binary classification of Christianity. It is just a layer of categorisation that may be adduced to add colour to a question. There are Trinitarian/Nontrinitarian traditions in both the East and the West. There are Chalcedonians / Nonchalcedonian traditions in both the East and the West. If it was truly binary, where would you put the Church of the East in the scheme? They would not belong to either I think.Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Вот именно, строгое выделение именно семейств деноминаций чрезмерно усложняет категоризацию, порождая бесконечные споры как поделить христианские деноминации на семейства. Online translation: That's right, the strict allocation of families of denominations overly complicates categorization, giving rise to endless disputes on how to divide Christian denominations into families. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) I'm confused: are you congratuating me for omitting Eastern/Western as denominational families or criticising me for omitting them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Second. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 3. Где на этой схеме восточнокатолические церкви? Вы предлагаете их выделять из Категории:Католицизм? Online translation: Where are the Eastern Catholic churches in this diagram? Do you propose to separate them from the category:Catholicism? Ыфь77 (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC) We've already had this discussion. Do you remember admitting that "Catholicism = Catholic Church + Old Catholic". I have been implementing this solution consistently. All "Catholic" categories that I have created or amended include both Roman and Eastern particular sui iurus churches. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Если строго выделять именно семейства деноминаций, то единая католическая церковь должна быть разделена на 5 категорий: Римско-католическая церковь, грекокатолические церкви, ортодоксальные католические церкви, восточнокатолические церкви, отделившиеся от Ассирийской церкви Востока + католические структуры, отделившиеся от англиканства (на время подписи 3 единицы). Online translation: If we strictly single out the denominational family, then the united Catholic Church should be divided into 5 categories: the Roman Catholic Church, Greek Catholic Churches, Oriental Catholic Churches, Eastern Catholic churches that separated from the Assyrian Church of the East + Catholic structures that separated from Anglicanism (at the time of signature 3 units). Ыфь77 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC) You may prefer to use this diagram which makes the Eastern Catholic / Roman Catholic reunion explicit. Again, I have chosen to use current realities to describe the branches or denominational families. I have not gone down the rabbit holes of past splits / reunions / splits / reunions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Вы сами предоставили доказательства, что выделение denominational family слишком усложняет категоризацию, но продолжаете настаивать на своём варианте. И кто из нас двоих занимается деструктивной категоризацией? Online translation: You yourself have provided evidence that highlighting denominational family makes categorization too difficult, but you continue to insist on your own version. And which of the two of us is engaged in destructive categorization? Ыфь77 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC) It's not that difficult. Just stick to the current end nodes of the illustrations and omit everything else. Interim stages with splits and reunions are only of interest to history students; they need not distract us here in categorical space. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Мы обязаны категоризировать согласно названию категории, поэтому в случае "denominational family" обязаны выделить до 5 подкатегорий вместо 1 Католической церкви, а в случае "denomination" оставляем одну категорию. Online translation: We are obliged to categorize according to the category name, so in the case of "denominational family" we are obliged to allocate up to 5 subcategories instead of 1 Catholic Church, and in the case of "denomination" we leave one category. Ыфь77 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC) @Ыфь77: I can see absolutely nothing here that calls for blocking User:Laurel Lodged. This seems like a reasonable controversy over how best to organize a category tree, certainly not something to be solved by blocking someone for having the temerity to disagree with you. But perhaps I am mistaken. Either you need to present a concrete case (with diffs) as to why Laurel Lodged has done something that merits a block, or (at least in terms of the Administrators' noticeboard) we should end this discussion right here. Please also be aware that if your case consists of "the two of us has been edit warring back and forth" I would then say that if either of you should be blocked for that, then both of you should be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Laurel Lodged вернул 3 неконсенсусных названия категорий и добавил ещё 7, хотя знал, что я ранее унифицировал Category:Christian denominations by country. Это злонамеренное развязывание войны правок. Я вижу 2 варианта развития конфликта: 1) заблокировать ему или нам обоим основное пространство и пространство Категория до установления консенсуса по выше указанной проблеме, 2) административно либо ещё как установить консенсус по этой проблеме и обязать Laurel Lodged ему следовать. Со своей стороны обещаю, что буду следовать установленному консенсусу либо вообще покину этот проект. Online translation: Laurel Lodging returned 3 non-consensual category names and added 7 more, although I knew that I had previously unified the Category:Christian denominations by country. This is a malicious outbreak of a war of edits. I see 2 options for the development of the conflict: 1) block him or both of us from the main space and the Category space until a consensus is established on the above-mentioned problem, 2) administratively or otherwise how to establish a consensus on this problem and oblige Laurel Lodging to follow it. For my part, I promise that I will follow the established consensus or leave this project altogether. Ыфь77 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Меня устраивает вариант установления консенсуса в названии категорий третьим лицом достаточной квалификации, но я не настолько владею английский языком, чтобы знать, на какой странице это можно сделать. Online translation: I am satisfied with the option of establishing consensus in the name of categories by a third party with sufficient qualifications, but I do not speak English enough to know on which page this can be done. Ыфь77 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) P.S. Только надо обязать Laurel Lodged не продолжать неконсенсусные правки. Online translation: P.S. We just need to oblige Laurel Lodging not to continue non-consensual edits. Ыфь77 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)  Comment Staying out of the specifics of the edit waring because I don't have time to look into it right now or really care. But this whole idea of "denominational families" seems questionable at best. The only thing that seems to come up for it on Google is an unsourced Wikipedia article and this rather questionable diagram from a random website. I've certainly never heard of the concept and have a background that's heavy in religious studies. So @Laurel Lodged: not to say your POV editing or whatever, but what exactly is the whole thing based on aside from your personal opinion? Like are there any actual sources talking about the concept of "denominational families? I'd also be interested in how you think a "family" is somehow different from a "denomination" because at least from what I know there can be denominations within other ones. And again, I have a background in religious studies. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC) I think the request to block Laurel Lodged is now addressed - we won't be doing this. ANU is not the forum to discuss category changes. Perhaps take it to VP? Unless there is a better forum for discussion, of course. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Or conversely start a CfD, but I think it's relevant to the discuss as far as there's other remedies to resolving a dispute or sanctioning someone besides a block and at least some those depend on of if this is something Laurel Lodged's essentially created out thin air based on their own personal opinion of dominations. It's one thing to edit war someone over a disagreement about which concept should represent a particular set of images. It's another to edit war over something that doesn't even exist to begin with though. Not that I necessarily think Laurel Lodged needs sanctioning either, but then there's also no point in taking it to VP or doing a CfD if there's no reason to because "family denominations" aren't an academically sound idea to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) There are references to denomination families by Pew Research [9] Academic papers reference denominational families [10][11]. It’s a synonym for denominational movements. The U.S. Census Bureau categorized denominations into families [12] So it would not be accurate to say that Laurel Lodged made this up. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC) it would not be accurate to say that Laurel Lodged made this up Good thing I never claimed they did then ;) Although I still think it's something that is probably worth discussing in the proper venue. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Apologies, I took the bit where you wrote “It's one thing to edit war someone over a disagreement about which concept should represent a particular set of images. It's another to edit war over something that doesn't even exist to begin with though.” to mean that Laurel Lodged made up the term. I apologise for my misunderstanding! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC) @Chris.sherlock2: No worries :) --Adamant1 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Законна или незаконна концепция "family denominations" - дело десятое. Я думаю, что сумел выше доказать, что она для Викисклада неудобна. Online translation: Whether the concept of "family denominations" is legal or illegal is the tenth matter. I think I have managed to prove above that it is inconvenient for Wikimedia Commons. Ыфь77 (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Not really, you came here to have Laurel Lodged blocked for making a change you claim doesn’t meet consensus, but you can’t show us where this was debated. That’s really the point here - I see no attempt by you to gather consensus by the wider community, instead you immediately came to ANU in an attempt to sanction another editor you were engaged in a disagreement. If anything, that is an example of tendentious behaviour where you asked admins to silence someone you disagree with. You have not demonstrated that Laurel Lodge’s changes are invalid. It’s possible the wider community may yet find this to be the case, but I see no attempt by you to discuss this outside of this request on ANU. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Я уже писал выше, что были попытки договориться с Laurel Lodged в формате "1 на 1" ни к чему не привели, поэтому я выбрал жесткий вариант, потому что не знаю до сих пор, как правильно действовать в таких случаях. Напомню, что блокировка - это не наказание, а способ предотвратить будущие нарушения. 10 эпизодов нарушения откровенно говорят, что действовать надо было немедленно. 2) Администратор попросил не развивать дальше этот раздел, давайте присоединимся к его просьбе. Online translation: I already wrote above that attempts to negotiate with Laurel Lodging in the "1 on 1" format did not lead to anything, so I chose the hard option, because I still do not know how to act correctly in such cases. Let me remind you that blocking is not a punishment, but a way to prevent future violations. 10 episodes of violation frankly say that it was necessary to act immediately. 2) The administrator asked not to develop this section further, let's join his request. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Online translation: Thank you for your opinion. Ыфь77 (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Happy to provide it, although I’m unclear why I need to do so on ANU. You have not given me the chance to provide it on a more appropriate forum like CFD, which is the point I’m trying to make. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Online translation: This is Adamant1's answer. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Clearly no admin action called for at this time. Several people have made good points or asked good questions on the substantive issue here (as against the conduct issue), but this is not the place to discuss categorization. Suggestions: User:Laurel Lodged and User:Ыфь77 should both take at least the next 7 days off from changing categories in this area, and probably until something at least approaching a consensus is reached. Someone (@Adamant1? @Chris.sherlock2? Ideally not one of the two warring parties, but that would still be better than nothing) should set up an appropriate place to discuss the categorization issues at hand (probably a CfD), and link it here and maybe from the Village pump and/or some relevant category pages. Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Sounds reasonable. I'll probably open a CfD at some point if no one else does. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I’ve got evidence of its usage so if you do let me know so I can contribute to the discussion. It is actually a bone fide term. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC) @Jmabel: У меня просьба: я не нашёл в русской справочной системе Викисклада доступной ссылки на то место, где можно разрешить подобные конфликты, в чём вижу ущемление прав не англоязычных участников. Можно здесь дать ссылку, куда могут обратиться 2 добросовестных участника, если они не могут договориться в формате "1 на 1"? Online translation: I have a request: I did not find an accessible link in the Russian Wikimedia Commons help system to a place where such conflicts can be resolved, which I see as infringing on the rights of non-English-speaking participants. Can I give a link here where 2 bona fide participants can contact if they cannot agree in a 1-on-1 format? Ыфь77 (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC) P. S. У меня с Laurel Lodged этот конфликт - не единственный и нам явно нужен посредник для категоризации в сфере религии. Online translation: P. S. This conflict with Laurel Lodging is not the only one, and the two of us clearly need an intermediary for categorization in the field of religion. Ыфь77 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC) It sounds like Ыфь77 is not satisfied with what I proposed as a way to discuss this. If someone else (including Ыфь77) can propose a better way to proceed than I did, please do. But in any case, let us please not continue the substantive discussion about categorization here on this page. - Jmabel ! talk 13:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Меня полностью устраивает Ваше решение. Online translation: I am completely satisfied with your decision. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Но я хочу от Вас увидеть ссылку на страницу, куда мне и другим участникам можно обратиться в других подобных случаях. Извините, если онлайн-перевод исказил смысл моих слов. Online translation: But I want you to see a link to a page where I and other participants can contact in other similar cases. I'm sorry if the online translation distorted the meaning of my words. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC) @Jmabel: . Ыфь77 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC) @Ыфь77: This page is to discuss problems with individual users' problematic behavior. I am trying here to put to rest an inappropriate request you made to have another user blocked. This is not the place to discuss a categorization issue, or how to set up multilingual forums, or really anything other than individual users' problematic behavior. We have let the conversation range wider than that. I believe someone (probably Adamant1) will open up a CfD to discuss the category issue. You (or anyone) are welcome to go to Commons:Village pump or Commons:Village pump/Proposals or for that matter Commons:Форум or some other appropriate venue I may not be thinking of to propose how we would better handle multilingual conversations. But not here. It is not a user conduct issue. - Jmabel ! talk 14:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Online translation: Thanks for the clarification. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I'm happy to abide by a 7 day ban o editing in the whole of religion. Looking forward to the Cfd when it's opened. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that is necessary. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC) I don't know. I still think the thing is spurious at best. Including some of the subcategories in Category:Christian denominations by denominational family. Unfortunately I'm to busy with other things right now to do anything about it though. But I will point that the couple of sources you provided as evidence that "denominational families" are a thing don't even mention or have anything to do with them. The article with the poll by Pew Research does, but then it also has this line "The family that shows the most significant growth is the nondenominational family." So really at least going by that "family" is just a fancier term for cohorts or groups of people that share the same believe, which is literally what "denomination" means. Ergo, "denominational family" can be translated to "domination domination" or to put it another way, "denominational families" are essentially just denominations with a redundant word added to the end. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) That's fine - but again - ANU is for admins to make admin decisions. This is a discussion about the categories. I only noted the things I found because I was pointing out that there appears to be some evidence of the term being used. If this was being discussed at the appropriate forum, then I'm happy to be found wrong. But this is not the forum to do this. Can we please have an admin shut this whole thread down? There have been plenty of chances for all parties to move this to CFD or other forums and now we seem to be discussing the category itself on here. This needs to stop as no admin action is required and, as I say, this is not the place to discuss categories themselves!! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Really not an administrative matter. I hope someone will set up a place to discuss the category hierarchy for Christian denominations, and if someone does so, then feel free to link that here. Otherwise, as far as this page is concerned, this discussion is closed. - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Jmabel: This account Laurel Lodged is categorized as "Wikipedia users banned by the Arbitration Committee". The ban on Wikipedia is for essentially the same behavior. See "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute". Krok6kola (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Who cares? I am permanently banned. enwiki is not commons. Not to mention, the case you refer to - LL was not banned for category issues in any way. Leave your enwiki drama on enwiki. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  • It wasn't totally unrelated -- it was a conflict that began around category issues -- but yes, the en-wiki ban (indef, but appealable soon) was for things said in disputes with other users, and I haven't seen similar behavior here. Krok6kola, as I said elsewhere, if you see the same issue on Commons, provide diffs. - Jmabel ! talk 07:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    It was an extraordinary situation around one of the most toxic editors Wikipedia has ever seen. Someone who chased off hundreds of editors, and who was indefinitely banned themselves. Bringing up LL’s ban when in no way was LL’s behaviour anywhere even close to the Wikipedia issue is very wrong. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Reopening because User:Ыфь77 continues to edit in this area without consensus

I believe this edit by User:Ыфь77 (the original complainant here!) is dead wrong, and in any case certainly does not amount to engaging in discussion, and laying off of editing in this area for at least a week. - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Стоп! Просьба различать "Christian denominations" и протестантизм. По первому случаю я жду нового раздела. По второму случаю никаких споров не было, правки являются консенсусными. Online translation: Stop! Please distinguish between "Christian denominations" and Protestantism. On the first occasion, I'm waiting for a new section. In the second case there was no dispute, the edits are consensual. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Clearly an unhelpful edit. The churches are indeed rightful members of Category:Protestant churches in the United States by denomination. Why would you remove the category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Потому что щёлкнул мышкой не в том месте. Уже отменил. Online translation: Because I clicked the mouse in the wrong place. I've already cancelled it. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Проблемы были у подкатегории Category:Congregationalist churches in the United States by state - входила 2 раза в надкатегорию, а в проблемной правке перепутал окна. Ошибиться уже нельзя? Online translation: The subcategory had problems Category:Congregationalist churches in the United States by state - entered the super-category 2 times, and mixed up the windows in the problematic edit. Is it already impossible to make a mistake? Ыфь77 (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course you can make a mistake, though it is hard for me to understand why you were editing in this area at all, rather than working toward finding a consensus about it.

Also: (1) You've just been involved in a dispute which you yourself tried to raise to the level of an administrative matter. When you come into the room with guns blazing, it's a bad time to make a mistake. (2) Even your own initial remark here isn't to the effect of "oops, sorry, didn't mean to make that edit." Instead it appears to be a defense of the edit. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

0) Я не занимался редактированием в области, где должен будет происходить поиск консенсуса. И повторюсь, я слишком плохо знаю английский язык, чтобы искать площадку для переговоров в формате не "1 на 1". 2) Это должно выглядеть не как защита правки, а как защита места правки. Мне вообще нельзя править категории христианства? Online translation: 0) I have not done any editing in the area where the consensus search will have to take place. And I repeat, I know English too poorly to look for a platform for negotiations in a non-"1 on 1" format. 2) This should not look like a protection of the edit, but as a protection of the place of the edit. Am I not allowed to rule the categories of Christianity at all? Ыфь77 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Protestant churches are clearly delineated by denomination. At this point, you are being disruptive. I understood your concerns around denominational families, but this is absurd. As per below, I propose we enact restriction to prevent Ыфь77 from making channges to any categories related to Christian denominations.

I quite agree with Jmabel. You came here to sanction another editor, then discovered you needed to duscuss the matter, now you yourself are under scrutiny. That’s going to happen if you go about things in the way you have. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Вы не правы. Я пришёл сюда, чтобы прекратить правки моего оппонента и у меня не было желания именно наказать. Я до сих пор не знаю другого способа его остановить, потому что диалог с ним к результату не привёл. Online translation: You are wrong. I came here to stop my opponent's edits and I had no desire to punish him. I still don't know any other way to stop him, because the dialogue with him did not lead to a result. Ыфь77 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

What dialog? There was no dialog. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Диалог был, но ранее. К результату не привёл. Зачем второй раз говорить без результата? Online translation: There was a dialogue, but earlier. It did not lead to a result. Why speak a second time without result? Ыфь77 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Your understanding of consensus is… lacking. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m afraid there needs to be restrictions placed on Ыфь77 from

making changes to categories related to Christian denominations. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I want to remind all concerned, but especially Ыфь77 and Laurel Lodged that this page is not the place to discuss the substance of categorization issues, just the meta-issue of how people are behaving. Neither of you should be editing in this area until there is some sort of consensus. @Adamant1: you were going to set up a place for the discussion. Did you, and if so where? (I'm still in Berlin and too busy to look into this further for several more days.) - Jmabel ! talk 07:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No sorry. I've been pretty busy with other stuff. I haven't had time to look into the latest stuff either. Probably both of them should just avoid editing in the area altogether at this point regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I don't think failing to address the matter is workable. We do need to reach a consensus in this area and there needs to be a place to discuss that. Laurel Lodged has made a proposal that is neither obviously correct nor obviously wrong, and I think it should be discussed. I don't want this admin board turning yet again into the de facto place for the discussion.

Since Adamant1 is apparently not interested in setting up a place to discuss this, will someone else please take it on? Failing that, I'll do it in a few days; most of the next 36 hours I will be in transit and largely incommunicado. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

ArticleAmazon

ArticleAmazon (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has continued uploading non-free images despite the warning --Ovruni (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Wow! This user should have been blocked a long time ago. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ArticleAmazon‎. Yann (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

202.173.124.102

202.173.124.102 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) blocked user OperationSakura6144. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days. I also blocked OperationSakura6144 for 2 more weeks. Yann (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

copyright violation

varseoon.ir is a normal website. it is not under creative commons license nor file published in this website belong to varseoon.ir / website logo and versoon.ir bottom of files is copyright violation (not a webste own work) please delete all these files and add varesoon.ir in spam links / and using template:PD-Iran is covering this copyright violation [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

As Iran has a short copyright term (at least compared to many other countries), many of these pictures may be in the public domain due to age. If you find recent images, please nominate them for deletion. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yann, is right, but {{PD-Iran}} requires publication date for photographic or cinematographic works, which is often missing.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

User:XXAshton0913Xx

User:XXAshton0913Xx uploads images out of project scope and is most likely a "reincarnation" of User:AshtonJDE who was recently blocked for the same reason (and basically the same pictures). GeorgR (de) (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Nourafakhry90 (talk · contribs)

Keeps uploading out of scope photos--Trade (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Uregapedia

Uregapedia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploads small size photos, mostly politicians, as own work but gives no META. Most likely screen captures of copyrighted websites. Pierre cb (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Files deleted. If they return to uploading these dubious files, they will get a block. Bedivere (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked one month. Bedivere (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Shams948

Shams948 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continues with his disruptive behavior regarding the opening & renaming proper categories, despite friendly advises and warnings. The issue is summarized on his talk page:

1. In March 2022, I asked him not to change the names of categories. He obeyed only for a few months and then continued as before.
2. In December 2023, I repeated the request that he not play with categories, elaborated on the individual problems he was doing, and friendly offered my help in further categorization. His response shows that he considers the Commons a battleground as he threatens that the edits must be returned to his desired state, and he even indulges in crazy conspiracy theories about being stalked by the Ministry of Intelligence (Persian text).
3. A few days ago, the same story again: he opens meaningless categories, changes correct category names to wrong ones, adds unnecessary parent categories, mixes cities, villages and counties, etc. Everything as before.

It is obvious that the user is beyond repair and will continue to do damage regardless of warnings. IMHO, deserves either a penalty or at least an admin warning. --Orijentolog (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: Please remember to notify the user in question next time. I've done it for you this specific instance. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

با عرض سلام و ارادت؛ اینجانب فقط در حوزه سرزمینی خود فعالیت می‌نمایم و قصد تخریب یا خرابکاری ندارم. این صفحات حوزه سرزمینی بنده است و مایل به ارتقاء و تقویت آن هستم. اما به نظر می‌رسد از داخل ایران برخی اماکن دولتی مایل به درز اطلاعات به جهان نیستند و در این باره کارشکنی میکنند مانند این مدیر عزیز. Orijentolog

طرف ما در ایران، مدیران ویکی‌ها نیستند. طرف ما نخست جمهوری اسلامی، سپس دولت، و بعد از آنها مدیران فرهنگستان زبان ایران، و بعد وزارت اطلاعات و بعد سپاه پاسداران که همه می‌خواهند از درز اطلاعات واقع به جهان ممانعت به عمل آورند. با سپاس از همه دوستان ضد سانسور. Shams948 (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Again w:Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory accusations that I'm "an agent of government" which is allegedly "trying to censor something". --Orijentolog (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Banana jnana

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

User is clearly not here to build an image repository. Already blocked on mediawiki, meta and simple for similar reasons. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Globally locked by EPIC. That was a swift response. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1

Adamant1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Hi, This user has a problematic behavior, repeatedly going for personal attacks ([13], [14]) when actions are contested, notably creating a large number of disruptive deletion requests about FOP in Belgium. I am not the only one thinking that this is a problem. Yann (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the time to point out specific diffs right now, and it's not like Yann has either, but he has a long history of personally attacking me and trying to get me blocked over essentially nothing. This latest thing is just yet another example of that and just seems to be retaliation on Yann's part because I dared to write a message on his user page asking another administrator how I was continuing something that they seem to be the only one's discussing weeks later, which is my propagative. I have a right ask an administrator about something on their talk page or for evidence of behavior that they are clamming I'm doing. So I don't really see what the issue here is. Otherwise Yann should provide diffs of what he's actually talking about instead of just linking to a patently false comment by someone else that has nothing to do with me. I certainly don't see how the two comments he linked to are at all personal attacks or "problematic behavior" like he's claiming. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You are being rather aggressive though. Yann can be abrupt at times, but he has always been careful to characterise actions and not the person. For instance, he said one if your DRs was a nonsense, but not that you are a nonsense. You took offence at this, but despite the abruptness of the tone it was an opinion that your DR had no substance. It is quite all right to challenge the actions of another party, personally I would not have ysed thr word “nonsense” as it is a bit inflammatory, but at the end of the day that is a fair opinion and he did explain why he thought this was the case. You reacted emotionally, but instead you could have just explained why you believe Yann to be wrong. I do t think you are doing yourself any favours here. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I'd only like to add some more confirmation to that Yann is not the only one thinking that is a problem. Not considering other issues, Adamant1 frequently went for personal attacks always with impunity and I don't have all of them noted but they include this and this (there's a lot more but I don't have them in mind right now). On the other hand, I don't know of a WMC policy against personal attacks and incivility. This is the sort of interaction behavior that keeps people away from contributing to Wikimedia (I don't think it's major reason for why there's few contributors on WMC in specific but it is an issue). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m confused - there are two diffs to what are supposedly personal attacks, but I must be odd if something. How are they personal attacks? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I don't know for all the RfD's in question, but this one is definitely disruptive. The shown information boards are obviously in public places and Belgum has introduced full commercial FoP some years ago. So yes, if Adamant1 is so upset about different opinion of some admins on these images that he needs to attack these people ad personam, a sanction may be in place. Regards --A.Savin 23:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't upset that "different opinion of some admins" on the images. I had an issue with Yann closing the DRs out of process and without discussion. But I then dropped it after we discussed it on their talk page. Their the one who then continued to bring it up weeks later. Nowhere have I attacked anyone in relation to it either. Except to ask how I'm continuing something that I haven't even discussed or had anything to do with in weeks. That's not a personal attack though. Otherwise be my guest and provide some actual evidence.

BTW, I'll also point out that in the DR you linked to as supposedly disruptive I spent plenty of time researching it before hand, wrote multiple comments saying why I think they aren't public places based on the evidence, and the closing comment that "the signs are placed in public accessible places" is just patently false. Plus it's not the standard for FOP in Belgium anyway. That's fine, but it's not on me if the closing administrator decided to ignore the evidence. Again though, I dropped it and moved on while they and Yann pettily continued it days and weeks later. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment As usually, Adamant1 doesn't see what the issue is, and is willing to put up walls of text to explain why he's not the problem but everyone else is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

How about you tell me what the issue is then instead of just going off about how many lines I wrote like there's a limit or you've never written a long message before? I'm more then willing to modify my behavior or do something differently next time if someone points out an actual problem with how I acted. r/explainlikeimfive lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Five year olds are known for yelling or asking why until their parents give in or say "because I said so". If you want to learn, try listening a little, instead of having the most words in any conversation you're a part of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but five year olds ask why out of genuinely curiosity and as part of the normal learning process. Apparently administrators are above reproach for their actions and people don't need to provide evidence of anything in an ANU complaint though. So my bad for asking. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Five year olds also ask "why" because they want to provoke a response, even when they don't care about an answer. They also don't go "So my bad for asking"; that's teenagers, and they're willfully being abrasive then. Teenagers also go lol, not when they're trying to honestly figure out what's happening, but when they don't care what the other person has to say.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This analogy is getting a bit ridiculous and I think you have both stretched it to breaking point. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop using lol; it's rude to laugh at people. Use the preview button; it's hard to have a conversation when every time you hit submit, the person has changed their post and you have to go back and readd your comment. There is a limit; people get annoyed when one person writes long posts after everything that anyone else says. Say what you need to stay and stop posting. Don't make it personal; as I pointed out, you took a response by Yann that was dismissive to your DR as an excuse to attack him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Prosfilaes Weren't you the one telling me to assume good faith recently in another discussion? I ask question because I'm genuinely curious. If an administrator who I've had chronic problems with closes a couple of my DRs out of process and with no discussion, I'd like to know why so it can be avoided in the future. That's all. You seem to stuck between criticizing me about how I'm unwilling to accept feedback on the one hand, but being just as critical about me asking people questions so I can improve how I do things in the future on the other though. And to the degree that I've made it personal, that's only because Yann did and then refused to stop when I asked him to. So I thought it was something he'd be cool with. I'm not here to be personally attacked week after week by the same person in a way that they don't treat anyone else while I act like it's nothing about them or our relationship in return. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Note, for example, [15] from that DR where he wrote "if you had of looked into it before commenting you would have noticed that Natuurpunt is a non-profit environmental organization that maintains private nature reservations and the standard for FOP in Belgium only applies to "locations that are permanently accessible to the public."" None of this information was provided in the DR already, and the proposer of deletion should have noted if they knew about it. But he starts the sentence with the aggressive "if you had of looked into it before commenting" instead of just providing the information.

Or, say, [16] where Yann talks about the DR and Adamant1 responds with a completely personal attack. Yann could have been nicer in his comment, but it was about the DR and not Adamant1.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll agree that I probably could have wrote a more detailed explanation for the first example. It's always a balance between being brief in DRs versus writing a bunch of extra details that no one will read and easily be found by reading the infobox in the category though. I tend to assume that people will at least do the basic of looking at other images in the category before commenting and the infobox for it clearly says Natuurpunt is an "organization for nature and landscape protection in Flanders." I'll also note that the person I was responded to thought the images were taken in the Netherlands, not Belgium. So they clearly didn't look into it beforehand. And they should have. You'd have to agree that as the nominator I shouldn't have to tell people or otherwise provide obvious, easily findable details like what country we're talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't have to agree that you should force people to dig around to find the basic information about a DR, like what the relevant law is. You want us to feed you all the details about this ANU, but heaven forbid you mention relevant details about what nation the photos are in and how the relevant FoP impacts it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Let alone dig around to find information. I'm certainly not. In this case all the person I was responding to had to do was look at the top of the DR since I added Category:Belgian FOP cases/pending to it before they commented. Apparently expecting someone to simply look at the deletion request before they comment on it is to high of a bar for people like you and forcing them to do something though lol. Regardless, your boxing ghost because the information was included when I added the maintenance category even if I didn't explicitly spell it out for people. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

1. From what I can see, User:Adamant1 is a generally valuable contributor, but a bit abrasive and rather combative. I certainly would oppose him for adminship, but that is presumably not what we are discussing here.
2. I seriously doubt there is anything here worth a block, but if someone feels otherwise I'd like to see some specific diffs. Or is there some other specific action that Yann or someone else here is requesting?

Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I share similar sentiments. --SHB2000 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1 should at least get a final formal warning that this kind of behavior is not OK on Commons. See messages above by A.Savin and Prosfilaes. Yann (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Or conversely you could just lay off the harrassing personal comments and sparious ANU complaints like I've asked you to multiple times now already. Not to that I acted 100% perfectly here, but I can guranteed there wouldn't have been an issue if you had of just dropped it and stopped making things personal after both me and Chris.sherlock2 told you your comments weren't productive. You seem to have the attitude that your beyond reproach and have no role in repeatedlhy instigating things with me for no reason what-so-ever though.

I'm fine being civil, but its a two way street and I'm not here to just be bullied by an adminstrator who can't stand people disagreeing with or questioning them. Sorry. Again, that's not to say I couldn't have acted better, but its been an endless struggle dealing with you and you just seem to have a smug attitude every time I've asked you a question about your actions or asked you to lay off it. So I don't know what you expect. Your the only person I've had any serious chronic issues with on here though, and that's not for nothing. Otherwise I'd probably be fine at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yann, you could perhaps not characterise his DRs as “nonsense”. I defend your right to do so, but if you want to reduce conflict you could use less inflammatory language. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, As I told Adamant1 on my talk page, this is a language issue. The French translation doesn't seem to have the same tone as the English word. So I apologize for this word. Yann (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Just saw this. I think this was part of the reason why the DR got so out of hand. I respect your apology as I cannot speak more than one language :-) hell, I have amazing respect for anyone who can speak more than their native tongue! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like Adamant1 should tone things down a little, they are a valuable contributor, but often too argumentative for their own good. I am in agreement with Jmabel here. Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I also agree with the "often too argumentative for their own good." We tend to do less "tone policing" than some other WMF wikis, but Adamant1, I have to say: when others write to you in the same tone you so often use, you often seem to feel insulted and attacked. Why would you expect them to feel differently when you write that way?

Unless there is either (1) a much more solid case here than I've seen or (2) are possibilities of very mild sanctions that I can't think of, I'd oppose disciplinary action against Adamant1 at this time (in particular, I haven't seen him use this tone with newbies, his style seems to be more right-up-to-the-line than over-the-line, and I'm pretty sure the complaining parties here can handle it), but I'd also appreciate it if Adamant1 tried to be more collegial and less combative. Adamant1: at some point, even if you are not breaking any actual rules and even if you are doing good work, if it gets to where you are repeatedly discouraging other contributors or making their time here unpleasant, you become a net liability to the project. I assume that is not something you wish to be. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but then I can be absolutely dragged and insulted by multiple users for weeks or months on end and the same people complaining here won't even bat an eye about it for some reason. Anyway, I'm not going relitigate every minor disagrement I've had on here, but in this particular instance Yann instigated things by making unasked for personal comments about me in a couple of conversations. Me and another user asked him to lay off and said they weren't productive, but he decided to continue with it. So I left the message on his talk page and the village pump.

Yann is 100% the one who started this, continued it weeks later by not just dropping the attitude when multiple people asked him to, and is cry bullying with this ANU complaint. Its not even that I necessarily feel attacked either. Its just that I don't think endlessly making personal comments about someone and obstructing their edits in order to goad them into a confrontation like Yann has an established history of doing with me is productive. Nor am I go just sit here with a big fat grin on my face while interacting with an admin who refuses to acknowledge their side of an issue or respect my request that they stop trying to make things personal and stir up drama. Sorry. This is only a thing because Yann refuses to lay off it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What personal comments are you referring to? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support whatever is suggested, per Prosfilaes, and anyone who's here to 'make the internet not suck' (as used to be our goal). I pay little attention to Adamant1 as the only way to get through the day, but I almost never see them do anything positive and their overall negative effect is just too large. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know the roots of the problem with Adamant1. But I is a very good participant of the Commons:WikiProject Postcards. He is very committed and extremely helpful there. It would be a bitter loss for Commons to scare him away or ban him completely. I get on very well with him and can only report constructive and productive discussions with him. - Perhaps it would be good if everyone took a deep breath and stepped back a little. We all want to make Commons even better together. Let's do this constructively and in partnership. --sk (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

What admin action is needed here?

I’m a little confused. Clearly there is a personality conflict and some legitimate complaints of abrasive behaviour. But as I paraphrase what another contributor said the other day, people don’t necessarily need to be friends with one another here. What specific actions are admins meant to be taking? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, As per his responses above, notably [17], clearly Adamant1 doesn't understand the problem, and continues to blame me and others for their behavior. And we don't need people with "abrasive" behavior on Commons. Now I don't want Adamant1 to leave, but I want a change of behavior. If a report on ANU is not sufficient to get this change, something stronger is needed. Yann (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It was pretty abrasive to call his DR “nonsense”, though I understand why you said it. Regardless, what particular sanction are you looking for? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that this was a mistranslation issue. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, a final formal warning that this behavior is not acceptable, and that absence of change would lead to a block. Yann (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: I see you apologized for the "nonsense" comment above. I appreciate that. My guess is that a lot of this comes down to a language issue and cultural differences. I certainly meant no harm in how I responded to Romaine on your talk page. I was genuinely carious what behavior they were claiming I was continuing since I hadn't been involved in anything to do with the topic for weeks and I think it's important to back up such accusations with diffs. Especially when they are coming from an administrator. Otherwise we just risk wasting everyone's time later down the line on spurious ANU complaints like this one. In no way did I mean it to be "abrasive" though. I was simply responding to a comment that I found rather odd considering that I had moved on to other things weeks ago.

In no way is that to blame you or anyone else for anything. It's just to say that it wasn't my intent to be abrasive. You seem to have a serious issue with assuming good faith when interacting with me though. I've said several times now that I could have acted better and been clearer about things in the deletion requests. So why not accept it and move on? I'm more then willing to accept the apology and bury the hatchet going forward if your willing to do the same on your end. I've said several times now that I don't think this whole thing with you is productive and that I'd like to see it resolved. Your disingenuous attitude and lack of good faith towards me whenever we interact is keeping it from happening though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I stand by what Abzeronow and I both said above: there is a problem here, but it is a minor one, and it doesn't call for sanctions. I'd appreciate if both sides, but especially Adamant1, would just turn down the thermostat. - Jmabel ! talk 14:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. I don't think any admin action is needed here for the time being. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I have seen that Adamant1 gets quite heated during DRs and VP discussions etc. but I don't think this requires any admin action. The good constructive contributions far outweigh the occasional heated PA. Though if Yann and Adamant1 continue fighting maybe an IBAN will be due (or they can voluntarily impose it on themselves if they want). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio socks

These two accounts are socks of each other (enwiki CU confirmed, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aviation_fan_guy):

• 737-200fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Aviation fan guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

with Aviation fan guy being the older of the two. Here on Commons, both are also engaging in the same behaviors as each other. User:Yann has blocked 737-200fan for a week for copyvio. So I assume Afg be blocked also. Should Afg e blocked for the same length? Or should one be indef'ed (and if so, which one)? Or should both be indef'ed (copyvio and other disruption, as well as the sock problem)? DMacks (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done I blocked AFG indef. for socking. The master dates from March 30. Yann (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No objection to this sort of handling, but for the record:

737: registered globally March 29, attached to commons March 29, first edit on commons March 30

Afg: registered globally March 25, attached to commons March 26, first edit on commons April 5

DMacks (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

66.90.190.251

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

Vandalism [18], [19], [20] 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Also 66.90.190.250 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

66.90.190.250 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Both blocked for 1 week. Did I miss a third IP? Ellywa (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for Neutral Sysop Mediation

Hi

@باسم and I have been engaged in a discussion regarding a map translation from French to Arabic. While he changed the original title and description, I requested him kindly that the original text in the derivative file, stated to be in Arabic without modifications, be preserved. He accused me of falsifying history without presenting any concrete evidence and without engaging in a meaningful discussion. This accusation is entirely baseless, then he started an edit war. I simply asked for the translation to be faithful to the original or for him to create his own derivative map.

As a result, an edit war ensued.

Unfortunately, @علاء, who shares a friendship with باسم on arwiki, used their sysop privileges to favor the version of باسم by blocking the edits and removing the tag. علاء was never been involved in the Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons discussions before, he suddenly appeared on the page out of nowhere. Therefore, I am seeking a neutral sysop to mediate between us. I am not necessarily insisting on the tag's removal, but I dislike how users utilize their privileges to impose their views. I am looking for a neutral contributor to help resolve this matter.

Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Please see special:permalink/872117493#Misusing SYPOP privilege --Alaa :)..! 19:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's a lot of assuming bad faith! Please see this comment "intimidation"! --Alaa :)..! 20:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see it as an intimidation from both of you. You both are sysops in arwiki, you suddenly appeared in the conversation out of nowhere. So, the concept of good faith has its limits. We, the three of us, and the administrators here are already aware of how things are going. Kindly refrain from insulting our intelligence. I am seeking mediation, regardless of whether it goes on my side or not. I want this conflict to be resolved in a more conventional manner, outside the current approach. Riad Salih (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Riad Salih, What does it mean that we are both "sysops in arwiki"? There are 23 other sysops? Do you know how many ar-N sysops are on Commons? Also, did you know that I follow what written on Commons in Arabic language via the bot and scripts (for example; knowing that this comment in Arabic, it led me to the discussion)? I hope that when you discuss, you talk with policies and not about personal opinions and conclusions. Regarding that I'm not involved in the discussion, this is normal, because "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party)". And I'm not a party of this discussion and I explained this to you on my talk page. --Alaa :)..! 20:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@علاء but why remove the file/facts disputed template? If it was changing categories, description or overwriting another version, sure reverting to the stable version would be fine but I see nothing wrong with highlighting that there is a dispute with the image. Also you can be involved even if you are not part of the discussion, if you know the person, you are considered to be involved. Bidgee (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bidgee, the editing war is based on the addition of this template, because it contains "The factual accuracy of this description or the file name is disputed."; this is evident from user undo and discussion on the talk page. Also, this editorial dispute moved from arwiki to Commons (Others participated in it). Can you please define what you mean by "if you know the person"? as I know a lot of users! --Alaa :)..! 20:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I have not requested any false historical claim. If Bassem has specific points to mention, I would be glad to respond to them individually.

However, Alaa cannot explain how they became involved in the discussion since they never participated in the Arabic Wikipedia talk or Commons. Immediately after Bassem's last revert, Alaa jumped in to file to block the talk. I did not initiate an edit war, but Bassem refused to engage in a conversation or provide explanations, instead choosing to revert the changes repeatedly.

Thank you, Alaa, for reminding us about the sysops and bots thing, but I am familiar with how it works. Your presence in this talk is not logical. -- Riad Salih (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Riad Salih, simple correction of what you mentioned "Immediately after Bassem's last revision, Alaa jumped in to block the talk", but Bassem edit at 18:43, then you at 19:20, finally mine at 19:31. Therefore, my attempt to stop the editing war based on adding the template came about ten minutes after your fourth revert. This explanation is for accuracy only.

In general, I welcome the participation of any other colleague, and I may be wrong, and therefore I welcome the correction of any mistake I made, as we all have a common goal. --Alaa :)..! 21:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I wish colleagues Bassem and Riad can complete the discussion in one place, so that we can follow it and help if there was any consensus. The discussion happens here and here. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 21:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

My last response to Bassem is here User talk:باسم#Mediation Request

Alaa, I sincerely request that we avoid playing games. Both you and Bassem are closed sysops in Arabic Wikipedia, and we have never interacted on any talk page before.

The situation is clear and straightforward. Using your privileges as a means of intimidation is unnecessary and completely unacceptable. Riad Salih (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Riad Salih I will not answer the personal accusations, but can you explain where the "intimidation" happened? The only time I talked about "block" was on my talk page "If this happened in another project, both users would be blocked for violating the three-revert rule", as both of you made four reverts. In general, in order not to prolong the discussion further, I apologize if I expressed any kind of unintended "intimidation" or any comment that make you feel uncomfortable. --Alaa :)..! 22:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to notify me each time, and I have already expressed my concerns. If you wish to report the R3R violation, you are free to do so and report both me and Bassem. I am willing to accept any resulting block if it is in accordance with the rules. My objection lies in the misuse of your administrative tools, which were provided by the community to support impartial decision-making. There are no personal accusations, as you claim. Facts are facts. Riad Salih (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"But even the facts do not always tell the truth", I repeat what I mentioned previously "I welcome the participation of any other colleague, and I may be wrong, and therefore I welcome the correction of any mistake I made, as we all have a common goal". Once again, I will not respond to any personal accusations and conclusions. Also, please be precise in what you said that "we have never interacted on any talk page before", because I remember you writing to me on my talk page on Arabic Wikipedia several months ago, and also other responses that occurred between us on various pages on arwiki. --Alaa :)..! 22:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: Just because you believe Alaa protected m:The Wrong Version does not mean that Alaa is biased. You and باسم were edit warring. To stop the edit war, an admin protected the version of the page before the edit war started. Now, you need to discuss why you believe your version is right, on the talk page. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Mdaniels5757 I appreciate your passage here. m:The Wrong Version is a basic rule on all Wikimedia projects.

However, he intentionally selected his friend's version. I don't believe there can be any other explanation. If he wanted to maintain neutrality, he could have at least sent both of us a message or a warning to prevent an edit war.

I kindly request your assistance as a neutral party to mediate between us. Even if the outcome doesn't favor me, it's not a problem. What I dislike is the way they try handling things.(Cf : User talk:باسم#Mediation Request)

_

Alaa, the conversation has already been lengthy, and we don't want to spend another day going back and forth on it. The situation is clear and well-defined, and this will be my final response. We have never had a discussion on Wikimedia Commons, so please avoid turning around and backing up different versions to justify your actions. We are all aware of how things work. Let's save ourselves the time. You wanted to support your friend, that's fine, but it shouldn't involve your sysop tools.

Best regards. Riad Salih (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Riad Salih You need to stop assuming bad faith. He did not intentionally select "his friend"s version; he selected the version before the edit war. He is neutral and is not involved in the dispute. He did not need to send you both a message or a warning before stopping the edit war. If he blocked you both (as he could have), I would have expected a warning first, but he did not block any of you. He just stopped the edit war. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: @Riad Salih, in the future, if you actually want mediation, please bring an issue to COM:AN instead of COM:ANU, describe the situation as neutrally as possible, and link to where discussion is already taking place instead of starting a parallel discussion. "He accused me of falsifying history without presenting any concrete evidence and without engaging in a meaningful discussion. This accusation is entirely baseless, then he started an edit war" does not sound like a neutral statement of a disagreement, it sounds like an accusation. So which is it? Are you saying there is a problem with باسم's conduct or are you saying you want (and will accept) mediation? - Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Jmabel and Mdaniels, for your feedback, which I really appreciate.

I took the time to thank Bassem on arwiki for his translation and initiated a discussion. I wanted to be respectful, so I didn't want to overwrite the file directly (COM:CIV).

Bassem instead of engaging in a conversation, he chose to initiate an edit war. It would have been preferable if we could have discussed from the beginning, as he has now started a discussion on his talk page.

I felt the need for mediation because I perceived Alaa (assuming good faith can't be applied in this case) to be biased and favoring his friend's version, his sudden involvement lacked a logical explanation. I felt intimidated by this situation, and it seemed unfair. Sysop tools should be utilized in a neutral manner, and if anyone feels biased, they should refrain from participating in such conflicts. Therefore, I proposed mediation to avoid wasting time for all parties involved.

I am open to mediation. That is the primary purpose of this discussion. Jmabel or Mdaniels5757, I am extremely flexible and ready to engage in mediation, and I am even prepared to accept being blocked or warned if I have violated any rules, but it must be done fairly. Considering that English is not my native language, there may be some disarrangement of ideas or occasional contradictions, as Jmabel pointed out.

Otherwise, I wish you all a good day. Riad Salih (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Once again, stop repeating the personal accusations and assuming bad faith with words like "biased", "favoring his friend's version", "lacked a logical explanation"..etc! Since I'm "biased" according to your opinion and personal imagination, I hope you respond to the comments of Mdaniels5757 and Jmabel -Thank you- for ending this discussion. --Alaa :)..! 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I've already made my point clear. If you believe there are personal accusations, I suggest that you initiate a new case. Riad Salih (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Too many similar images

Rasitha nellickal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - Could you look at this users uploads? There are too many similar images. Is it ok to upload such similar images? AntanO 09:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. There are perhaps too many images of one dog -- no big deal, happens all the time -- but taking a dozen reasonably good pictures of a somewhat unusual plant is welcome (as would be other opinions!).

@AntanO: when you report someone here, you should tell them on their user talk page. I'll do that for you this time. - Jmabel ! talk 14:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not report, but clarification. AntanO 20:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It's still good to let people know your discussing them. Even if the post isn't a report or takes place somewhere else besides ANU. Although you should notify a user that your discussing them at ANU regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Oomlaoot

Oomlaoot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user does nothing but unexplained flag/coat of arms file reverts. Ignores talk and in the penultimate case (File:Coat of arms of Bavaria.svg) reverted rapidly back and forth for no reason, which leads me to believe it's another account of this person, who never did anything else in their now almost two years here. There were other one-off accounts with similar MO in the meantime (and some probably in good faith) but this one seems more persistent. TFerenczy (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support block; a clear case of not being here to build an image repository. --SHB2000 (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  @TFerenczy and @SHB2000: I reported them via m:srg#Global lock for Oomlaoot.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, lock evasion I see. It appears that the request on Meta is marked as done but the account is still not locked – was this an accident? --SHB2000 (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Never mind, it's now been marked as  locked. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Nosee.jpg

The deletion discussion of this file has been vandalized by the uploader. Can you see and close this older request please? 186.175.1.151 11:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've closed the deletion request. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

User:JürgenStrecker

COM:PORN user Dronebogus (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Support a block given that they continued to upload porn pics after the warning was given. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as VOA, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Oyaid

COM:PENIS user Dronebogus (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any action here is needed (apart from deletions); their last edit was back in December 2022. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn’t notice that Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A formal warning would be good to place, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@SHB2000: So warned.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeff G.! --SHB2000 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate behaviour despite warning

Hello,

@Cyanmax: was warned by @Jmabel: in November 2023 for, among other reasons, making a nasty remark about Nepal on a completely unrelated page. Now he is back on the same page, this time with a remark about air pollution in the same country. Huñvreüs (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think some sort of action is in order; I'm going to leave it to someone other than me to decide what. - Jmabel ! talk 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

User notified. Abzeronow (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Concerning this, gth can apparently mean either good to hear or go to Hell. Well, I learned something today. Huñvreüs (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It can also mean "good to hear". That's one way for plausible deniability i guess? Trade (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Are u gonna block my account for providing a reliable source and writing GLAD TO HELP? Wow. That's hilarious and hysterical. I didn't know that providing a reliable source and writing GLAD TO HELP is a crime. Anyway, I don't care. Cyanmax (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Please calm down and remain cool. I understand your frustration, but getting heated isn't going to resolve things. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the context, my natural instinct is to believe they meant "Go to hell", but also AGF... --SHB2000 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

AGF is certainly important and, for example, would lead a benevolent person to believe that GFY means Good for you. The question being where the limit stands between AGF and naivety. Huñvreüs (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The question being where the limit stands between rational thinking and paranoia. We all know that false accusations of hysterical and paranoid people led to the Catholic inquisition and political repression in the Soviet Union. There's nothing criminal with saying "Russia is freezing" or "India is the most polluted country". Facts are facts. Trying to block someone's account for providing a source or writing 3 letters is even more hilarious. Cyanmax (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanmax: this looks like the farthest thing from an apology. There is nothing wrong with saying "Russia is freezing" if it is germane. It is another thing to say it as a dismissive remark responding to praise of Chekhov.

I personally feel like you are trolling: trying to stay just within the lines of what is easily called out as a rules violation without actually stepping over. In general, that is not acceptable behavior here. This is not some sort of game about showing you can still be nasty while precisely following rules. It is a collaborative effort to build a media repository. At some point, behavior like this becomes a problem, worthy of sanctions.

So as an admin here I have two things to say:

1. If you do accidentally or deliberately step over the line, don't expect even the slightest benefit of the doubt.
2. Given that you seem to be inclined to use abbreviations that are usually hostile, while claiming to mean other things by them, just stop using them. Again, next time I for one will not give you the benefit of the doubt. - Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

While this discussion is ongoing, may I ask how this new contribution by @Cyanmax: can be considered with respect to Commons:Civility? Huñvreüs (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing problematic about that. What would be a problem there? I might even have tagged the file page with {{Fact disputed}} until this is fixed. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue considering that the fact in question is disputed. It is usually my understanding, however, that requests should not be made using the imperative form and needlessly stressing urgency as if other people were some kind of servants ("Fix the map asap"), but instead, using "please", "could someone…", or any other similar locution. Huñvreüs (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hyper-civility is nice, but cannot be required. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

dear, huñvreüs, I am asking u politely to stop stalking me and trying to block me with your ridiculous, absurd accusations. I think this is hysterical. Please, stop exaggerating and demonizing everything I write. Bye. Cyanmax (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanmax: perhaps when someone questions your edit, and is told, basically, "No, that is not a problem," you could refrain from accusing them of saying "ridiculous" and "absurd" things and being "hysterical." Unless you are actually trying to stir up more of a fight, or trying to see if you can manage to be sanctioned, that's a strange choice, to say the least. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to comment as well, saying that Cyanmax has a history of getting into conflicts with South Asians on other wikipedia pages as well. The user has been the source of numerous temporary bans. SamanthaWinning (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore the user still seems to be getting into conflicts with other users of South Asian descent and/or interested in South Asia despite having numerous warnings and temporary bans. SamanthaWinning (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget to back up your claims with evidence. Cyanmax (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I helped to block several sockpuppet accounts. Why is your account created only 7 days ago? Is there any hidden agenda, revenge? Just a question. Cyanmax (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanmax: "Revenge"? You really don't know how to assume good faith, do you? I started out thinking no sanction was in order, but now I'm going to block you for a day, just for the things you've written on this very thread. This isn't particularly either punitive or not punitive; it's just you don't get to use a situation in which numerous people are accusing you of incivility as an occasion to be even less civil. - Jmabel ! talk 14:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Engelberthumperdink

Engelberthumperdink (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Systematically insults users who nominate their files for deletion [21] [22], removes deletion templates [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] and so on. The user has multiple blocks for copyright violations. Quick1984 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Totally out of line. The other blocks were 7 years ago, so they don't have much bearing, but I'll block for a week as a reminder to the user that this conduct is not acceptable. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Quick1984: thank you, by the way, for providing a solid set of diffs. Just "Дебил" in the first one as a way of addressing another user probably is enough for a block. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, "Дебил" is a "moron". Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Engelberthumperdink is now asking on his talk page to have his block lifted. It turns out that (as I did not previously know) he has been in conflict with a user whom I have had past issues with myself so I am probably not the admin to carry this forward. Will someone else please take over reviewing the block, etc., and say here that you are doing so? Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Jmabel, if you look at user's block log for similar violations in his home wiki, you will have no doubt this is his usual behavior, which he is not going to change. Moreover, I can’t understand the reason you consider his offense against one particular user a sufficient basis for the opportunity to insult two completely different ones and even consider it a basis for lifting the block. --Quick1984 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Quick1984: at this point, I am literally the last administrator you should take this up with. I recused myself because Engelberthumperdink appears to be in conflict with someone with whom I also had a quite major conflict. If you want the details of that conflict, email me privately, I don't see any reason to rehash it publicly. I'm actually a bit amazed to see that the person in question is still a user in good standing. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

    Why you keep insulting me and I received a notification about civility? This is the posture of sysop?

    Sounds weird that A.Savin said nothing here, but took actions there, and your very aggressive posture is not reprehend.

    I am not in conflict, he took some actions to retaliate the blocked, and choose one image that I uploaded under a specific context, not even my photo, I don't care, I just saw the context and react to it, he was already blocked when I react to the deletion request, it is a wiki, we all can check.

    And clearly Alexander took the action with no discussion, and had issues on this.

    It is quite weird you lift your action, just because the user did something that could potentially "hurt" me. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

    Isn't the username inappropriate? It is obviously related to singer Engelbert Humperdinck Bedivere (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

    Or the composer whose name he took. But I think given that one person (the singer) took another's (the composer's) as a pseudonym, someone else taking it as a user name and (presumably deliberately) spelling it wrong is not a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

    • @Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton are you actually asking me to seek sanctions against you? The issue is years in the past, and I've chosen to avoid you, including recusing myself from this matter, rather than pursue sanctions. I don't see any point to doing so at this time, but if you really insist, I suppose I could go back through ancient history and make my case. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

      Present: "I'm actually a bit amazed to see that the person in question is still a user in good standing." This is not avoid.

      
      

      And tag me in his talk page is not also avoid.

      Moreover, I am the one that requested to the community to prevent you interact with me, you made a movement to prevent that to happen.

      Persue is the word here, since "ancient history".

      Last msg here, I already gave to 2 cents.- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 20:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support Good block. Taivo (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)