Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Adamant1: Reply
Line 101: Line 101:


:I am disappointed but unsurprised. This is yet another example of Adamant1 pushing a fringe position like it’s gospel. They [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_113#Adamant1_and_deletion_discussions were just here on the 2nd for doing this] and were blocked for two weeks. I sincerely want to believe Adamant1 is acting in good faith but this is getting really old; no user should appear ''three times'' in the same ANU archive. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:I am disappointed but unsurprised. This is yet another example of Adamant1 pushing a fringe position like it’s gospel. They [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_113#Adamant1_and_deletion_discussions were just here on the 2nd for doing this] and were blocked for two weeks. I sincerely want to believe Adamant1 is acting in good faith but this is getting really old; no user should appear ''three times'' in the same ANU archive. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::I apologize in advance for going off-topic, but were you not the subject of three threads in the most recent ANU archive? {{pb}}I hope an administrator can review and close this discussion and take any actions as appropriate given the discussion, history, and Adamant1's responses. I doubt any new information or insight will come light if the discussion continues. [[User:Consigned|Consigned]] ([[User talk:Consigned|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)


== [[User:Car-man08]] ==
== [[User:Car-man08]] ==

Revision as of 13:58, 26 July 2024

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Quickero005

Quickero005 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues uploading copyvios 10 days after Yann warned them. Günther Frager (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by EugeneZelenko, 1 week banned. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still continues. --Geohakkeri (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysio.szubzda.1

Krzysio.szubzda.1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

I blocked this account for a week for uploading copyright violations after warning. I deleted obvious copyvios, notably screenshots. There are still many files to check, most of them probably not OK, despite the EXIF data. 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs) 14:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1

Adamant1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has made a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content ( Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin) ), and their conduct in this matter has been less than civil and respectful. Their demands for extra proof from uploaders are unreasonable and have caused unnecessary disputes. Instead of being receptive to others’ input, they consistently double down on their position.

Their claim of years of experience leading to "a pretty deep understanding of the laws and policies around these things" led me to find a multitude of similar issues which have seemingly not yield a meaningful improvement in their conduct. The first of which dealt directly with FoP in Belgium (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_112#Adamant1).

(There are several other complaints against Adamant1 that I have not reviewed in detail, but they can be found here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_113#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_107#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_99#User:Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_102#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_98#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_92#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_81 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive_20#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_100#Editwarring_by_Adamant1)

Adamant1 has even threatened to repeat these FoP deletion requests and has made vague demands to “properly document and license” my uploads after their arguments have been thoroughly refuted ("Otherwise don't be surprised if your files get nominated for deletion"). I would much prefer to avoid any further dealings with them, and I believe the community would benefit from this as well. --Trougnouf (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: It's funny to me how that critizim always comes from some of the rudest people on here. But whatever. See my comment below. Are you seriously going to rude or worth blocking someone just because they said people shoud properly license and document their uploads? Come on. Trougnouf tells me I'm waging an "inquestion" against FOP, refuses to drop it after I asked them to multiple times, and somehow I'm the rude one here. It's pretty obvious you have zero ground to stand on. You never have had any. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things here that the person who opened this is just being dishonest about.
  1. User:Adamant1 has made a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content I didn't open a "broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content" The DR has to do with a single mural that all the images where in the same category for. That is not "a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content" and there's no rule against opening a DR for multiple files for the same subject that are in the same category.
  2. their conduct in this matter has been less than civil and respectful. Their demands for extra proof from uploaders are unreasonable and have caused unnecessary disputes. All I said was that the images weren't properly licensed or cited to the creator and it's on the uploaders to provide that information. That's it. There's nothing uncivil about that. Trougnouf then decided to treat me like I was doing an "inquisition" (their words) against FOP in Belgium. They also refused to drop it and continued responding to me after I said it I rather not continue the conversation. Both of which was extremely rude. It's not on me that Trougnouf decided to beat a dead horse after I told them multiple times that I was done discussing it.
  3. Adamant1 has even threatened to repeat these FoP deletion requests. That's patently false. Nowhere have I said I was going to continue the FOP deletion requests. All I said is that they shouldn't be surprised if people nominate their there images for deletion if they don't properly license or document them. That's not a threat and nowhere did I say I was planning on being the one do it. So this ANU is totally baseless. Trougnouf needs to just accept that their uploads will be nominated for deletion sometimes, drop the retaliatory bad attitude, and move on like I repeatedly asked them to in the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not see any admin action here but, Adamant1, your really don't have to -- indeed, ought not -- respond to every statement you disagree with on a DR. Your own view is clear, people agree or disagree, fine. Unless they've specifically addressed a question to you, or raised a substantive issue relevant to the DR to which you have a substantive response, typically you should just leave it alone and trust that the person who reads the closes the DR will read what everyone said and evaluate it. You actually make it much harder for them to do so when the DR becomes a long thread of tangentially related discussions.

I don't want to overstate what I just said -- I've sometimes seen genuinely productive, broader discussions arise on a DR and I'm sure you didn't respond to literally everything you disagree with -- but if it's turning into more or less an argument, it's rarely productive to keep disagreeing at length. It "sucks all the air out of the room," discouraging other people from participating productively in the discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 05:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally fair in general. I think it's a little unfair in this case considering I told Trougnouf to drop it and their the one's who continued responding, but whatever. It's not really that I disagree with people. It's that they say things that are either patently false and/or involve personal needling. If someone says I'm on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" or that I'm wasting everyone's time with the DR then I'm going to respond. Their the ones sucking the room out of the air by not sticking to the actual reason the images were nominated for deletion.
I'm 100% there to have a substantive conversation. You can look through my past DRs. 99% of the time when I respond to someone it's because what they say is totally vacuous, personal nonsense that adds absolutely nothing useful to the discussion. I guess I can cut down responding to those types of things, but I think a better solution would be for people to just stop making blathering, off-topic personal comments in deletion requests. It seems like know one really cares about it though. It's not the personal needling that's a problem, the real issue is responding to it for some reason. I'll be sure to shut up and nod my head silently in agreement the next time someone won't stop responding when I ask them to and says I'm on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" though. I swear the priorities on here are fucked. You want me to shine their shoes to while I'm at it? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not see any admin action here

While I'm not advocating for an outright ban, I think there should be a clear message from the admins that Adamant1 is not allowed to open FoP Deletion Requests (or DR altogether).
This isn't the first issue with them, communication is broken and goes nowhere despite what everyone has to say, and it is a legitimate fear that uploading anything supposedly protected by Freedom of Panorama (as well as the countless content already uploaded) will result in such frustration again.
I'm sure that Adamant1 has some positive contributions and these DR are certainly not part of them, so it would be in everyone's best interest if they were to refrain from making them. --Trougnouf (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, you recently told me about all the things that are more important to you than deletion discussions - will you promise to stay away from deletion discussion for at least half a year so things can cool down? I know this is a long time for you, but as I said ... there are many other things you can do that are not perceived as problematic, where on the contrary the communiy sees your edits as productive. So could you consider this? --Kritzolina (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kritzolina: honestly I would, but it's almost impossible to do anything that doesn't involve deletions on here some how. I accidently upload a scan of a postcard that's wrong and want it deleted as a curtesy then I'm screwed there. Read through the DR. Trougnouf says in this that "communication with me is broken." I'm the one who said twice to end the conversation and stop beating the horse about it. They continued it and had the last word.
I don't care if they feel like there's a "a fear that uploading anything supposedly protected by Freedom of Panorama is going to deleted." It's one DR for a single mural that I at least felt was justified at the time due to the questionable circumstances and told Jmabel I probably would have been fine retracting half way through if it wasn't for Trougnouf's attitude and badgering. Their "fear" is totally unfounded concern trolling just because their upset that I nominated one of their images for deletion though. That's all it is. There is no wider "inquisition" against FOP on my end here. People get DRs wrong sometimes. That's it. And again, the DR seemed justified at the time.
I'll meet you halfway though. Show me any evidence what-so-ever that I'm an "inquisition against Belgium FOP" or threatened to go on one and I'll accept a full six month block. I'm not doing that or accepting a topic ban based on zero evidence though. That's not to say I don't accept Jmabel's feedback or won't listen to it. I certainly could reply less in general. But that again, in this case I'm not the one who continued it after I was told to stop. Trougnouf did and I think Jmabel's feedback is certainly enough. Again though, I'm more then willing to accept a six month block if you provide evidence of me being on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" or whatever. Otherwise this should be dropped and/or Trougnouf should receive a warning not to file baseless, retaliatory ANU complaints again. I don't think it's unreasonable that if your going to say I should take a six month topic ban or full for something that there should be some actual actual evidence of it though. Otherwise your just feeding into retaliatory drama farming. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that it would be very awkward not to be able to nominate your own uploads for deletion, if something went wrong. So yes, we could make this a "I promise to step away from DRs, except nominating own uploads".
Otherwise this conversation sounds eerily like the one we had over the last AN/U coplaint against you - which, if I may remind you, was also about too broad DRs. So the problem might not be Belgian FOP, but overly broad DRs in general. This is why I am asking you to step away from DRs. And please notice, I am trying to pave a way to close this without admin action. So stop and think before replying again. Kritzolina (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally different circumstances from my perspective. In this case I said Jmabel's feedback was totally valid and that's something that I'm more then willing to work on. At least one of the images in the DR, File:A street in Brussels de minimis.jpg was already deleted as a copyright violation and had been reuploaded against the previous consensus. I'm pretty sure there were others. Regardless, that DR was both start and closed by admins and I partially based the deletion request on the previous conclusion by them that these images are copyvio. So I disagree with your characterization that there was or is anything "overly broad" about this. The fact is that I looked into it, there was a previous consensus by multiple administrators that the images were copyrighted and one had already been deleted as such.
So I thought it was worth nominating it and the other one's for deletions. I'm more then willing to admit the consensus has clearly changed about it since then, but that doesn't make the DR "overly broad" or whatever. Nor is a deletion request being kept for images that were previously deleted because a consensus about it has changed over time worth blocking or topic banning the nominator over. Again, that's not to say I don't accept or won't listen to Jmabel's feedback though. I just reject the way you and Trougnouf are characterizing this and I don't think writing a couple more messages in a DR then I probably should have justifies a block or topic ban. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am now taking time away from this discussion. I would like to ask you to also step away and use the time to really think about things like your discussion style and some of the advice I also shared via email in our last discussions. Also please remeber - deletions make everyone touchy and one should be especially careful when discussing them. Kritzolina (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-administrator observation)- per the precautionary principle, I think it is a good idea to submit DRs when someone has legitimate questions about copyright. Indeed the permissions under these files did not recognize the copyright holder of the characters in the mural - they should be tagged {{FoP-Belgium}} and recognize the original artist in Author, as the photos are derivative works. Without the context discussed in the DR, they do look like copyright violations. But Adamant1's behaviour in the DR, arguing with seemingly every responder, is not pleasant. It would be better if they left their rationale to their initial nomination, where they did clearly explain themselves, and let the closing admin evaluate the validity of the nomination and responses. Consigned (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The problem is not that all or even most of the DRs are completely unreasonable. The problem is that Adamant creates several in one go and not all of them are clearcut. Which also wouldn't be a problem, if Adamant1 didn't defend their opinion the way they do. Which is a problem. But after a bit of more thought I am not the right person to close this discussion, so I am stepping away for good. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My memory of the last AN/U thread about Adamant1 was that they had made a large volume of specious DRs for in-use images, and when asked about this, made up fake quotes that weren't in the COM:INUSE policy, personally attacked people for disagreeing with them, et cetera; see here for some more context; they were eventually given a two-week block for this. While it's obviously not against the rules to have been blocked in the past, it seems like a pretty consistent recurring problem. Adamant simply wants to make giant, indiscriminate DRs -- basically wasting everyone else's time so that Adamant doesn't have to bother figuring out if nominations are valid or not. They refuse to admit when they are incorrect, and their response to any criticism is to deny everything and blame the other person. They have been repeatedly blocked for doing this, arguing so aggressively the last time that they had talk page access revoked. You can see this happening even in this thread, where repeated gentle attempts to propose diplomatic face-saving gestures (e.g. voluntarily stepping back from DRs for a while) are met with scorn and derision. It's one thing to be wrong about stuff every once in a while, that's fine. But I really don't think it's a net positive to be wrong about stuff every once in a while, and constantly refusing to admit it, refuse to change your own behavior in any way, disruptively double down, and accuse everyone else of being the problem. I think that Adamant1 should not be allowed to make DRs anymore apart from their own uploads, as them continuing to do so wastes large amounts of everyone else's time, and they have said again and again that they do not care about this or intend to stop. JPxG (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @JPxG here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding some history, Adamant1 was most recently blocked on 2 July 2024 due to disruptive DRs (talk page access was removed on 5 July). This block expired on 16 July and they submitted the DR in OP two days later. Consigned (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note I have closed the original DR as keep per the overwhelming consensus. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 05:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead of being receptive to others’ input, they consistently double down on their position" is absolutely their typical behavior, I have never experienced Adamant1 in any other way than, well, adamantly insisting that they are right and other opinions are completetely and utterly wrong. Even if one can quote an official Commons policy that directly contradicts what Adamant1 says, Adamant1 insists that they are right. The issue are not the deletion requests by Adamant1 as such - some of them might be better justified than others, sometimes the outcome is that the images in question are deleted, sometimes they are kept, that's the normal experience for all of us here. The issue is the behavior. Not sure what to do, though. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point if I'm allowed since this is still going on five days later even though I've all but moved on and am supposedly the one who can't just drop things. But the idea that it's typical for me to constantly double down on my position is totally false. There's plenty of times where I've removed images from DRs, withdrawn them, or otherwise took steps to address issues and complaints. I'm also more then willing to take advice from when it's given to me in good faith. Both Jmabel and Kritzolina have given me advice about things in the past that I've listened to and taken to heart. Although I clearly screwed up with how I acted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin), but it's not my typical by any means.
As I told Kritzolina after the last block, I've just been pretty burnt out on this whole thing and I guess I'm not quit over it yet. That's totally on me, but I reject the idea that it's my normal behavior or that I'm totally unwilling to adjust how I act. People can look at my past edit history. I was a lot worse when I first joined. I think I've improved a lot over the last couple of years even if I'm not perfect. I just need to take more regular breaks and not get as overwhelmed or fatigued from this as much. I'm sure that's something we all have issues with. I'm just uniquely horrible at noticing when I'm burnt out and taking the proper steps to deal with it for some reason. I do plan on dealing with that better going forward though. But I at least have good intentions. I just get overwhelmed by the slog of this and lose the plot sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed but unsurprised. This is yet another example of Adamant1 pushing a fringe position like it’s gospel. They were just here on the 2nd for doing this and were blocked for two weeks. I sincerely want to believe Adamant1 is acting in good faith but this is getting really old; no user should appear three times in the same ANU archive. Dronebogus (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize in advance for going off-topic, but were you not the subject of three threads in the most recent ANU archive?
I hope an administrator can review and close this discussion and take any actions as appropriate given the discussion, history, and Adamant1's responses. I doubt any new information or insight will come light if the discussion continues. Consigned (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Car-man08

Car-man08 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) A huge amount of recent copyvios after two long-term blocks: [1] and [2] (@Skazi: for some reason there are no notifications on the uploader talk page). Quick1984 (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User indefinitely blocked. We need to review all uploads of this user. GPSLeo (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User: Nil004y

Nil004y (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploads non-free files 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 05:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - I have warned them, which you could have done. A block would have been excessive at this point. In future, if you bring someone here please notify them on their talk page Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lalhlimpuii

Yet another obvious sock of Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done blocked and all deleted and reverted. I think we should delete all files uploaded by this user. GPSLeo (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Delbatros

User:Delbatros is removing legitimate IP contributions from a deletion request discussion. If IPs are not wanted in those discussions you should announce and make it technically impossible. İf not you should apply a sanction to Delbatros. Thanks. 186.172.250.216 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of your comments on the deletion discussion is also not appropriate. So please stay friendly when commenting on discussion pages. And @Delbatros you should also stay friendly when reverting inappropriate unfriendly comments. For now there is nothing to sanction but if this happens again the one of you who makes such comments will be blocked. The comment on the deletion discussion can be added if worded in an appropriate way. GPSLeo (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support a block. The IP might have been a tad snarky with their words, but IMO does not justify removal. Delbatross, however, continued to label the IP in question as a troll with no apology at hand. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User changing categories against convention

User:AmsaTalla is moving categories and naming them non-alphabetically, going against convention. I asked them about it on June 22 but there has been no response about it.
They continue to make changes in Category:Bilateral relations of the European Union and members of the European Union and are moving categories:

This is like changing category names in Category:Bilateral relations of the United Kingdom to put "United Kingdom" before "Belgium" for unknown reasons.
Can these be reverted back and user given a warning about lack of communication? Thank you. // sikander { talk } 🦖 16:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User warned. I'll do the reverts. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is now all correct but @sikander, you may want to check. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Perfect, thank you for taking care of this so quickly. Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖 22:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammedfasilkvkave

Uploads File:SHOOTERS PADANNA.png after having been warned by Krd to stop uploading copyvios. Jonteemil (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And seems to be the same user as User:Realmalabarboy which is blocked as sockpuppet. See also w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobanfasil. Jonteemil (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked indef. for socking, copyvios deleted. It would be useful to link all related accounts. Yann (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. This account is also related and already blocked at enwiki as a duck:
MhdFasii (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Jonteemil (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it can be blocked here as well.Jonteemil (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked by Magog the Ogre. Yann (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Editor committee

After having a slew of files (images of newspaper articles) deleted for copyright violation, this user has re-uploaded the images, but now with public domain claims. This does not appear to be a case of a simple mistake, but rather an attempt by a user to purposefully circumvent Commons' copyright guidelines. WikiDan61 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked the committee indefinitely due to inappropriate username. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Utan VCRSN19

Utan VCRSN19 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Some recent copyvios after multiple warnings, including the last one. Quick1984 (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The user has not edited for more than month. Taivo (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prototyperspective: disruptive voting on COM:FPC, refusal to listen to guidance

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I seems Prototypepersepctive is now listening to guidance, so closind this without admin action. Will leave a message of warning on their talkapge. --Kritzolina (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the title says. User has been provided guidance on their talk page and several FPC nominations. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to clarify what the concerns of users and my comments were. I voted oppose on three or four images or so because I think their educational content is low as COM:FP says Featured pictures are images from highly skilled creators that the Wikimedia Commons community has chosen as some of the highest quality on the site. and COM:SCOPE says Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content … The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". … Image quality is just one of the factors that may limit the educational usefulness of a file. Other limiting factors may include low resolution and hard-to-remove watermarks. so to me it is just a logical conclusion that the degree of educationality, how educational a file is, is very relevant to whether or not a file should become a "featured" picture "highlighted" by this site.
Where am I wrong about that and people can have other views but FP has turned into something that seems to assume WMC is some kind of photography critique platform. It isn't; a prime purpose is educational media so we shouldn't feature so many fairly (I'm not saying totally) uneducational images as the best of the site. People have applied very high standards to illustrations and diagrams and I also apply a high standard in regards to educational content of files and wonder why this hasn't been sooner as now again people seem to assume we're some kind of artistic photo critique site without focus on educational media. I don't think these opposes are disruptive in any way, it's just that not many other users have applied this criteria earlier. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Special:Diff/901999164, after I opposed one of your nomations because of the rationales of the voters, you said:

I should just start voting oppose very often because the whole thing is a joke and some kind of technical photo competition rather than in lie with COM:SCOPE.

I believe you opposed all of those nominations out of bad faith. I did warn you on your talk page not to take it personally and to not continue disrupting Commons with your opposing votes. Zzzs (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not in bad faith. I outlined the rationale above, what exactly is wrong with it? However, a point to make would be to create a discussion about this general issue elsewhere rather than voting in nominations of images that aren't very/sufficiently educational. I explained above why I don't think these are in line (typo there) with COM:SCOPE and I'm not taking it personally. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't take it personally, why did you address every opposing vote, especially mine, and mention that you'd start opposing more often with the text I quoted above? I also explained on your talk page why bird images (the nominations you mainly opposed for "violating" COM:SCOPE) are educational and within the scope. Zzzs (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people assume FP is something like a photo competition where images are judged by nothing than technical criteria doesn't make it so. One could make a coherent counterargument (and why is it me to make these) that FP has since inception / 2005 often featured many relatively noneducational images, basically based on their aesthetics and technical quality. On the other hand, when going through the candidates log like this one often finds rationales related to mine Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/April_2005 like very good quality, but how is the topic special, or at least of general interest? or …On the one hand, this picture is "topical" — i.e. it tells a story. On the other hand, the picture is not that good by itself…
Just because something has become widely assumed and deeply ingrained does not make it suddenly the required only way to assess for FP and silence those who apply criteria that seem foreign to you. Nowhere on the FP page or in any policy page could I find a requirement that things are only evaluated by technical criteria but not by how educational they are. In any case maybe it's better to discuss this before voting according to this criteria which seems uncommon in this FP WMC-subcommunity. I don't know where though, maybe the talk page of FP which is composed only of the very people who established and support this narrow way of evaluating images for FP? Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, you could read all of the rules for FPC, including #7 that says: Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project. Especially take to heart the part highlighted in Italics. Just because you can't think of a use for an image, doesn't mean there isn't one. The WikiProject is so much larger and more diverse than you seem to think. And that's without including the "future projects" part.
I'm not asking for miracles, just that you only concentrate on each nominated image and determine if it's a good photo/painting/drawing/whatever, and leave it up to the rest of the very large Wiki community to decide where and how the image could/would/should be used. The Wiki community has more ideas than you could possibly imagine. I'm always in awe about how and where images are used. They can turn up in the most unlikely places. At FPC we can only weed out the best ones. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about suitability to be on WMC, but suitability as FP. I can think of a lot of uses of bird photos, including using them on Wikipedia pages, please don't assume things I never said – I never said or implied I was considering images just based on potential use on WP. Those are not the best ones of WMC so I oppose some. Maybe they're the best when it comes to technical photography criteria but that is not what FP is necessarily limited to/about. I'll open a discussion about the subject elsewhere, it's not good to discuss this in picture/photo nominations since it seems like the criteria of how educational an image is is so foreign that one gets sent to ANU if applied multiple times so it probably needs discussion rather than directly be used with little to no adoption by other FP evaluators. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said this was about the suitability to be on WMC, that is why I quoted the rules for FPC - FPC as in what FPs are before they become FPs. We are discussing why you are disrupting the FP selection process, and your reasoning flies around in strange patterns. I give you a direct link to the FP rules and you start to talk about other things. Please just read the FP rules and act accordingly. --Cart (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It starts with Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is…. This doesn't address anything I said above and my comment applies 1:1.
Yes, please read the FP rules and intro/definition. They are among what I was referencing. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor addition: other than not denying that the criteria I used can be is used / is valid etc it also has Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects and Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.. I think more quotes from there aren't needed, these are quite explanatory and it becomes quite clear your assumptions about what criteria may or may not be used for FP are unreasonable. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prototyperspective uses countless words and tries to give the impression that they are the expert and that everyone else is getting things wrong. But that doesn’t mean that what they write is correct. Their interpretation of the FP rules and of COM:SCOPE is (to put it mildly) very one-sided, ignoring both other statements in the rules and the clear testimony of existing FPs and nomination discussions. Other statements by Prototyperspective, such as the one quoted by Zzzs above, even suggest that they are not concerned with the matter at hand, but that their intentions are questionable. As for the objective question of the nature and scope of FPs, I don’t need to repeat what others have said, especially not Cart’s excellent comments both here and in recent FP nomination discussions. Because Prototyperspective ignores the guidance given both on their talk page and in several FPC nominations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.), their behaviour must be classified as disruptive. – Aristeas (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving the difflinks, Aristeas. The main problem with their behaviour is not that they have a different opinion. It is the fact that they approach the discussion from the perspective of being the only person who is right. And wanting to proof this on individual cases, not solving the differences in opinion by seeking a general consensus on the broader issue. Kritzolina (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kritzolina regarding Proto's tendency to see himself as right and others as wrong. It seems that Proto is also unwilling to cooperate and "get the point". If this behavior continues, I suggest that we ban Proto from participating in COM:FPC and strike all of their votes. Zzzs (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also including Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Look into my eyes - 1 - Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto, July 16 1014.jpg. These edits are clearly intentionally disruptive. Block and striking out the FPC votes is probably most appropriate. Multichill (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see an administrator on the same page as me. Just one question, should the block be sitewide or only to FPC? Zzzs (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: I encourage you to own up to your mistakes and inform everyone that, in this particular case, you were wrong. That's all I want to hear from you. Wolverine XI 20:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second Wolverine XI – it's not hard to just own up in this instance. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already said I'm sorry and that I was mistaken to just suddenly use this criteria in multiple nominations below. What more do you want to hear – about which other things were I wrong about that I should admit? Prototyperspective (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wrong about it not being in line with COM:SCOPE. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for apologising + accepting. Certainly a step in the right direction. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also second Wolverine XI: IMO, owning up is better than being banned from FPC IMO Zzzs (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kritzolina: That is one reason why I stated that a talk discussion is better suited than just voting and/or discussing these matters in the nominations. That it seemed like so may come from the fact that I was defending my vote rationale against objections to them so again a talk page discussion is better suited for this as apparently the criteria I applied is very controversial and rejected by other FP evaluators. I generally try to address other people's points so that may give the impression that I see myself as the only one right and everybody else as wrong rather than "solving the differences in opinion by seeking a general consensus on the broader issue" which is exactly what the talk page discussion will be for rather than my 4 FP controversial oppose votes plus replies to points raised in my 3 nominations. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already stated that I would open the discussion on a talk page rather than keep voting which I only did a few times. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the first link I took home what people said and struck my vote since my rationale was refuted with solid reasoning. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still didn't say it. Wolverine XI 20:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong about how community seems to have decided to evaluate FP images. I thought it was not decided so I will cease my FP voting and rather open a talk page discussing whether 'how much educational' an image is can be valid criteria for people evaluating whether they should become FP. It was a bit disruptive to suddenly use this unestablished criteria a handful of times linked above and I'm sorry for it. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can one say I ignore[s] the guidance when I already ceased voting there and even earlier said I will instead open a talk discussion about this? Cart has made good points, I addressed some of them and see a lot of sense in most of them, that's certainly not ignoring, I was not even challenging the decision where Cart commented. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question So assuming we accept, as we should, that an FPC of a small brown bird alone in the dessert is within scope, has educational value and is of high technical quality; how should a user who feels it has little wow, limited EV and a mundane composition vote to oppose it? You can substitute church, view, sunset, etc. etc. for small brown bird. Prototyperspective has a valid point, though they have not approached the issue as well as they could. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prototyperspective is not the only one who mostly opposes, who opposes for their own personal and/or arbitrary reasons, or who applies different standards to subjects based on what they personally like or find interesting; they're just doing a terrible job of trying to justify it and, in some cases, being transparent about disrupting "what it means to be an FP". Yes, opposing because there are "enough bird photos" (although I'd add we have about 1200 FPs of birds since the beginning of FPC and there are about 10,000 bird species), because "portrait photo of a woman" (?), or misrepresenting the role of COM:SCOPE could all be considered disruptive. That said, I can think of a few people who frequently oppose based on some variation of "not special enough for me", "no wow", or technical nitpicks, even when the same person nominates their own photos with the same kinds of flaws. Hence it's hard to penalize someone because we allow wide latitude to oppose based on personal reasons. You basically just can't be insulting or nonsensical. Personally, I'd recommend doing what I do with the subjects I don't much care about: ignore them. For me, I don't much care for most of the photos FPC gets of churches or exteriors of [IMO] unremarkable buildings. However, I know that for a lot of people those have a lot of value and I don't want my personal bias to get in the way, so I only vote if I feel very strongly one way or the other. I don't think this is an approach we can enforce, though. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we can't enforce the policy of "I don't want my personal bias to get in the way, so I only vote if I feel very strongly one way or the other", but it's a very good recommendation about how voting could run a bit more smoothly. Rhododendrites usually come up with good ideas since he has his ear on more online communications and sites than the rest of us do. He usually brings a clear and not-so-bogged-down-in-old-wiki-ways way of looking at things.
    And regarding Prototyperspective, I don't think they needs to be blocked from anything on Commons after this very thorough vetting. I've never liked the overkill in punishing users that sometimes is executed here; save that for the real vandals. Hopefully they understands how the land lies now, and will discuss their more overall views on image policy on preferably the FPC talk page, while voting strictly based on the quality (aesthetical and technical) of the image nomination in front of them. --Cart (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Abraham

Abraham (talk · contributions · Statistics) not liking a comment in a DR made this comment that I'm not going to adjetive. I understand that DR can be heated topic, but we should not tolerate this kind behavior in a collaborative project like Commons. Günther Frager (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Townpadne

Another sock of #Muhammedfasilkvkave per w:WP:DUCK. Reuploads the same files that previously were deleted as copyvios. Jonteemil (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New aqrtilce acception

I wrote an article about a member of the Ukrainian parliament: [[3]]. I used official (state, govermental, financial) links for proofs of truthfulness of information about a member of parliament (Rostyslav Pavlenko). In other words, the link is of the highest level of credibility in my country (Ukraine). Article has been rejected for publication by a User: SafariScribe. I am asking the administrators of the English Wiki-page to help, because I consider the actions of the User: SafariScribe to be biased and inadequate and to harm the project. 94.45.142.2 21:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the wrong place, this is Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia.
Click the If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk in the box at the top of your Wikipedia draft article, if you want to talk to other users about a review that you feel was inadequate. Belbury (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandner: Hi, and welcome. In addition to the above, please stay logged in.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFreestyler

Another duck as #Townpadne. Jonteemil (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done blocked and deleted. GPSLeo (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mykola.lemyk

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

Many uploads with bogus license, some might be in the public domain. Help needed for checking. Yann (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=903473664"