Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Can an admin please look at the edit history of Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Towers in Iran and deal with User:Orijentolog's waring bullshit? Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no point in discussing with this person, because he opens discussions with the aim of harassing, accusing and insulting, and he unilaterally removes proper categories all around, thereby disrupting the categorization tree that has been built for years. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just don't participate in the CfD then. You don't own the categories and you can't just close a CfD after a day and one person commenting just because you don't agree with it. I have every right to start a CfD to discuss with other users if a category system makes sense or not. The only problem here is your petty, uncollaborative attitude and ownership issues.

Also look at the edit history of Category:Buildings in Babolsar by shape where they also reverted me and @Fralambert: multiple times. There's absolutely zero reason I should have had to report his uncollaborative edit waring nonsense twice. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fralambert obviously intended to remove Wikidata template, as he explained on the sister project, not to delete valid category which is not empty. Opening discussions with false accusations and insults (like that something is "beyond my ability to understand") is not only a violation of the project rules, but is below the level of civilized discussion. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's pretty clear you didn't understand what I was telling you. I was just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was something you were confused about. It's not like you haven't repeatedly insulting me over and over since this whole thing started though. So spare me the cry bullying. It's still not an excuse to unilaterally close a CfD that had only been open for a day and had commenter anyway. You were clearly just looking for a excuse to shut the conversation down. So I could give a crap. It's not your call to make if other people can discuss it or not just because you created the categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understood very well, but you continued with misbehavior. And it should be noted that such an arrogant approach has cost you several blocks lately, while I haven't had a single penalty in 15 years of activity. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What misbehavior? People are allowed to open CfDs dude. It's only an issue because your turned it into one. And your whole "arrogant approach" comment is exactly I'm talking about with the cry bullying. How dare I say you weren't understanding my explanation but it's totally cool for you to call me arrogant. Right. Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

User Adamant1 seems to have a habbit of insulting others in discussion pages and opening very problematic deletion requests. He has been blocked for that in the past and should be given permanent block. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

yes. @Orijentolog you can just ignore the annoyance, which will soon move on to new targets and forget about you. :p RZuo (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RZuo: Multiple administrators disagree with Orijentolog's actions here and they even got an in edit war with one of them. I know your just being an opportunist here, but you might want to think about if it's worth support that kind of behavior just because of some petty personal beef. For all the hemming and hawing from people like you about how I act I'm certainly not out there anywhere getting an edit wars with administrators. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted the close. Orijentolog was too involved to close this CfD. Abzeronow (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support a temporary block. This thread shouldn't be about Adamant1's conduct (despite how the comments are going), but it's evident that Orijentolog refuses to take responsibility at hand and I can't see this being resolved through any other means other than a short block. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

agree with SHB2000's proposal. I also would support a warning to RZuo for civility, as they should know better at this point. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• User: Charlesjsharp (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Long history of argumentative tone, as seen and mentioned above in #User:A.Savin.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

IMO we shouldn't have just an open section about a user -- need some diffs to substantiate "long history". — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

IMO, this ANU complaint should be not about long history of inappropriate behaviour (though there definitely is such), but about this terrible and unsubstantial accusation in particular. Because, if this is left unsanctioned, this of course would be a clear message to him and others that this kind of comments are tolerated in general. Please remember, that blocks are not punitive but preventative. --A.Savin 19:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rhododendrites: See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 55#User:Charlesjsharp, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 80#Charlesjsharp, and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 62#Charlesjsharp.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only one of those is good evidence, really. Maybe I'm used to the enwp way of doing ANI, but usually new sections without a bunch of diffs about a long-time user just get speedily closed. Not saying there's no merit here -- just needs more effort to substantiate. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jeff G.: We really need some recent evidence, i.e. not stuff from five-nine years ago. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Support at least a strong warning if not a block. Admittedly I didn't look to much into this but IMO it's at least worth giving them a stern warning that their behavior isn't a appropriate and will lead to block if they continue it. Although a block might be justified to. I just don't want to go that far myself since I don't have the time or energy to read all the back story at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
• For sake of making it a bit more clear, can we have a list of diffs that best highlight your reason for posting here, Jeff G.? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Red-tailed hawk: In this edit, the user made a "terrible and unsubstantial accusation". Yann suggested opening a threa[d] above 09:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC). Colin accused the user of "incompetence with the tools" here. See also:Reply

  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AValued_image_candidates%2FFemale_Gal%C3%A1pagos_small_ground_finch.jpg&type=revision&diff=180638822&oldid=168382267
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AValued_image_candidates%2FFemale_Gal%C3%A1pagos_medium_ground_finch.jpg&type=revision&diff=180638901&oldid=168382276
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Jamaican_satyr_%28Calisto_zangis%29.JPG&action=history
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Velutina_cracker_%28Hamadryas_velutina%29.jpg&action=history
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Dark-winged_skimmer_%28Diastatops_pullata%29_male.JPG&action=history
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AValued_image_candidates%2FFridericus_spreadwing_%28Ouleus_fridericus%29.JPG&type=revision&diff=180639110&oldid=169069125
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Red-billed_firefinch_(Lagonosticta_senegala_senegala)_male_(l)_female_(r).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=232634421
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pied_kingfisher_(Ceryle_rudis_rudis)_female.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=232634227
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pied_kingfisher_(Ceryle_rudis_rudis)_eating_fish.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=232634074

    — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Jeff G. and Red-tailed hawk: Are these 'examples' not all from 2015 and 2017? In 2019 I was indeed 'incompetent with the tools'. Referring to Colin's post from 2019: at QIC, if you post a comment after someone has voted to promote, 'promoted' changes back to 'nominated'. I was not aware of this Wikimedia Commons glitch that has never been rectified. Independent Admins should also be aware that, I am reasonably sure that neither A.Savin nor Yann, despite being regular voters at FPC, have not supported any of my 200 most recent FPCs (186 were successful). I've not supported theirs either. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Support A block for two weeks. Charlesjsharp attacked me on a lot of my nominations on FPC to try to push me down --El Golli Mohamed (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Comment Revenge post. This user was blocked on 14 April for posting the comment 'Fuck you'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  He attacked me so much that I ended up insulting him and I was punished for it. I didn't do it for free. El Golli Mohamed (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The block was imposed after our differences, including his revenge votes, were examined. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Everything is revenge for you Charles, you are an angel Lol El Golli Mohamed (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Charlesjsharp accused publicly A.Savin of having an illegal conduct and this can be considered as defamation (criminal offence). Charlesjsharp seems to have adopted an illegal conduct that requires exemplary sanction. Charlesjsharp also has a long history of attacking people. - Examples : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ann-Sophie_Qvarnstr%C3%B6m#Discussion%20on%20deleting%20this%20article commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:House_sparrow_feeding_behaviour.jpg - Charlesjsharp had immunity all these years because he posted pictures of animals but it is time that he learns that unacceptable behavior can't stay unpunished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:ad30:4940:c927:876e:e855:ea82 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Support a block for libelous comments, and per all above. --A.Savin 09:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
•   Oppose I think a block is unwarranted. I have yet to see a comment that would merit a block.

• Accused of attacking El Golli Mohamed but he complimented the El Golli Mohamed and suggested an improvement - Excellent quality, but if you cropped, I think the crop is too tight top and bottom
• Their criticism of getting too close to a nest is valid IMO

Perhaps charlesjsharp does come across as short and as someone who doesn't suffer fools. And some of the diffs go back years. I think an admonishment to be less grumpy and not to bite users would be appropriate Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think, if you claim the "nesting bird" comment to be valid, then you are doing the same libel as Charlesjsharp and are subject to a block as well. It was already explained several times why the accusation is invalid, no need to repeat. --A.Savin 10:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Methinks you are a bit agressive threating to block a fellow admin for having an opinion Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not every opinion is compatible with Commons guidelines and also with the UCoC... so for instance, an insult is also an opinion... that is, if I insult you that means I have a certain (not high) opinion on you which I tell in public, but nonetheless I would have to expect a block for saying that opinion, because according to our rules it's harassment or personal attack which is prohibited and usually sanctioned with a block... Perhaps you aren't aware, but hey, there are further admins who are not aware of UCoC, of guidelines, of common etiquette etc... --A.Savin 11:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• This should be closed as producing more heat than light. There are a variety of valid complaints that can be levied at Charles -- including some I'd probably agree with -- but this is just an effortless free-for-all of past grievances. If any of the parties here want to agree to an interaction ban, fine, but otherwise I'd invite anyone to come back after taking the time to put together a halfway decent case backed by a whole bunch of unimpeachable diffs. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Does that mean you agree I did criminal offence, or does that mean Charlesjsharp is allowed to accuse publicly of criminal offences because he is kind of a judge or something, or otherwise special and above all guidelines? --A.Savin 17:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• You've both made legal accusations/insinuations about the other, no? "Libel" and "slander", with references to WMF Legal? I'm not at all saying that what Charles said was ok. Quite the opposite. Even if I agreed with him on the substance of the claim about the bird, which I don't, his approach was poor and opening this ANU thread was not good judgment. I'd be bothered if I were you, too. That said, I think GPSLeo more or less said what needed to be said in the other thread. That's more or less what I'm saying here -- that we don't need yet another thread unless someone's going to do the hard work of producing more evidence. Until someone does that, IMO it should be closed. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• This sounds more like a "damage control" for Charlesjsharp, rather than a real argument why a complaint is unwarranted. Why are you advocating a toxic user? --A.Savin 19:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Come on... — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Charlesjsharp sometimes projects his grumpiness towards other Commons editors; this behavior has landed him in deep water before, yet he somehow manages to snake his way out of every predicament he finds himself in. It's like he's impervious to sanctions or something. Wolverine XI 12:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• So El Golli Mohamed gets blocked for 2 weeks because he said an insult after being harassed by permanent attacks of Charlesjsharp and Charlesjsharp commits a crime (defamation-slander) and should get away with it ?! Two different ethnics, two different treatments, with as always white privilege ! Shocking. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2603:6011:8400:AE6:488E:E5E5:3DFA:6506 (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • For the record, El Golli Mohamed was blocked for two weeks last April for saying to Charlesjsharp, (this is verbatim) "Fuck you." If you can point at something similar from Charlesjsharp, I will gladly make a similar block. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Ya think. Wolverine XI 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    '**** you' from El Golli Mohamed (Tunisian) against Charlesjsharp = insult = small infringement = 2 weeks block

    Defamation from Charlesjsharp (British) against A.Savin = criminal offence = infinitely worse = no sanction ?!

    Two different ethnics = two different treatments because of white man privilege

    Charlesjsharp publicly accusing A.Savin of committing criminal activity = defamation

    commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Close_wing_Basking_of_Athyma_perius_(Linnaeus,_1758)_-_Common_Sergeant_(4)_WLB.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=920599782 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:644:4384:C900:10F7:2462:CA6E:6458 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    How is this IP involved in any of this, if may ask? Wolverine XI 14:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• At least it's known that a "Fuck off" -- although it has not quite the same meaning as "Fuck you" -- did not end up in any sanctions against the one who said that; so yes, Commons community is very hypocrite. --A.Savin 15:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • @A.Savin: did you request a sanction at that time? Blocks are not intended primarily as punitive, and it would be absurd to block someone now for saying something incivil 3-1/2 years ago. - Jmabel ! talk 21:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes --A.Savin 23:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• • I will add: surely as an admin you already knew that. Are you just setting up a straw man here? - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A1Cafel has often explained to us that normal social mores do not apply to them and that as they are unable to achieve them, they cannot be expected to comply with them. They're also a most persistent uploader of Flickr content, often duplicated or inappropriately licensed (but woe betide anyone else who makes a similar mistake, as A1Cafel's main activity here is to nominate other's content for deletion on the thinnest of grounds!)

Most recently we have this: User_talk:A1Cafel#Request A Flickr source requesting that A1Cafel slow down from uploading their content, so that they may do it themselves. A very reasonable request, and we should always be gracious towards the photographers who create the material we rely on. A1Cafel's reply was 'unhelpful', shall we say. I replied myself here, but they blanked it without comment (as is their perfect right).

Is it time to seek a topic ban on A1Cafel for uploading from Flickr? It's an endless stream of trouble, it's very little benefit; a 'bot could do it better and without the licensing mistakes. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A1Cafel has often explained to us that normal social mores do not apply to them and that as they are unable to achieve them, they cannot be expected to comply with them. I was involved in at least the last couple of ANU complaints having to do with A1Cafel's behavior and I don't remember them ever saying that. So do you have diffs of where they have said anything even remotely along those lines or are you just making up stuff? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Be that as it may, User:A1Cafel, if a Flickr user is interested in uploading their content here themself, you should certainly allow them to do so rather than preempt them. -Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Problem is they don’t seem to care going by the discussion on A1Cafel’s talk page. Plus I have seen them upload duplicates of what another contributor was uploading and even uploading photographs containing FoP/copyrighted elements, same type of material they DR others for. Will try and get some diffs when I get home but the lack of archiving will make it time consuming. Bidgee (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand, but uploaded it after 12 hours they changed the license is not preempt them IMO. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Admittedly I didn't read through the whole conversation on A1Cafel's talk page but it sounds like the original photographer didn't intend to upload the images to Commons but then decided to when they found out A1Cafel was doing it. Then they changed the licenses on some of their photographs in the process. I wouldn't put it on A1Cafel if that's what happened. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, that particular issue is about the fact that A1Cafel applied a rule about (alleged) copyright protection on an element in a photograph of my hand that I uploaded, while four minutes after that deletion nomination they decided to upload a range of pictures from that same series, among which was one photograph with an element that would have violated Commons rules. I then informed them about this double standards and them violating the same rule they applied to me. After that they decided to upload a version of my photograph with a blurred element in it just so it would fit within the Commons rules. Let's just put it bluntly. This is about hypocrisy. Somebody who is hunting down violations and does mass nominate photos for violations, while at the same times doesn't apply that rule to themselves. In this particular example, the blurred part is also part of the political message which the photo is about, effectively vandalizing and damaging the whole purpose of the photo.l, hence my appeal to have it deleted altogether. This is not about the permission change but about the fact that the image was firstly uploaded in violation with the rules (hence I was not planning to upload it, while allowing it to be used wherever it would fit in the rules, a CC2 license is not exclusive to Commons. And secondly, it's about altering the image to fit in the rules correcting the violating that the uploader in all their haste at first did not notice, and thereby effectively vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless. Labrang (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your aware that the CC2 license allows for people to modify the image for any purpose right? I don't really see why that wouldn't include someone blurring part of the want to. You can complain its vandalism all day, but your the who released the image under a license that allows for it to be modified. And so what if A1Cafel blurred the file after uploading it? We do that all the time. At least they noticed the problem and fixed it. Which isn't the case with most of the image they nominate for deletion BTW. A lot of uploaders could really care less about following copyright and most of them don't fix offending images after the fact when its brought up to them. So I don't really see what the issue is here. Like only people who have a 100% perfect record can nominate images for deletion. Anyway I'd suggest changing the license on your images if your going to be that offended by someone modifying them. I'm not sure if CC2 can be retracted though. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"At least they noticed the problem and fixed it." - in fact - I was the one pointing it out to them. They uploaded the photo minutes after they nominated a photo from the very same source and Flickr album for deletion for this very same [alleged] violation of rules. Under any normal circumstances we would use the "H" word or "double standards". I understand that is an unacceptable word here as it breaches "assume good faith", although, as a good faith user myself, it feels not like that. So what we have here is someone who systematically nominates files for deletion for (alleged) violations of rules and at the same time mass grabs photos and then in the rush of the moment to upload these photos "because they can" forgets the rules they just applied to others. I have seen others doing more or less the same. Is it a credit based system here? [seriously wonder that, not bad faith question - not every critical assessment is bad faith]. Labrang (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"You released this file under Creative Commons, so your fault when we mess with your work [Next time don't do that]" - This attitute from multiple people is very disrespectful towards the actual creators of the high quality content we want & need.
Obviously, the licence allows it. But basic collegiality, which is also expected on Commons dosen't. If a author wants to organize their collection on Commons themselfes, instead of everything being quickly dumped, and requests to do so, then this should be respected. (Those authors don't want something, they provide volunteer work) I don't see why that would even be up for discussion. If a uploader dosen't want their files overwritten, then this should be respected. ~TheImaCow (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify I don't have an issue with Labrang saying they don't want their photographs to be modified if they are uploaded to Commons. That's their prerogative. My problem is purely with them saying blurrying out part of the photograph is "vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless." Since as you say basic collegiality is expected on Commons and photoraphers don't get a special pass from that just because their photographs are high quality or whatever. 100% a photographer can ask someone not to overwrite one of their photographs but they should do it without baselessly screaming vandalism at the drop of a hat. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"disrupting" the message of the subject. I am willing to apologize for too casually using the word "vandalizing", but let's be frank here. In this particular example the said user only did that to bend the photo to fit in the rules, regardless whether it would actually remain valuable. Again, there's no harm in deleting a photo if it doesn't fit in the rules. Labrang (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Support indefinite block – they were blocked indefinitely for similar discourse of disruptive behavior a while back, but this discussion gives me little hope they have changed. I'm afraid to say that this is the only course of solution, except that a potential unblock request in the future should also be voted on by the community. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Comment: The last time this account was blocked (indefinitely, by the way), I thought they would wait some time before requesting their return to the project, something like 6 months to a year. But they came back a month later... At the time, Mdaniels5757 had pinged me to give my opinion on A1Cafel's return, but I chose to remain silent due to my conflicts with the user. Well, whatever is decided here, I believe that if the block is not permanent, we will eventually face the same problems as before. It's a shame... I was thinking of suggesting that the user request an unblock on the English Wikipedia – I would support that – to "clean" their global history. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd agree that the users behaviour can be seen as rude, and I'd say it's hardly acceptable to disregard the photographers request to upload images themselves, so the initial statement here is reasonable. On the other hand, there are DW issues with the photographers' uploads, and their replies to A1Cafel are no less rude, besides they are wrong. I'd suggest A1Cafel should respect request for not uploading images and leave more time for photographers to upload themselves, and if A1Cafel agrees, this issue is resolved without anything further. --Krd 06:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree, and I will refrain from uploading files from Labrang's Flickr stream (Jelger Groeneveld). --A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I neither support nor oppose any sanctions of A1, but this seems both unacceptably sloppy and relevant to the case. Dronebogus (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
• I am for an undefinite block at all from Commons. Their deletion requests (see absurd, senseless and often groundless deletion requests) and generally maintenance requests are more harmful than useful. -- Blackcat   12:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  How many deletion requests by A1Cafel have you processed or commented on this year? Krd 12:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Support, and also the user neglected to create or transclude Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erdogan and MBZ.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

At this DR user insulted me after I defended them and told another user to “take [their] opinion for a long walk off a short dock” (or basically, “take your opinion and jump off a cliff”) This also isn’t the first time they’ve been here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 113#Dronebogus name calling and bad faith comment. These two incidents display entitlement, hypocrisy and general rudeness— traits that are not compatible with a collaborative project. They should probably be sanctioned at this point. Dronebogus (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to act unilaterally here, so I'd like at least one other admin to way in, but I think a one-month block is in order for uncalled-for rudeness. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: That seems appropriate to me. This user is wildly out of line. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dronebogus started the name calling and bad faith months ago. Now they stuck their nose in my business again where it didn't belong. I don't think telling them that I didn't need them to defend me and referring to them as a pilgarlic (a man looked upon with humorous contempt or mock pity) is fitting. Again Dronebogus chose me as an enemy and chose to get involved where they had not business. NuManDavid (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You accuse me of name calling, and yet call me names. That is hypocrisy. You act like you have a right to post low-quality porn (which I did not call the uploads in the current DR) and get mad when people nominate it for deletion. That is entitlement. And I don’t need to explain why me defending you against unfair attacks, only to be attacked and characterized as an “enemy”, is not only rude but ungrateful. You need to understand that your simple presence here, let alone your ability to upload and contribute, is a privilege, which can be revoked at any time. Dronebogus (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Support One month block per Jmabel for the pilgarlic comment, which is rather insulting (even if NuManDavid thinks it's accurate). Telling users to go walk of a short dock or jump of a cliff isn't great either. Comments like that could be taken as insinuating that the person should commit suicide. Although I don't think that's how NuManDavid meant them, but their still uncivil regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
•   Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also I closed the DR and deleted the file in question. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support the block, and notice that this user also gratuitously insulted me, but User:Taivo, was the nominated file in fact stolen from another site? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doubtful. I think the request should be undone. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I deleted it per COM:PRP. Small size (only 231×363 pixels), no data. Copyvio is likely. Taivo (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, but per COM:DR, small size and lack of EXIF is not a deletion reason per se and only supporting evidence for copyvio, at most, so I appreciate your explanation but tend to disagree with it per policy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

WeatherFollower (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is uploading satellite images from NASA Worldview, which is GFDL, but always claims them as his own work. Me and other users corrected that on many images and I tried to explain that he must put the real source and proper copyright for his uploads but he continues. Could an administrator remind him the right procedure?

Pierre cb (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

+1. commons must overcome the mess of senseless claiming and lack of sources in general. Uploaders need to be addressed early. --Itu (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• User1648 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploads blatant copyvios after having been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done: Blocked for 1 week. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please delete all these files. User uploads them for just promotional use[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• It is not obvious to me that these are unacceptably promotional, and the speedy deletion tag on File:رضا قنبری.jpg, at least, makes little sense. It is nominated as a copyvio, and the supposed evidence is "this file uploads for just promotional use". Being possibly promotional does not constitute a copyvio. Unless there is actual evidence of a copyvio, these should go through a normal DR, not a speedy deletion process. And there is certainly nothing here that requires special administrative attention beyond normal deletion processes. - Jmabel ! talk 06:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done per Jmabel. They do not look promotional. Copyright violation is likely. Regular DR should be the best solution. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Buenas necesito que bloqué o que detiene a ese Usuario Khiao do por violación de derechos de autor, ese usuario público logos pero con "own work" (Google translator:Hello admins i need block or stop that User Khiao do for copyright violation, that user has public logos but with "own work".). AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please, can someone follow this up? As shown in the link, I asked 7 Sept if someone would do so, but no one did. I'm out the door in 10 minutes, so not doing it myself now. - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Yann,@Taivo AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Comment I deleted the most obvious copyright violations, and warned this user. For the rest, someone more knowledgeable about the threshold of originality in the country of origin should have a look. Yann (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello,

I would prefer not to have to bring this case to the attention of the administrators, but the harassment has exceeded the bounds of this project and has now extended to two others, which compels me to respectfully request some form of sanction against the account in question.

Allow me to provide some context regarding the situation: at 1:23 AM, the user Fox de Quintal made a request, in an inappropriate section, for a statute that would enable them to upload AI-generated music to Commons. Over three hours later, at 4:45 AM, which I noticed through my Watchlist, I reverted the edit and provided a detailed explanation in the edit summary as to why I had done so. I was promptly reverted by Fox de Quintal, who claimed that I was harassing them (as if Commons were obliged to yield to their personal whims). After being reverted by the administrator Aafi, they reverted them as well, in a clear violation of NOTHERE.

As if these authoritarian actions were not enough, the user then went to both the English and Portuguese Wikipedias to complain about alleged persecution by me. On the English Wikipedia, they were admonished by the administrator Cullen328, who sided with me regarding the supposed evidence of harassment (an inappropriate page that was sent for deletion). On the Portuguese Wikipedia, their complaint has so far been ignored.

Thus, I respectfully request, as previously stated, that some form of sanction be imposed on the account in question. Fox de Quintal is not a productive member of this community (just look at their uploads: a single image of extremely poor quality and outside the scope, which remains only because it is currently in use) and seems not to understand the objectives of Wikimedia Commons (their user talk page reveals numerous improper uploads).

Thank you,

RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pinging Yann and Abzeronow, who have both recently interacted with de Quintal. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RodRabelo7: I will answer you on the WP en. Fox de Quintal (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RodRabelo7: in summary of what's on WP en, you ALWAYS revert my edits without explanation, see WP en, see WP pt. Fox de Quintal (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have made over 7,000 edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia and have been registered since 2024! Fox de Quintal (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please avoid bludgeoning the process. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RodRabelo7: Fallacy! I am defending myself, I've already added links to your reverts on the English Wikipedia, and I will search to see if there are more! You like to show up out of nowhere and then revert without any explanation! I already have editing experience on Wikipedia, I've been on Wikipedia for years! I've made over 7,000 edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia. And stop reverting me, especially without providing an explanation! You only haven’t reverted me more because I'm usually on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and on that wiki, you are blocked! (Thank God!) Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RodRabelo7: I suggested on the English Wikipedia that there should be an interaction ban! Reason? You ONLY revert WITHOUT explaining! You NEVER explained the reasons! Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Only"? "Never"? Exempli gratia: here and here. In regards to the first reversion, English Wikipedia administrator ToBeFree admonished you (so I was correct, to say the least); in regards to the second one, Aafi and Abzeronow also reverted you, and I don't think these two administrators are trying to "harass" you. What's more now? I won't feed you anymore. Pinging DarwIn, Commons and Portuguese Wikipedia administrator, in case they have anything to add to this discussion. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DarwIn: he comments as if this were an isolated case, this is not an isolated case, NO! Several times he has reverted me WITHOUT explaining, and I have already explained to RodRabelo7 that it's because of this that I'm already tired of it! Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RodRabelo7: if you presented yourself as a helpful person, I would be thanking you, but instead, you come across as someone who wants trouble, all of this is happening because of you. Stop reverting my edits WITHOUT explaining. This is annoying! Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not because of me, otherwise you wouldn't have been reverted by two administrators, Aafi and Abzeronow, as I have mentioned before. You tried to edit war here, decided to harass me in three different projects (honestly, what's the next?) and now pretends to be harassed by me, ignoring the fact that I haven't had any interaction with you for the past months. Please stop trying to pass as the victim. This is my last comment on this section before someone else appears. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Comment To the administrator who closes this discussion, please note that the harassment has now escalated to personal attacks and ad hominem remarks, and de Quintal is literally thanking God for the fact that I am blocked in another project to ignore the evidence of harassment presented here. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Comment: Another harassment in the Portuguese Wikipedia, where I cannot defend myself (and they know that very well, based on their previous comment). Thankfully former administrator Skyshifter reverted them. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  For what it's worth, the user has been blocked for three days in the English Wikipedia. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The user made a request for them to be permitted to upload an MP3 file. You say you "provided a detailed explanation in the edit summary as to why I had done so", whereas in fact you wrote "wrong section" and didn't point them to the right section. It sounds to me like you made a quick, unhelpful revert on someone you've been in conflict with, and when the predictable problems occurred, you're trying to act blameless. (Seriously, "wrong section", even "Undo revision 925603517 by Fox de Quintal (talk) wrong section", is shorter than "provided a detailed explanation in the edit summary as to why I had done so".)--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although I agree that detailed description may not be the best description of this specific edit summary, I at least commented on it, countering de Quintal's argument. However, your comment seems to ignore the harassing behavior initiated by Fox de Quintal on the English Wikipedia, where he has been blocked for disruption, on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where he was reverted by a former administrator, here, where he was admonished by two administrators, and more recently on the Spanish Wikipedia, where he invited me to join a WhatsApp group. Absurd as that may seem, this group includes a long-term abuser to whom the Fox de Quintal account has tried to associate me for months, if not years. It's a persecutory behavior that I have never seen before around here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RodRabelo7: Let’s clear things up. I’ve been associating you with Pórokhov and Quintinense for about a year, not years! Ever since Pórokhov started attacking me, you showed up reverting my edits without any apparent reason. When you requested to be unblocked on Portuguese Wikipedia, you were associated with Quintinense, which only reinforced my suspicion that you are in contact with both, especially since Quintinense is a friend of Pórokhov.

Also, what’s the explanation for this strange behavior? Now here we are, at 2:19 AM (Brasília time), discussing this. Yes, I was hoping that the checkusers on Portuguese Wikipedia would discover some connection between you, Pórokhov, and Quintinense, or that sockpuppets were being used to vandalize the project. However, they found nothing. Coincidence?. To me, it was Pórokhov himself who asked you to do that. I’ll bring more details in my next message. Fox de Quintal (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RodRabelo7: In 2023, I returned to editing Wikipedia with a new account, Lalala2000. During this period, Ertrinken, a sockpuppet of Pórokhov, requested my block and treated me poorly. Pórokhov also created a fake account, IaIaIa2000, to pretend to be me and caused problems on Wikipedia. Additionally, another fake account named Alexandre Exalts appeared, suspected to have been created by Pórokhov. In this context, I also went through my first block discussion and question the coincidence of @RodRabelo7: appearing during the same period. Fox de Quintal (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Comment when a reasonable request is made in the wrong place, it is usually better to move it to the right place (or just comment telling the user what is the right place) than to delete it. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

de Quintal's request simply wasn't reasonable. They wanted the autopatrol flag to upload a single audio file, a personal song called "The Samba of Fox de Quintal", generated by an artificial intelligence. RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it was in the wrong place on the right page, move it to the right place. It's not unreasonable to want to upload an MP3 and thus request permissions needed to do that. Scope is complex; it's probably not appropriate to upload here, but that's at least subject to discussion. Instead of working with the user, you just reverted it, despite the fact that it wasn't spam and you knew that they didn't want to interact with you. I'm not praising their behavior, but you seemed to looking to cause problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with RodRabelo7 that their request wasn't reasonable. The file they want to upload is out of scope. I warned Fox de Quintal about that at 18:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC). I further warned them now about edit-warring. Yann (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Yann, Jlwoodwa, ColinFine, and Hftf: Actually, it's not about an edit war, but rather that RodRabelo7's behavior irritates me because he reverts my edits and doesn't care. It seems like he does it intentionally to annoy me.

Please, I am blocked on English Wikipedia. I am already disgusted by his behavior. Can someone open an interaction ban on English Wikipedia for me? Or is it difficult to open one?

Comment:

It was already very well understood before that I don't want any interaction with RodRabelo7 (he's the one insisting on it).

Now it's made very clear here. Fox de Quintal (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In view of the above comment, it is clear that Fox de Quintal didn't get the message, so I blocked them for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Funny Man 1999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Most of the user's edits is abusing maintenance templates, specifically adding {{No permission}} into images that obviously already is a free license that doesn't need permission from the author. For example, adding {{No permission}} to an image that has YouTube CC BY-SA license. They even did it in a logo with very simple symbols. I'd appreciated if someone follow this user's edit and take appropriate action. Nvdtn19 (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Blocked for a week, for a start. All reverted. Yann (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

- blocks changed to indef per CU data. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 18:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vô Danh 69 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Abusing maintenance templates, specifically adding {{No permission}} into images that obviously already is a free license that doesn't need permission from the author e.g. File:Trúc Anh – Mắt biếc BTS (1).png already reviewed by a license reviewer; File:PhuongMyChi1333.JPG photo taken at a public event by the uploader. I tried to revert some of them.  Băng Tỏa  15:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This could be is almost certainly another sock of User:Funny Man 1999 and User:Thich an che. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Unusual Deletion of Images of Vietnamese Artists. I'm going straight to an indef-block here, but this time I leave it to someone else to deal with any files that were deleted based on this person's dubious nominations. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Băng Tỏa: this probably should have been reported to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. Please do note that for Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems you are supposed to notify the user in question on their talk page that there is a discussion of their conduct. But since this is straight-out vandalism, no problem with you not having done that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Funny Man 1999‎. Yann (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• محمد شیرازی سلیمانی (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Keeps (re)uploading copyvios after having been blocked recently for it. Jonteemil (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Blocked for a month, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Keeps uploading copyvios after having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}} twice. Jonteemil (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jonteemil,   Done Kadı Message 18:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Grandmaster Huon (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Mass speedy deletion nominations of logos, including those kept after regular deletion nominations, as well as those that have obvious grounds to be in the public domain (such as, for example, the logos of Ukrainian organizations). Stubbornly continues this activity after several demands to stop:

• User_talk:Grandmaster_Huon#DR_and_Speedy
• User_talk:Grandmaster_Huon#Speedy_deletion_requests
• User_talk:Grandmaster_Huon#Speedy_deletion_requests_2
• User_talk:Grandmaster_Huon#Stop_nominate
• User_talk:Grandmaster_Huon#Please_stop_mass-tagging_files_as_copyright_violations.

@The Squirrel Conspiracy, Yann, ThecentreCZ, Di (they-them), and Fer1997: as involved users. Quick1984 (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This user has continuously tagged files that I have uploaded, it is quite annoying because I receive notifications from them. It's also clear that they don't understand when it's appropriate to use the copyvio tag. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio tags are used when the logo is too sophisticated or if the image is derivative. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The requests have nothing to do with you as an editor or our relations towards each other. These notifications only deal with the file itself that you may have contributed. If you do not wish to see these notifications, it would be best to contact the mediawiki staff for a way to implement the reduction of repetitive notifications. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I find this user also very troublesome, after I questioned many of his actions of mass-deletions he even sent me private e-mail claiming "I don't have good mood" and other such trolling. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't meant to be trolling. I wanted to check up with you and to de-escalate. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seemed like you didn't feel well and tone is impossible to tell in written form. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I concur with the other editors. Whilst I have no doubt about the reasonability of raising questions about the compliance of specific files, this user's behaviour is disproportionate regarding the goals pursued. What's more, there's rarely any focus on file history, instead choosing to tag files in bulk, many of them with claims settled in past nominations. Appealing all the notices connected to files was a time-consuming process due to the risks involved in speedy tagging. In addition to all these issues, the presence of good faith in the nominations and replies has not been evident in some occasions. I believe there ought to be a recommendation for the user to choose a different, more balanced approach to achieve the intended ends. Fer1997 (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is such a plan? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wanted some files to be deleted because they were percieved to violate copyright. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If there were OTRS verification, I would leave them alone unless they were derivative of other copyrighted content and aspects of the legality of the file may change years after the original decision to keep them in deletion requests, either with new rationales or insights. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, is there an easy way to challenge a speedy delete other than manual editing? Perhaps one could implement that feature in Visual File Change. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The misunderstanding about the Ukrainian logos only happened once. Once it was clear, I left it alone. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The vast majority of my copyvio indications have ended with a speedy delete from administrators, since most of them were obvious copyvios anyway. Especially the logos. It is the goal of Commons to be as free of copyright-infringing content as possible. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you understand that files they where kept in a regular deletion request should never be requested for speedy deletion? If you think the decision was wrong make a regular deletion request and write why you are challenging the previous decision. GPSLeo (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, got it. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you understand the problem and if you are willing to act according there is no sanction needed at this point. But if there are more complaints on to many unjustified speedy deletion requests we have to ban you from creating speedy deletion requests. GPSLeo (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Kattoor2004 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads copyvio after having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Support temp block per nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done. One week block and I will delete the last remaining upload. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's been at least a couple of discussions about if or how Commons should host AI artwork over the last. In essentially all of them that I can remember Prototyperspective did nothing but repeatedly bludgeon the process and repeatedly go off about how anyone who disagreed with them is ignorant about how AI works and just hates the technology. He's done much the same in recent discussion about if artwork should be deprioritized in search results. Just to a give few examples, two people didn't give a reason for supporting the proposal. He subsequently went off on a screed about how there votes are just ignorant knee-jerk reactions because they "simply don't like the use of AI tools for whatever personal reasons." Along with making the claim that de-prioritizing AI images in search results would be "indiscriminate (semi) censorship" akin to how they censor the internet in China. He then pinged a bunch of users who have uploaded AI artwork in the past to give their opinion on the proposal, which is clearly canvasing. There's plenty of other examples of their bad behavior out there.

The fact is that Prototyperspective can't participate in a discussion having to do with AI without just insulting anyone who disagrees with him, going off on demagogic side tangents, or otherwise bludgeoning the process. None of it is in anyway civil or collaborative. Especially considering they have already been asked multiple times by multiple users to tone it down, including by an admin after a similar ANU complaint having to do with their behavior in FPC. It's pretty clear they are either unwilling or incapable of getting the point though. So I think a block is in order. It's clearly justified considering their recent behavior on the Village Pump, but more so considering the past warnings and requests to tone it down. Both of which they have all but ignored. Adamant1 (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can remember not much but you bludgeoning these discussions with walls of text to which I responded probably too often. I point out when people vote without any explanation and without addressing any points which I think is my right and consistent with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Unlike you, I never insulted anyone and it's quite likely you have participated in these discussions more than me. Participating a lot in discussions about topics you care and know a lot about is not something bad or at the very least not a reason to censor or block somebody. without just insulting anyone who disagrees with him False. Name just one example where I did that, I never insulted anyone and I am asking for explanations and people to address points instead of ignoring all of them. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

With the bludgeoning I'm purely talking about the current discussion on the Village Pump, which the last time I checked I didn't write walls of text in. So I'm not sure what your talking about. More on point though, your the one who's responding to essentially everyone who supports the proposal in a bad faith, insulting way. But apparently you think that's totally cool because I bludgeoned a similar conversation 6 months ago. Right. Anyway, I pointed out the insults in my original messages. Anyone is free to read them and others from the discussion that I've left out. That's not even including the canvasing either BTW. I don't really have anything to say about it outside of that though. Except I think the evidence of your bad behavior is pretty clear. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In a discussion with 33 posts I made 10 comments. All of them contribute constructive information to the thread such as potential problems, alternative approaches, etc. I'm not responding in an insulting way but I was asking for people to add some explanation and/or to address critical points, you can't give an example because I was not insulting anybody and instead contribute to make the site based on rationality rather than behavior that would be inconsistent with sound decision making and the policy above, maybe there's better ways to do that since I'm not the most sensible (is that the right word) with words. What you said in the post above is not the full thing I said, I said "I doubt you have seen the video I linked and neither replying nor providing any rationale or addressing any points shows how this is about ignorance, not anything thought through and possibly some emotional knee-jerk reaction because voters simply don't like the use of AI tools for whatever personal reasons." How is ignoring all points not ignorance and why am I forbidden to say the word ignorance which in this case is I think constructive (and we may disagree even when your language is often much stronger)? And I said it could possibly be mere emotional hasty reactions without having thought it through, not that this is the case and why would that not be the case and why would I not be allowed to say that? Maybe I replied a bit too often and should have spend more time to work out more diplomatic softer language for what I meant to say. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also meant to not comment in that thread anymore at post 9 except if anybody asks me something. I raised the issues I wanted to raise, asked once or twice for voting people to address explanations or to address points instead of only leaving WP:NOREASON comments, and addressed a few points and that's it. This provides a basis for people looking into this to see a fuller picture and have more information at hand before they decide on this policy proposal. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't call saying that people approving the proposal is "ignorant knee-jerk reactions by people who simply don't like the use of AI tools for whatever personal reasons" just addressing a few points. We'll have to agree to disagree though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did not say that. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you did say that. It's slightly shortened for the sake of brevity but that's exactly what you said. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just two comments above I added the full quote to correct this false statement of yours and no I didn't say that if you can read. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's the exact quote without the wall of text "neither replying nor providing any rationale or addressing any points shows how this is about ignorance, not anything thought through and possibly some emotional knee-jerk reaction because voters simply don't like the use of AI tools for whatever personal reasons." That's essentially the same thing I said. Except again, my version was shortened for brevity, but you still called people ignorant and said the whole thing was an emotional knee-jerk reaction because voters simply don't like the use of AI tools. So you were clearly being extremely insulting even if I left out a common and a few words from the original message. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can't "shorten it for brevity" if that makes your statement false. This is going in circles, I already addressed this in the linked comment above where I also put this full quote you added here again. My reply to your accusal of me calling the practice of ignoring all points ignorant was How is ignoring all points not ignorance and why am I forbidden to say the word ignorance which in this case is I think constructive (and we may disagree even when your language is often much stronger)?. I don't think it makes sense to continue going in circles and this is again the wall-of-text producing kind of commenting of yours that I previously mentioned. I don't think saying "this is about ignorance" is insulting and in fact you are the person who I so far found most insulting on WMC and who made actual ad-hominem insults rather than maybe a bit too direct criticism and not an as diplomatic softer language as may be best. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think I can if it still retains the original words that I said were insulting to begin with. And to the ignorant thing, there's no reason people need to have their personal motivations, cognitive abilities, or level of knowledge called out in the first place. It's totally pointless and adds absolutely nothing what-so-ever to the conversation. Plus it clearly goes against the whole thing about assuming good faith. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It provides some explanation, again probably not expressed diplomatic enough, for why it would be better if people provided explanations and addressed points and to some small degree may contribute to contextualizing things. I think that AGF is not a WMC policy is what may have allowed you to be so insulting many times in the past so it's kind of bizarre that you are calling me out on this which is much more constructive and softer than what you did multiple times without any repercussions. I'm not going against AGF even if it was a WMC policy which I think it should be to some degree. I did not call out "personal motivations or cognitive abilities", I said there is the possibility/the risk for emotional hasty reactions that do not consider the full consequences of this policy. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how exactly I've been allowed to be insulting in the past without repercussions when I've been blocked like 4 times. You've certainly gotten away with the condescending attitude more then I have at this point. Whatever helps you justify the bad attitude though. Feel free to file an ANU complaint if you think I've said anything recently that justifies one. I could really care less, but this isn't about me. Your just deflecting. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not an attitude. It's merely my conviction that decisions should be based on rationality, well thought through debate, and reasoning rather than things like for example only mere votecounts or emotional reactions or quick reactions without much thought, consistent with the cited WP policy. I have another opinion about which attitudes are more problematic and calling such out in a direct way is also seen as problematic. I may have commented a too often or not worked out diplomatic enough language toward that ideal which I think is important for society and the health of Wikimedia. I don't think I was condescending. What I said about you was just a note (and afaik the ANUs I have seen where some cases I know of were mentioned didn't result in a block), not meant to be deflecting. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't really see how you calling the whole thing a ignorant knee-jerk reaction or saying people just hate the technology is rational, well thought through debate or reasoning. If anything comments like that get in the way of people having that type of conversation because it just comes off as needlessly conformational and dismissive. You can't have it both ways where there's a rational, thought out debate but then whatever someone that you disagree with you just dismiss as them making ignorant knee-jerk comments. That's not how it works. Skip it and let people have their opinions. Otherwise just don't comment. I'd love to see one fucking conversation having to do with AI where you don't just insult people and bludgeoning the whole thing. Just once. Seriously is it really that hard for you to keep your mouth shout and let people have their opinions without acting condescending? I know you can do. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well again: I didn't say that. I don't just insult people and actually don't insult people at all. I made points like raising likely unforeseen problematic consequences, pointed out the lack of explanations, etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah you did. Your just being disingenuous. Just don't bludgeoning the conversation or saying people are ignorant and just hate the technology next time. It's not that difficult. There's absolutely no reason what-so-ever to act the way you do over it every fucking time AI comes up on here. "Wahhh everyone who disagrees with me is an ignorant over emotional hater of AI and I'm just trying to have a reasonable, thought conversation about it!" Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Damned if I'm reading through the above in any detail. "In essentially all of them that I can remember" is not a set of diffs, so there is almost nothing to discuss here. @Adamant1: "is it really that hard for you to keep your mouth shout [presumably, 'shut']" is out of line.

Both of you would do well to learn to say something once, or maybe twice, rather than (yes) bludgeon people with it. Anyone even skimming the above can watch you both doing it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: I doubt anything will be done about it anyway but here's a diff from the current Village Pump discussion, forth line down "I doubt you have seen the video I linked and neither replying nor providing any rationale or addressing any points shows how this is about ignorance, not anything thought through and possibly some emotional knee-jerk reaction because voters simply don't like the use of AI tools." --Adamant1 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but that's a nothingburger. You yourself did worse right in this discussion here. "I'd love to see one fucking conversation having to do with AI where you don't just insult people and bludgeoning the whole thing [etc.]" I'm not at all interested in blocking either of you, but I wish both of you would ratchet it down. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You've been involved in at least a couple of discussions where he acted the same way. So your the last person I should have to give diffs to. But there's plenty of other stuff out there. He constantly acts condescending and defensive to people. I just don't feel like wasting the time finding specific examples when it's obvious by reading any discussion that he's ever been involved having to do with AI and he's probably not going to be sanctioned anyway regardless. And there's always cherry picked comment I made that someone can point to try and act like it's my behavior is equivalent. Prototyperspective repeatedly insults people and bludgeons every discussion he's involved in that has to do AI, but apparently it's a wash because I said one thing in an ANU complaint. There's always going to be some dumb cherry picked reason not to sanction someone when I report them but then I'll get blocked if I so much as blink in the wrong direction. Whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with some of what you've said (and with some of his criticisms of you), but if you want administrative action over behavior that is of concern to you, then you need to build the case rather than say you "don't feel like wasting the time" while asking administrators to spend theirs. - Jmabel ! talk 08:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: That's totally fair. I just don't have the time or energy to provide diffs for every thing he's said in the last year in relation to AI generated artwork. It's a super pain in the ass and takes a lot of time to find diffs for something that chronic. Plus there's already the exiting conversation on the village pump anyway. Cool if that's not enough though. All I can do is report someone on my end with the evidence I'm able to find and provide at the time.

•   Oppose any sanctioning of Prototyperspective. This is yet another case of Adamant1 escalating a garden-variety argument into an unnecessary conflict about a controversial subject with no intention of trying to back it up. Prototyperspective is not “bludgeoning” here; making 0.01% more comments than some arbitrary number is not “bludgeoning”. Making a few ad hominem attacks or whatever in the heat of the moment is not sufficient to sanction an otherwise productive user. What I see here is clear W:WP:BOOMERANG material, and I don’t use that term casually. Dronebogus (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
• P.S. @Adamant1: I think you are a productive user; however you have some serious, chronic problems with incivility, intolerance of different opinions and litigiousness. I feel like you’re importing the worst tendencies of Enwiki (where such behaviors are tolerated, particularly among high-ranking users) to Commons (where such behaviors are frowned upon by most regulars). The user problems board, unlike ANI, is not a place to vent in hopes of getting revenge for some perceived slight; it’s a last resort for users who are huge timesinks or have otherwise crossed a very clear line of acceptable behavior. Don’t be one of those users. Dronebogus (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Making 0.01% more comments than some arbitrary number is not “bludgeoning”. @Dronebogus: Sure, I'd agree if he had of only made 0.01% more comments than some arbitrary number. He made 12 comments and essentially every other comment is from him. That would certainly be bludgeoning if I was the one doing it. Plus like I said, there's a pattern of him doing the exact same thing in other discussions. The same goes for the ad hominem attacks. Again, it wasn't one comment made in the heat of the moment. He makes the same exact comments and acts the exact same way EVERY TIME there's a proposal having to do with AI generated artwork on here. Either you haven't looked into or your intentionally being disingenuous.

And yeah, I do think a chronic pattern of bad behavior in a specific area over a year warrants a block. Especially considering that he's already been warned and asked to stop doing it. I've certainly been blocked for way less myself. It's not my issue if you aren't willing to see past my screen name though. I have as much right to report a user for chronic bad behavior as anyone else does. It's not like you weren't the first one to report me a few months ago the second I was issues in deletion requests even though you've been reported and blocked almost as much as I have. I'm not out there wagging my finger at you about either. I could give a crap if report someone as long as they deserve it. So spare me the condescension and sanctimony. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No diffs = no evidence = no sanctions. I skimmed the discussion and then re-read it just now, and saw a lot of you two arguing, evidence you should probably both disengage. In any case citing one discussion is not sufficient. Without diffs you’re just casting aspersions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can guarantee you'd just make some other excuse about how I'm the one who should be sanctioned even if I did provide diffs. There's no amount of evidence that good enough for axe grinding opportunists like you. So I'm not wasting my time. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I try to give you advice and you insult me? When you’re trying to claim someone else is uncivil? I’ll be blunt: you need diffs, period. Otherwise drop this. If you continue just asserting your rightness with minimal evidence you will lose this case and possibly get sanctioned again. Dronebogus (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can say that, but where were the diffs and evidence when you got me blocked a few months ago huh? I asked for both repeatedly and no one provided any. You certainly didn't. So it's not even your own standard except when I'm the one reporting someone for some reason. You were more then fine with me being blocked based on essentially nothing though. I could care less, but I'm not going to provide diffs and evidence to you when you clearly wouldn't care about either one I was the one being reported here. That's why I said your an axe grinding opportunists BTW. You Clearly have no standards about this outside of piggy backing on and exploiting whatever benefits you at the time. It's not an insult. It's literally how you act, repeatedly, essentially every time we've interacted with each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the discussion you mentioned I provided 9 examples of your behavior from the get-go and added more later. You have provided 1, and it’s not even a good one. Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I actually mentioned three. The Insults, bludgeoning, and canvasing. Regardless, in the ANU complaint all you did was link to a couple of discussions and then made some vague assertion about how I don't care about deletion policy. That's not evidence of anything and nowhere did you provide any diffs, which is what we're talking about. It's literally no different then what I'm doing here either. Your just moving the bar and being disingenuous. Thanks for proving my point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mentioning is completely different than showing. I showed you didn’t seem to care about policy by linking to examples of you making DRs that violated said policy, which a bunch of users and an admin agreed showed problematic behavior. You just say provide one link that displays behavior that’s barely over the line, and then baselessly claim this is somehow a chronic problem. Here you have an admin looking at your “evidence” and shrugging. I’m simply agreeing with that admin. If you answer this with yet another “it’s not my fault”/IDHT type answer I will formally propose a boomerang against you. Dronebogus (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Borderman1993 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) is a new user who has uploaded multiple images without paying attention to copyright. I found them at Articles for Creation. I dream of horses (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done. User is warned, all uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Depending on which images you are referencing, I was granted permission to use them along with the several websites that freely use them across the internet. I requested the photographer to release the rights to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for clarity Borderman1993 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Borderman1993: I don't have time to look right now, but did you follow the instructions to mark them all with {{PP}} when uploading? - Jmabel ! talk 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Yousef kazemi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Kazemi1991 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Ykazemi1991 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Yousef_kazemi is blocked for a week due to uploading copyright files

Meanwhile account Yousef_kazemi is blocked use two new Sockpuppetry accounts "Kazemi1991" and "Ykazemi1991" and uploading copyright file again

these two Sockpuppetry accounts are blocked indefinitely

upon opening again uploading copyright files like this

please delete all uploads and block accounts indefinitely [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done No useful edit, blocked indef. Yann (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Reuploads File:TALCHER RAILWAY STATION.jpg again (see log). Has one prior block. Has also removed deletion templates on the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Technological Gyan despite warnings not to do so. This second block should probably be longer. Jonteemil (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Blocked for a month. All files deleted, except File:Old Talcher King Palace.jpg, which may be in the public domain, but lack information. Yann (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

This user has uploaded a bunch of football flags. The majority are very simple and I've changed their licenses to {{PD-simple}} using VFC. I do however need help with assessing the rest of the files.

Some of the flags, such as File:600px Culori Soligorsk.png and File:600px FK Madžari Solidarnost.png, use the simple background and a football in the middle, I don't know if these too are simple enough for {{PD-simple}} or if proof of free license is needed, if they aren't created by Lascorpion themself. One of these, File:600px Flag club FK Csíkszereda.png has a pending deletion request by RZuo.

Some of the flags, such as File:600px Flag club Ashanti Gold 1978.png and File:600px diagonal White background HEX-E60607 with head eagle.png, have some complex logo on the flags however not the official logos used by the clubs in question so I don't know if Lascorpion themself designed these logos or if they are taken from somewhere.

Some of the flags, such as File:600px Flag Randers FC.png and File:600px Flag Kaizer Chiefs.png, are blatant copyvios with the official logos of the respective clubs on the flags.

I was unsure if I should have posted this here or on COM:VPC so sorry if I chose the wrong one. Jonteemil (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I deleted some of the most complex files, and warned the user. Some of the flags are fictional, so are probably out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I think however there still are bunch of copyvios left. Jonteemil (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes probably. Please tag them. Yann (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay I tagged a bunch of files with {{Logo}} but of course some might be incorrect taggings. Jonteemil (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Keeps reuploading deleted files despite having been tagged with {{Dont recreate}}. Jonteemil (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done One more warning, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

FFelxii (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) is another user who's uploaded several copyrighted photos over several months. I dream of horses (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Comment The remaining files, which suspicious (small size, PNG) are not obvious copyright violations. I can't find copies on the Net, except for one. I warned this user. Yann (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply