Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 116

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

محمد شیرازی سلیمانی

Keeps uploading copyvios and also reuploads previously deleted copyvios, after having been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week and mass deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Dylam X

Violates {{Dont remove delete}} twice, one after having been given the warning. Both at File:احمد شفيق.jpg. Jonteemil (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Vanrammawii ralte

Obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Lilian231

Reuploads deleted content after warning. Jonteemil (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Given a final warning, and the images deleted. Regards, Aafi (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ykazemi1991

Yet another sock of Yousef kazemi, reuploading previously deleted files again. Jonteemil (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

People uploading multiple potentially copyrighted images

The last section got me curious if any of the "permission needed" images I've been tagging have had people uploading multiple potentially copyrighted images, slowly, for a period of time. For emphasis and clarity, I'm not talking about people who upload one or two images without sending permission. I found two said people:

I dream of horses (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done I warned them both. For Vanityorpride, that's enough, files are already tagged. Most of the files from Gregorcollins are probably not own works, and need checking, even if some might in the public domain for some reason. Yann (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
sorry to keep responding but - unlike vanity pride and others who are ignorantly and perhaps maliciously uploading un-owned work - I am actually commissioned by copyright owners and just happen to have time to put them all up at once. it was my fault i didn't write the necessary wording when i put them up on commons and i should not have done them all at once, hence the red flags. But please don't lump me into all these people who are out to worsen wiki. i'm here to help Gregorcollins (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
There's a misunderstanding. All those images i uploaded are not violations. I've already emailed the permissions at wiki commons to straighten it out. i'm here to make wiki better so uploading a non-copyrighted work would be nonsensical. i've gotten executor of wills and family who are owners of the work of all those photos to email them and straighten it out Gregorcollins (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate you doing your job and flagging me - but again, misunderstanding. Reason I'm uploading multiple at once because I just happen to have some time to update the pages and upload relevant photos. Again, these are all 80 year old photos that the family owns and has approved me to put them up. Again, please check with wiki commons, I have had them email them to straighten it out. Thumbs up Gregorcollins (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Gregorcollins: Hi, I repeat what I wrote to you on my talk page. OK, but you need to write better sources, authors, etc., and if you are not the author, we need evidence that the pictures are in the public domain. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Gregorcollins: For example, who is the photographer of File:RandV.png? If it's you, could you please import the original image with EXIF data? If not, we need teh formal written permission from the copyright holder. Idem for File:MariaRandySupremeCourt.jpg and File:Ferryboat2.jpg (which was published on the Internet before being uploaded here). Yann (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
i will find those. again, my library is not perfect and i will be more exacting with the copyrights. also, it's not clear because on wiki there is an option to choose if you don't know the author, that 'i got it off the internet' and there is a way to upload those with that option. i have had a couple that i uploaded under that category Gregorcollins (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewing all your files, it is clear that you copied images from the Internet, and wrongly attributed authors to you. Do not do that again, or you will be blocked. Yann (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
please note that there ARE INDEED images in my library that are rightfully attributed to me. I was a caregiver to many austrian figures and women who are like a treasure trove on wikipedia - it's one of the reasons why I feel lucky to be able to input productive info for future researtches - and so some of those pics i took myself with my own camera. but i agree there are likely some that aren't and i will NOT do that again so carelessly Gregorcollins (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Gregorcollins: I strongly recommend that you
  1. go back through your uploads and make sure everything has correct attribution and date (fixing as needed)
  2. for all uploads that are not your own work, either link a source that shows that the licensing is correct, give a clear rationale as to why this is public domain (e.g. if it is clearly pre-1929 U.S. work then {{PD-US-expired}} should suffice), or start the COM:VRT process.
  3. don't upload more third-party files until you have completed those steps for all of your past uploads of third-party files.
By "strongly recommend" I mean you are skating on thin ice here, in terms of possibly being blocked if you keep doing uploads like this. Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

user:Yurechkonazarii

User is on a censorship crusade, nominating things that aren’t even pornographic like File:Gay Sex - Jong & Out.webm, an educational video where gay men discuss sex. Dronebogus (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week (for a start). I also blocked 186.173.72.252, probably the same user. Yann (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
It seems this user was previously Special:Contributions/188.92.251.201. Yann (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Shirleybellmore

Shirleybellmore have reuploaded two of Shirleynude's previously deleted images. Based on that and the similar usernames sockpuppetry is very likely. Jonteemil (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Shirleynude is blocked, Shirleybellmore is warned. Yann (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: Should be the other way around I think. I wrote them in the wrong order in my original post, sorry for that.Jonteemil (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done OK, so I also blocked Shirleybellmore indef. These are also not selfies, so we would need the photographer(s)' permission. NOT HERE anyway. Yann (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Marianooss

Reuploads deleted copyvios by accounts PauRep and A3f8 which both are socks of the same master so one would assume Marianooss also is a sock. Jonteemil (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

See User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files for details. Jonteemil (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Marianooss and another sockpuppet and mass deleted uploads. Taivo (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring and unaterially closing a CfD by User:Orijentolog

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)

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)
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)

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

User:WeatherFollower

WeatherFollower (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  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)

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)

User1648

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

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

User:NuManDavid

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)

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)
@Jmabel: That seems appropriate to me. This user is wildly out of line. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
  •  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)
  • ✓ Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Also I closed the DR and deleted the file in question. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
Doubtful. I think the request should be undone. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

Upload file for promotional use

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

  • 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)
 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)

Charlesjsharp

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

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)

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)
@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)
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)
@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)
  • 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_Qvarnström#Discussion on deleting this article 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)
  •  Support a block for libelous comments, and per all above. --A.Savin 09:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  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)
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)
Methinks you are a bit agressive threating to block a fellow admin for having an opinion Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      Ya think. Wolverine XI 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
      '**** 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)
      How is this IP involved in any of this, if may ask? Wolverine XI 14:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • @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)
Yes --A.Savin 23:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Bedivere

Bedivere recognizes that deleting RAN's files was a mistake. I suggest caution towards each others files and edits, at least for some time. Yann (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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

I do not think that @Bedivere: should have access to admin tools. They are involved in a harassment campaign against me. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) where they nominated 423 of my uploads as revenge for reversing a single edit they had made. I am pinging @Andy Dingley: who wrote: "(targeted at any editor here) is the sort of action that raises very real concerns over the fitness of an admin". Now Bedivere has used their admin rights to delete more files after promising to disengage after my first complaints. Here is the new batch deleted out of process: File:Emile Kellogg Boisot (1859-1941) probate in The Pasadena Post of Pasadena, California on February 9, 1941.jpg File:Marion Boisot (1897-1990) and Byington Ford (1890-1985) engagement in The San Francisco Examiner of San Francisco, California on November 7, 1920.jpg File:Marion Boisot (1897-1990) engagement photograph in The San Francisco Examiner of San Francisco, California on November 7, 1920.jpg I don't think they have the level of maturity or the temperament to have access to admin tools, if they are using the tools for revenge and harassment. Is this the place to ask to their access to admin tool to be revoked? RAN (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

My actions were based on policy and were not personal or retaliatory. The files in question were reviewed and deleted according to Commons' guidelines, and I have always acted with transparency. If you believe my admin actions need review, I encourage you to follow the proper channels, but please refrain from making unfounded personal accusations and attacks. Thanks. Bedivere (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC) PS. You failed to notify me but I did read it on my watchlist.
The only thing that these files have in common is that they were uploaded by me. If you honestly felt that probate records were not "educational" you would have nominated the entire category. This all started because I reversed a single edit that you had made, and now you are using your admin tools to get revenge and harass me. You have also migrated your campaign to Wikidata to harass me there. And even left a message to recruit others to harass me. --RAN (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
While the logistics of that deletion request were poor (smaller nominations of closely related files would be better), you have provided no evidence either the (months-ago) DR nor these deletions were retaliatory. RAN, this is far from the first time that concerns have been raised about whether some of your Commons files and Wikidata items are in scope. I can hardly imagine why a newspaper clipping of a probate notice would be in scope. I would focus your energies on things like reducing the number of blatant copyright violations you upload, and perhaps find somewhere else to host things related to your ancestors. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Funeral notices in the United States are considered ineligible for copyright since they contain publicly available information, and are devoid of commentary that would meet the threshold of originality. The only thing these files have in common is that I uploaded them. --RAN (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
"Dear brother of...", "Eight adoring grandchildren"... "Beloved husband..." "Devoted father...". Sure, not creative at all. Bedivere (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
See: this search for the phrase "devoted father" appearing in funeral notices, it is a stock phrase used since the 1800s. These stock phrases were part of the reason that they were declared ineligible for copyright. The funeral director fills out a form with these phrases preprinted. If two people filled out the form, the contents would be identical. --RAN (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I was involved in at least a couple of DRs having to do with files uploaded by RAN. Along with a few deletion requests related to their personal genealogical on Wikidata. Plenty of people other then Bedivere have said what they are doing is out of scope on both projects. The only issue here is unwillingness to get the point and stop using Commons and/or Wikidata as a personal webhost. There's plenty of other websites out there for storing personal information about family members. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
These files might have been deleted by a DR. But they do not fall under any valid reason for CSD, and it is an abuse of the speedy deletion process to single-handedly delete them like this even if they are files we might decide to delete by DR. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I have restored the files mentioned above. Usually historical documents are in scope, and the reason provided is clearly not valid. Anyway, these are not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
What community consensus? It was first CSD'd by an uninvolved editor, CSD objected by none other than Greghendrson2006, then I nominated for deletion, and a third uninvolved editor questioned RAN's interpretation of "file in use". It's not just a matter of tallying up !vote counts. The very presence of objection to retention being raised means there's no solid consensus. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@Yann I am sorry but I am not reverting my closure. My decision was based on the solid proposal by @Graywalls, and my opinion in general is that historical documents are in scope but they should also have a potential use in Wikimedia projects. I'm all for genealogy as long as it is thoroughly documented in prose in a Wikipedia article, but most of the people who are the subject of RAN's and Greg's uploads are not notable and their only use corresponds to the Wikidata items they have created themselves. I am an avid genealogist myself, but I know my limits and know that Wikimedia Commons is not only not my personal webhost but that most of my ancestors and relatives are not worthy a Wikimedia Commons category or page, let alone have their photos and documents uploaded. I do understand your point of preserving historical documents, but what's the point of preserving materials that most likely will never have any use on Wikimedia projects (excepting the Wikidata items the uploaders themselves created for their non-notable relatives). If I was trying to be retaliatory or vindictive (for which reason anyway) against RAN or other people I would not be trying so actively to make them understand that their use of Wikimedia Commons is disruptive and it is not just my opinion but that of many other people. Greg and RAN both have the same behavior so I am not surprised they support each other's position in that DR and that's why I decided upon the basis of the nomination, whose arguments were not refuted by the commenters. And finally, it is not a vote, the decision was taken on the strength of arguments. Bedivere (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@Bedivere: That's bad decision, but worse, you shouldn't close the UDR when you deleted the file, and it is controversial. I am going to revert that. Yann (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1 to Yann, for UDR. Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion request was for the category, not the files though, but I don't mind having it restored. My point is already explained. Bedivere (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@Bedivere, you're pretty much wrong here. The undeletion request was not for the category alone. Regards, Aafi (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The UDR is now closed again. The reason why I undeleted the category fast was that the requestor had a valid reason to recreate it on their own, and it was easier to just restore it. I had to look at the other two separately. The ex libris was obviously in scope as a historical American example. The 1985 photograph of Boisot was definitely an edge case. If we were just looking at the photo, I could see why Bedivere deleted it. Putting it in context with the other media on Boisot though, I decided to undelete it as media that would be useful to local historians as Boisot did get press coverage in the society pages, and it compliments the other historical newspaper photograph we have of her. Abzeronow (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Well done @Abzeronow. Thanks Bedivere (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • That sounds good but the evidence is that the image was in use at the time of deletion per the file history. Commons:Project scope: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." --RAN (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    You continue to deliberately ignore the facts. You created the item so that the file was "in scope" here. The Wikidata items are linked from Commons and so they are "in scope" there. I could go and create some Wikidata items for some completely irrelevant neighbor of mine, upload a couple of photos, link them here and there and then pretend they are in scope on Wikidata and Commons. If that is not actively disrupting the projects (Commons and Wikidata), I don't know what is. Out of respect, and expecting somebody else to take the mop, I haven't taken more severe action against you and several others who have acted and continue to pretend me and others as fools. Fortunately, just today, some deletions have taken place on Wikidata and I am sure you can't call the deleting admin a retaliatory or vindictive one. Bedivere (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly. That's what we got on hand with extremely non notable people like run of the mill editor writing articles on their mom, dad, grandma, and grandpa, nephews, nieces, the houses they loved in, their pets, the businesses they started. Graywalls (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    RAN accuses anyone who disagrees with them of harrasement or being retaliatory. I hardly have anything to do with him myself but apparently I'm harrassing him just because I voted to delete a Wikidata item for one of his family members. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I do not accuse everyone of harassment There were over 280,000 active editors in August 2024, just one accusation of harassment here at Commons. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) where Bedivere nominated 423 of my uploads as revenge for reversing a single edit they had made. User:Andy Dingley wrote: "(targeted at any editor here) is the sort of action that raises very real concerns over the fitness of an admin". I think most people would agree that nominating 423 uploads after reversing a single edit would constitute harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 September 2024‎ (UTC)
    Go figure. Even on your Wikidata user page (where you have been blocked for creating items on non notable individuals, as you have done here without any sanction so far) you've called my actions harassment. Go figure. Bedivere (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Bedivere: I don't really support RAN's accusations, but in view of your inappropriate closure of RAN's requests on UDR, I can understand why he was angry. Now I propose that you refrain from nominating RAN's files for deletion for some time, and then we can close this thread. Yann (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    I did not nominate their files for deletion this time round. I deleted three of them as I thought they were out of scope. I was mistaken, apparently, and they were restored. The thread can be closed. Bedivere (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
He also deleted multiple photos that I uploaded. My friend created them and released them, and I supplied how they were marked with the YouTube CC-BY Marking. They were still deleted. See here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LordBirdWord LordBirdWord (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
George Micro has no rights to release these images under a CC-BY license on YouTube or anywhere. That is why other files were deleted before and that is why yours were speedily deleted too. Bedivere (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 39#User:Khiao do

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

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)

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

User:Fox de Quintal

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

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)

Pinging Yann and Abzeronow, who have both recently interacted with de Quintal. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@RodRabelo7: I will answer you on the WP en. Fox de Quintal (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@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)

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)

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


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)
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)
@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)
@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)

 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)

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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)

User:Vô Danh 69

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

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)

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

User:Funny Man 1999

Funny Man 1999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) 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)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, for a start. All reverted. Yann (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- blocks changed to indef per CU data. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

محمد شیرازی سلیمانی

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

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

Okukawachi

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

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

Kattoor2004

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

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

Grandmaster Huon

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

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What is such a plan? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I wanted some files to be deleted because they were percieved to violate copyright. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
OK, got it. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
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)

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)

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

Technological Gyan

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)

✓ 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)

Lascorpion

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)

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)
Thanks, I think however there still are bunch of copyvios left. Jonteemil (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes probably. Please tag them. Yann (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
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)

PancakeBoah

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

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

A user uploading copyrighted photos over several months

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

 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)

User:14.236.170.225

Dozens of frivolous copyright challenges; while some are obviously valid many if not most are not, and they edit-warred some of them back when admin User:Infrogmation removed them. Clear competence issues. Dronebogus (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked for 2 weeks by Pi Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit waring by User:Orijentolog

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.
Functionally resolved by Abzeronow. Nothing further productive is going to come of this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)


I reported User:Orijentolog several times a few weeks ago for edit waring. Multiple users support a block in the second complaint, but it was archived without action. Now they are doing the exact same thing and re-creating categories that were previously deleted by @Yann: . Category:Categories of Nushabad by subject being one of several. I suggested they do an undeletion request. Since there might be merit the category, but I think it should be discussed before being restored. They don't seem to care though and decided to edit war me instead. So I think they should be blocked since they have already been warned multiple times not to edit war people. Including by two admins and there was support for them to be blocked for the same behavior the last time I reported them. So their clearly unwilling to get the point and stop doing it. I'll also point out their uncivil comment in diff. Baseless accusing people of "ignorant vandalism" clearly goes against the civility guidelines and is yet another thing that he's already been told to stop doing. So he should either receive a final warning or be blocked since he's already been warned multiple times not to do either one again. Adamant1 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to your subjective ideas and destructiveness, the minority of categories were deleted. The vast majority was not. I'm restoring our Wikiproject in the original state, before you destroyed it over night. If a decision is made to rename all maintenance categories, it will be changed comprehensively either by me or admin, and until that time unification will be kept. Our country project should not be a victim of your destructiveness. IMHO you should be blocked permanently from this project, virtually everything you do is destroying and disputing. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The Wikiproject has nothing to do with and isn't dependent on the categories that were deleted. And they aren't "your" categories that no one outside of Iran can edit just because you live there and other people don't. It is against the rules to act xenophobic towards other users though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Please provide diffs, I don't see evidence of xenophobia, just hyperbole and frustration from them. Abzeronow (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: I don't have the time to look through every edit or conversation involved in this, but you can look at his first comment. "Our country project should not be a victim of your destructiveness." Also see his comment below this "Adamant1 knows well that I'm a member of Wikiproject Iran." As if that somehow makes his behavior legitimate and OK simply because he's a member of Wikiproject Iran and I'm not. Essentially his whole argument from the start of this is that I and a couple of other users who don't live in Iran and/or aren't members of Wikiproject Iran have no right to edit categories related to the country. He did the same thing with categories that don't relate to Wikiproject Iran in any way what-so-ever to BTW. Me and an admin edited a category for towers in Iran that had nothing to do with the project and he still edit warred us and made the same type of xenophobic arguments. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I've added admin-only protection to the category until this edit war is resolved. Logs only show that User:Yann deleted it after you speedied it, and I don't have context for the speedy deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: I don't have the time to find it right now because I have an appointment to get to, but I think there was a conversation about "category:Categories of" on Yann's talk page a week or two ago and why they are nonsense and should be deleted in a lot of cases. There's other conversations about it there to. Plus you can search for Orijentolog's user name on here to see the previous reports where they warned about edit waring. At least IMO the thing with "category:Categories of" is secondary to Orijentolog edit waring me over it. Although I think the speedy deletions were justified anyway. But that's not what I filed this for. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe @Yann: at least give his opinion about the specifics of the categories though. But I think Orijentolog should be warned or blocked for the edit waring and spurious accusations, xenophobic comments, insults, Etc. Etc. regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Adamant, speedy deletion should only be used for obvious cases. This doesn't sound obvious to me so a DR or a CfD should be done in cases where explanation is necessary. I have left Orijentolog a message reminding them to be civil. Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
It was an obvious case in the context of previous discussions about it. So I didn't feel the need to do a DR or CfD at the time. I can understand why it might not be an obvious case now after the fact though. So I'm fine doing a DR or CfD if you think that's the better way to go about it. Thanks for at least leaving Orijentolog the message about their incivility though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deleting those categories while Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Categories of cities of Iran is going on is a bad look for you. This may be another case of Orijentolog being right on the merits, but wrong on how they go about things. I'll wait to hear what Yann has to say though before I do anything else. Keeping Commons civil is part of my job so no need for thanks. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the category was speedy deleted before the CfD. I don't think the existence of a CfD means everything even slightly related to it should be automatically restored purely because the CfD exists either. Sure, there's no consensus yet to delete the categories, but there also isn't one to keep them and the default consensus before that was to delete them. So I really don't see what the issue is with re-deleting them. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I explained all on my talk page. Accusations here are baseless. Adamant1 knows well that I'm a member of Wikiproject Iran here for four years, so accusation of xenophobia is ridiculous, basically trolling. --Orijentolog (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Harrassement by User:Dronebogus

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.
Nothing productive is going to come of this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)


As people can see User:Dronebogus is currently on a cry bullying campaign against me in another ANU complaint. A few hours ago he left a rather bossy and rude message on my talk page. Which I responded to asking him not to leave message on my talk page again. He subsequently left another message here. I don't know what his specific issue with me is since I don't have anything to do with him normally or edit in the areas he does, but I think I have a right request people who are clearly attacking me in other venues not to leave messages on my talk page. Per the guideline "Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention...is not allowed. I made it pretty clear to Dronebogus that I don't want him to contact me on talk page. Adamant1 (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I was confused by what you meant by “psychic”. I’m apparently clairvoyant, which is apparently a bad thing? The best guess I can make is “psychotic” which is (yes) a personal attack, and a pretty serious one. I probably showed poor judgement in posting that message given context but it was about the most innocuous thing imaginable. Would you have started this thread if I said something similarly inane and harmless like “okay” or “sorry” because it technically constituted “unwanted contact”? Dronebogus (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
That's fine. You should of asked me to clarify it in the ANU complaint then instead of on my talk page when I asked you not to contact me on it again. I'm more then willing to clarify it in the ANU complaint if you want to bring it up there though, but that's not what this is about. And yes, I probably would have started this regardless. If your X wife asks you not to come her house anymore, you can't do it anyway and then act like it's cool because you were just taking the trash out to the curb or whatever. No contact means no contact. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
That’s an… odd metaphor. But this knee-jerk escalation is what I’m talking (and warning you) about. I used to be the same way, and now I’m de facto topic-banned from ANI. I’m only recommending a block because nothing else has changed your behavior. Last time you were blocked for a month (or two I don’t remember) and you fought it until your TP access was revoked. Do you really think going down that path again is a good idea, pragmatically speaking? Dronebogus (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how it's knee-jerk on my end. I asked you not to message me on my talk page. You did. So I reported you. This is 100% on you for not respecting the request. It's not on me that you don't know how to listen or that your trying to get me blocked in another ANU complaint, and I have absolutely nothing do with you leaving me the second talk page message. There's nothing saying I can't report someone for separate issues just because they are trying to get me blocked in another complaint either. Your the one going off on me about how I'm not willing to take reasonability for my actions. Yet here you are, blaming me for a message you left after I asked you not to contact me. Why not just admit to the mistake? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Dima2511000

As can be seen from the contributions history on commons, e.g.[1] and wikipedia, e.g.[2][3], Dima2511000 (talk · contribs) is a sock master operating Ernst August Prinz von Hannover (talk · contribs) and Príncipe Ernesto (talk · contribs) in an attempt to upload the same file repeatedly (File:Ernst August Prinz von Hannover.png, previously uploaded and deleted as File:Ernesto Augusto Príncipe de Hannover.jpg). Celia Homeford (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Добрый день я нашел этот File:Ernst August Prinz von Hannover.png,так как не было фотографии (этого File:Ernst August Prinz von Hannover.png) для википедии и так далее, решил добавить как фото для страниц википедии...Good afternoon, I found this File:Ernst August Prinz von Hannover.png, since there was no photo (of this File:Ernst August Prinz von Hannover.png) for Wikipedia and so on, I decided to add it as a photo for Wikipedia pages... Dima2511000 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Dima2511000: No, you stole it from https://www.flickr.com/photos/7132788@N07/1936327895   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Я не украл его с https://www.flickr.com/photos/7132788@N07/1936327895.просто так было,просто нашел этот файл:Ernst August Prinz von Hannover.png,так как не было фотографий (этого File:Ernst August Prinz von Hannover.png) для википедии и так далее, решил добавить как фото для страниц википедии...I didn’t steal it from https://www.flickr.com/photos/7132788@N07/1936327895.it was just the way it was, I just found this file: Ernst August Prinz von Hannover.png, since there were no photos (of this File: Ernst August Prinz von Hannover.png) for Wikipedia and so on, I decided to add it as a photo for Wikipedia pages... 178.66.157.244 11:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Please also note that this user is blocked on both the Russian and German wikipedias for copyright infringement. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: They are now globally locked and IP globally blocked.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Rechtman

Another person (Rechtman (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)) uploading multiple images without permission in an effort to illustrate an article/draft. I dream of horses (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done There is not much doubt that the pictures taken with a smartphone are own works. However the scans of several documents are not own works, and require more information: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rechtman‎. User warned. Yann (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Lazuitt

Reuploads the same file after warnings. Jonteemil (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef., clearly NOT HERE. Yann (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

A user uploading potentially copyrighted images

Borderman1993 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) 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)

✓ Done. User is warned, all uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
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 [email protected] for clarity Borderman1993 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
@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)
@Borderman1993: it has been several days and you have not answered. Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Smartiperson

Smartiperson (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has uploaded multiple images without permission. I found them while AfC patrolling. I dream of horses (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your notification. I am keen to comply with Wikipedia policy’s, and in support of my article creation will endeavour to obtain and supply the required copyright permissions.
Having read through the Wikipedia guidelines, I am confused about one related point: it is stated that direct permission is required for material that is not “already in the public domain”. The images I have supplied are photographs I have taken of board game elements which are old (circa 1970, so more than 50 year old) and images already exist in many places across the internet and beyond. Hence I believe this would classify as “already in the public domain”. Never-the-less, I will seek permissions, though at this point I wonder how many original owners are still contactable, and certainly within the requested 7 days Smartiperson (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore, I believe the following Wikipedia information applies:
This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work:
To illustrate the subject in question
Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights. Smartiperson (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Smartiperson: That's a fair use rationale, and it is not accepted on Commons. And copyright can last much longer than 50 years. Please read COM:L and COM:DW before uploading anything else on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the further explanation. The reason why I am confused is the above text I have copied from a similar Wikipedia article and image, for the ‘formula one’ board game. It seems this use is acceptable in that case, hence I am seeking a similar outcome in this case for the Exploration board game. Smartiperson (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Smartiperson: Fair use is accepted on the English Wikipedia, but not on Commons. Yann (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
ok, then I agree that these images should be removed and deleted from Commons. I would do that myself, but I can't see a way for me to do that Smartiperson (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
You can't. Only admins can. A09 (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Enmanuelgac

The user continues to upload images hosted on copyrighted sites, already blocked twice. Taichi (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef. I think this user has been sufficiently warned before. Yann (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

User:きよりん

Repeatedly uploading copyvios. --Krorokeroro (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files already deleted. Yann (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Lies, abuse and edit warring by User:Broichmore

Broichmore (talk · contribs)

I have received a number of abusive and hostile messages on my talk page from User:Broichmore regarding some of my good faith edits here on Commons, primarily regarding to British military images and categories. Broichmore then complained to Admin, presumably because he refused to accept and understand that British English grammar is different from American English, and as part of his previous complaint to Admin, he blatantly lied about me (he stated that I had received multiple warnings about my conduct here on Commons - when that is factually not true). When I previously replied to Admin, and advised Admin that Broichmore had lied about me - Broichmore then replied with sarcastic and caustic comments about me - and arrogantly refused to accept that British English grammar is different. Broichmore has also lied that my changes to British military categories (which only he has an issue with) is somehow being destructive to the entire Commons wiki. Broichmore is leaving sarcastic and caustic edit summaries[4] (more than 200 such examples, which is very clearly systemic abuse). When I restored the British English grammar version, Broichmore immediately reverts again.

The specific category concerned is Category:People of the Royal Navy, which I moved to Category:Royal Navy people – because not only is the latter correct grammar, it is also identical to the grammar, sentence structure, and file naming used by the Royal Navy, along with official British military photographer accounts from various ships, stations, regiments, and other military units of all three branches of the British Armed Forces, along with Defence Imagery from the UK Ministry of Defence.

I would appreciate advice on this issue, thanks. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As an addendum, Broichmore is now adding yet more lies that I am "vandalising the project" (meaning he is accusing me of vandalising the entire Wikimedia Commons) - which is rather outrageous! Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
First this user is talking about the problem first mentioned here. This user doesn’t get how this project works, he refuses to apply for consensus on any major category changes. I start to wonder, if he even has the objectivity to realize what he's looking at. Perfectly good cats, a decade or more old without any complaint, changed without any warning.
Most of the cat changes he makes, are not contentious because they are off the beaten trail, but here, he has blundered into one that is a hot, and popular one. People of the Royal Navy, conforms with how it’s done here at Category:People.
He proclaims full knowledge of the conventions of British English", when he clearly doesn’t. British English? There are thousands of cats here, that begin with People, it’s an unwelcome exception for them, not to.
Presumably when first created this tree of cats was designed to follow alphabet progressions, in this case file under P, without forcing ‘’sort’’.
Here, we follow the conventions of Wikimedia commons", not British(sic) english.
Until he has served an apprenticeship, in the ordinary mundane catting of images, he shouldn’t be relying on hot cat for the majority of edits the way he does.
Anyone who supports and creates a cat like Category:Navy in 1912 by navy, should not be making major cat changes to the likes of People of the Royal Navy This, as a precedent, opens the door to restructuring one of the major cats on the project. Broichmore (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

PikminLover4587 (talk · contribs)

Just for the record: I've indef'd this self-proclaimed longterm-abuser (User:PikminLover4587) and sockpuppet of User:Hydrocity Zone after they made threats to me and to another user and vandalized a file. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I've revdel'd everything for good measure. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 11:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I revoked TPA/e-mail for another good measure. Regards, Aafi (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Account now globally locked. SHB2000 (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Drjksa0

Keeps uploading out of scope files after having been tagged with {{Project scope}}. Jonteemil (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month, uploads nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Bubba73 (talk · contribs)

This user keeps overwriting existing files using AI upscaled images even after they got a warning on their talk page in May 2024. - Sebbog13 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sebbog13: I only see two possible AI upscales since then - one in June and one in July (the latter his own work). I've reverted both, but I don't see how this is an administrative issue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I was told that I should go here, after the user already was warned. - Sebbog13 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The Junior Wells one is my own photo. Why can't I upload an improved version of my own photo? The Janis Ian one - I made a bad color correction years ago and was fixing my error. What is wrong with that? Bubba73 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
@Bubba73: Putting aside that AI upscaling inherently reduces accuracy and tends to reduce quality, overwriting a non-AI image with an AI upscale is explicitly against COM:OVERWRITE. If you want to use AI upscaling (which I advise against), upload that version as a new file please.
@Sebbog13:  Not done I don't see a need for admin action if it's only two files and they haven't continued to do it after being warned. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
They did continue to do it after being warned, and it's more than two files. - Sebbog13 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Except for that Janis Ian file in which I did a bad color correction and was trying to fix my error, I've only done it to improve my own photos. I'm just trying to make things better. Bubba73 (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ashishkumarpate, et al

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done User acounts blocked indef and IP socks for one month. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
@Morgankevinj: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Crimsonalfred2022 sockpuppet and probable copyvios again

Crimsonalfred2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Crimsonalfred2022 is another sockpuppet of blocked user Masry684, as already shown in this SPI back in July that concluded with their block on the English Wikipedia. They've also been blocked at least twice before for copyvios (see here and here), and since then they've uploaded a few more images from the web without proper evidence of compatible license, such as this and this (from [5] and [6], respectively). I had already mentioned this sockpuppet, alongside another, in a previous report here, which I thought had resulted in their block but I now realize that only one of the sockpuppets in that report was blocked at the time. Now that they're active again (as of September 28), a block seems overdue. R Prazeres (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support block per OP; though on an unrelated note I don't think this is SRG-worthy since they are still in good-standing on arwiki. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Tuvalkin

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

I'd like admins' attention to determine if this is acceptable conduct. Nardog (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Agreed. It had been a first occurrence, I would have blocked Tuvalkin for 2 weeks, but there is a looong block log, so it seems that previous blocks weren't sufficiently long. Yann (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I've got to sadly agree – it's a shame it got to this point, but they dug their own grave here. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Zivkagobelic

Zivkagobelic (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has uploaded a few deletable photos. Pretty mild, admittedly. I dream of horses (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned. Yann (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

DevonSchwartz

DevonSchwartz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploaded the same file (or, at best, two files with the same name) twice. I dream of horses (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Deleted the file as copyvio. It's quite different from the prior upload, so no action needed on that front. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Insults, bludgeoning, and canvasing around AI generated media by Prototyperspective

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)

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

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)

@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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@Dronebogus: I'll say this and then drop it on my end. There was you, a few people who were lying and axe grinding because I nominated a couple of their images for deletion, and an admin who clearly on a power trip (and I say that because he said as much when subsequently chewed my ass out in private emails for no reason). At the end of the day it's not that hard to get someone blocked by repeatedly lying about them until an admin comes along who gets off on blocking people.
Here's the thing though, the fact is that I work in an extremely wide area of subjects on here and quit of them are either controversial to begin with or the guidelines around them are very unclear. And I get an almost endless amount of insults, threats, and harassment over it. 99% of the time nothing is done about it though and I just have to sit with a big grin on my face while being endless barraged with xenophobic, insulting bullshit since there's essentially zero point in reporting people for it. It what it is. The difference is that I'm not out there lecturing you about how to act or saying you should be blocked when you report people to ANU. Your only doing it me for some reason, and I don't even have anything to do with you or the areas you edit in. So It comes off like weird, stalkerish nonsense. I'm not going to say anything else about it outside of that, except your behavior is bordering on harassment at this point. But I'm done with this on my end. Maybe find someone else to have a weird obsession with. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I really don’t know what any of that is supposed to mean, but this is exactly what I warned you not to do. Dronebogus (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

W:WP:BOOMERANG for Adamant1?

Adamant1 is indefinitely topic banned from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages, with the following exceptions: 1) to defend himself against proposed sanctions; 2) to appeal existing sanctions; or 3) when his participation is solicited by another user in good standing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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

This whole report seems like drama-mongering and over a non-issue. Normally I’d just let something like this drop but Adamant1 is both unwilling to back up their accusations, thus casting aspersions, and is continuing a pattern of incivility and W:WP:IDHT behavior that they were sanctioned for roughly two months ago. They were also warned in August that their behavior and continual presence on this board is undesirable. Their general behavior was also criticized during this discussion, also very recent. And while they continuously assert I have an axe to grind with them, they nonetheless left a vindictive and uncivil remark in a discussion about me when I was unable to respond due to being blocked. There’s probably more evidence out there but it’s pretty clear Adamant1 just doesn’t play nicely with other users. Dronebogus (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Jmabel: to get an administrative opinion Dronebogus (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
My perspective on this whole situation is that Adamant1 has clear civility issues. How do I know this? Well, this user is prone to becoming angry easily, placing blame on others, forming their own assumptions and fiercely defending them, as well as harboring grudges. I have no idea how you guys put up with this behavior for so long. This user also has a tendency of turning even the simplest arguments into a maze of blatantly rude and pointless comments. The excessive use of curse words (particularly the f bomb) is quite concerning. This individual, as was previously indicated, has a tendency of placing blame on others and fabricating tales of how everyone is against them or is wrong, and how they are always right. To put it mildly, it annoys me much. Based on their behavior in this thread and many others, numerous people, myself included, feel that this user has severe issues with civility and treating others with the decency one would expect from a colleague. Although the boomerang was aimed for Prototyperspective, it seems like the intended target was completely missed. In summary, I observe two people arguing, and the person accusing the other of being uncivil is actually being even more uncivilized, which is hypocritical. As Dronebogus indicated above, it is also problematic that you are constantly on this board. I hope the user's response is helpful, however at this point I might as well support an admin action against Adamant1 if the community approves. That concludes my comment. Wolverine XI 21:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
@Wolverine XI: Swearing is Permissible --Adamant1 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: You don't get it, do you? Of course, I am well aware that swearing is permissible, heck, why do you think I would use a curse word here? The thing is that your use of curse words comes across as very rude and aggressive. It's pretty evident to me that you aren't even reading the pages you're linking, because in the first paragraph it literally states that They are rarely encouraged, because while they may not be uncivil, they also seldom foster an environment of civility, but there are many times where their use is not considered objectionable by the community.. Kindly refrain from using such pages as an excuse for your impolite behavior. Wolverine XI 07:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Anything that isn't me showing 100% sycophantic adoration towards the user I'm talking to at the time is aggressive on here. I can't even disagree with someone in the most pointed, moderated way without being accused of being rude and arguing. Just to be clear though, I wasn't using the guideline to as an excuse for my impolite behavior, but your the saying I should be blocked and if your going to do that then it should be based on something that's actually against the rules. Not just patently false claims that I excessively swear when I don't and it's not even against the guidelines to begin with anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
 Support Yes, I believe you should be blocked, not only for your inappropriate use of swear words, but also for the concerns I've raised in my original comment. Wolverine XI 14:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Wolverine: I think I've only cussed 4 times in like the last months. I'm totally willing to cut that down to twice a year or something if your that triggered by the F word though. I know everyone has their own little special things they can't handle on here. In this case a simple message on talk page about it probably would have been sufficient, but whatever. I don't personally have a problem with it and again, its not against the rules But I'm totally fine with curbing it if you want me to. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I really wish Adamant1 would just lay back a little and take it easier. Yes, he has a combative style. Conversely, he always seems to have the good of the overall project in mind and is less inclined to personal attacks than at least one of the others who has written in this thread, who I also would not like to see blocked.
I oppose block here, but @Adamant1: you make it really hard for your defenders. You really should try to stick for a while to being productive in less controversial ways. Don't take on big overhauls: you've rubbed way too many people the wrong way. Take a break from asking for sanctions against other people: suck it up now and then.I know that is not what you want to hear, but you have not been good at reading the room.
If there is a block here, I hope it allows for appeal after some amount of time, and I hope it comes with an (unusual) condition that it is fine for Adamant1 to continue communicating with those of us who wish to be in touch with him, and that it is OK for users to choose to do things at his suggestion. If people really think he is so disruptive that he cannot be allowed to edit here, fine, but from what I can see his intentions have been entirely good, and this should in no way be punitive. Jmabel ! talk 12:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, just in the archives of this board, the above mentioned threads from July 2024 (1, 2) and August 2024 were far from the first time that users have brought up such problems with Adamant1's behavior here. E.g. the following past comments (each from a different user who was not involved in those more recent exchanges AFAICS) seem to also describe the current problems quite well:
  • This user has a problematic behavior, repeatedly going for personal attacks ([7], [8]) when actions are contested, notably creating a large number of disruptive deletion requests about FOP in Belgium. I am not the only one thinking that this is a problem. (April 2024)
  • As usually, Adamant1 doesn't see what the issue is, and is willing to put up walls of text to explain why he's not the problem but everyone else is (April 2024)
  • excessively hostile and condescending. (August 2023)
  • User consistently applies a definition of civility that is at odds with what everybody else understands it to mean, and displays a general attitude of bad faith day after day. (August 2022)
This list of examples is non-exhaustive. It seems evident that many previous requests to Adamant1 to change their problematic behavior (including Kritzolina's extensive administrative communications with them in July), and the three previous blocks for related issues, have not resulted in sustained improvements.
In particular, while I'm not familiar with the detail of the current controversy, I find it especially concerning that once again Adamant1 is resorting to making up false quotes [9] to get their way in conflicts with other users. This was also part of the problems that led of Adamant1's last block in July, as I detailed here and here (regarding cases where Adamant1 was misquoting Commons policy rather than other users' comments). These examples also make it clear that the problems are not confined to mere civility issues in the sense of an unfriendly tone.
Adamant1 has openly stated that their problematic behavior (which they trivialize as being a "bad communicator") is due to a particular mental health condition. While I do think that as a community we should try to accommodate neurodiverse (and culturally diverse) users, that can only go so far, and support for one user with such problems can not come at the expense of so many other users' time and mental health. I would encourage considering a permanent block.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I have a laundry list of mental health issues and I don’t know what condition has the symptoms of “cannot obey simple policies like refraining from calling everyone a fartknocker for 3 seconds”. Dronebogus (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: Didn't you say you have OCD or something an ANU complaint about your behavior once? Also, I have no clue what your talking about with the fartknocker thing since I don't think I've ever used that term before. Let alone do I call people names every 3 seconds. Or really at all for that matter. I'd ask for diffs since I'm kind of interested in where you came up with it, but you clearly only care about diffs and evidence when I'm the one filing the report. So I'm not going to waste my time. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
“Fartknocker” was a joke about incivility. I wanted to use something more innocuous than “idiot” or “asshole”. It wasn’t meant to be a literal thing. Yes I do think I mentioned OCD making it hard to disengage, but you having autism doesn’t somehow make it impossible to follow policy like “don’t be rude to people constantly” “don’t nominate in-use files for deletion” or “provide evidence of misbehavior”. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: Cool. Where did I call anyone an “idiot” or “asshole” then? Be my guest and provide some diffs. All I'm asking is you to do is follow your own standard here. And as to the autism thing, I made an off comment about it on my talk page once after I was already blocked. Nowhere have I ever brought it up as an excuse to not follow policy or used it as one. At least not that I'm aware of and it's not against the rules to for someone to simply mention that they have autism. Otherwise, again, provide some diffs where I used it as an excuse for anything. In the meantime, per Universal Code of Conduct "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves: People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves." So it's perfectly within my right to say I have autism if I want to. It's not within yours to verbally abuse, attack, disparage me over it though. So be my guest and provide some diffs where I ever used it as an excuse to not follow policy. Otherwise I think you should drop this and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus:  Support. Neurodiversity is not an excuse for IDHT behavior.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Just an FYI, but one of the reasons I reported Prototyperspective originally was because of how he treated you for not providing a reason for your vote in the Village Pump discussion. I guess that's on me for caring about how other users are treated, or more specifically how you are. Lesson learned I guessed. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Don’t “help” people who didn’t ask for it. If Jeff G didn’t see a problem you didn’t have to get offended for him. Dronebogus (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
You seem to have a real problem trying to control people for some reason. I'll do whatever I want to thanks. You don't get to dictate what I do or who I do things for on here and Jeff G is free to respond to his own replies if he wants to. Thanks though. No offense or insult, but your behavior is borderline psychotic. I think you need to take a step back from this and ask yourself if really worth it or not. I certainly don't see anything that isn't just more of the same unsubstantiated axe grinding nonissue nonsense that people usually report me over. Your free to play the odds here, but I highly doubt an admin will block me just because I made an off hand comment once about being autistic. So I think it would be in everyone's best interest for you to just drop it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that you are helping your case with the two comments above. Your response to Jeff is a form of Guilt tripping, and as for Dronebogus, you may not have called them a "fartknocker", "idiot" or "asshole", but saying they are "borderline psychotic" is just as bad as fartnocker/idiot/asshole. I think you'd do yourself a big favor and make communication more pleasant for all sides (including yourself) if you'd try to avoid cussing and profanity all together. Of course that would still not prevent stuff like guilt tripping but at least it would decrease the chances of escalation, and if there's no escalation, then there'll be maybe also no feeling like you'd need to resort to such measures as guilt tripping. Maybe it might also be worth trying to not "label" people. Fartknocker/idiot/asshole/psychotic are all labels for people. Nakonana (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus:  Support Since I have not been reading here for very long, I have tried to understand his behavior by reading the past discussions and also to understand the background since the last dispute with the user last month. It seems to me that he misuses factual arguments to cover up his lack of communication skills with arrogant and cynical behavior. You can ignore it for a while, but I think it's reached a point where something administrative should happen now.--Cookroach (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The insults aside, where exactly did I do that? (BTW, this is yet another example of the two faced double standard people like Dronebogus and Jeff G. have. It's totally cool if someone calls me arrogant and cynical, but I should be blocked for making an offhand comment that I'm autistic once. Right). --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
No not this: "...an offhand comment that I'm autistic once." is the reason, but the missing reflection on your communication behavior. This led your factual arguments (right or wrong) ad absurdum and makes it appear arrogant. Obviously, I wasn't the only one who felt this way, so can't an insult but a statement. You're scaring with it away long-time users as well as newcomers and making the community look like a quarrelsome bunch.--Cookroach (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I just told Wolverine that I'm more then willing to the swearing if they have an issue with it even though its not against the rules to cuss and I think I've only used the F word four times in the last six months. I'm totally to moderate or change specific things about how I communicate if you or anyone else wants to point out actual examples. What I'm not going to do is just here with a big grin on my face and nod in agreement while I'm baselessly being called arrogant or getting attacked for saying I'm autistic though. Sorry. I really don't see how either one of those things encourage newcomers either. Especially people with neurodivergent issues. The standard only ever applies to me and my behavior for some reason. People like you and Dronebogus can sit here and act like condecending, insulting cry bullies all day long and that's cool. But the second I defend myself then I should shut up and take it because I'm turning people off from contributing. I have absolutely no issue what so ever with changing specific things about how I interact with people if you or anyone else wants to give actual examples though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

IMHO Adamant1 should be permanently blocked from this project. His destructiveness in unbearable. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  • For clarification I’d like to state I support an indefinite block here. Adamant1 can’t be bothered to provide a minimum of 2 diffs but everyone else provides mountains of evidence and it’s still not (and will never be) enough for them. The closest we get to an acknowledgment is “I will not swear so much” which is a tiny symptom of a huge mess of intractable behavioral problems that have been listed and described ad nauseam. Dronebogus (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear since your apparently didn't get it the first time, I'm more then willing not do anything else that people want to point out. I don't just don't think the specific thing on your end about how I should be blocked because I said I'm autistic has any merit to it. You wrongly seem to be under the impression that just because I think certain criticism are either meritless or to vague for me to do anything about that it means all criticism of my behavior are invalid. That's certainly not the case though. There's certainly been some fair criticism of how I've acted in the past. I just think that someone should be blocked for saying their autistic or that vague handwaving that I'm arrogant are really worth my time though. Let alone is there anything I can change about those things. I mean, I guess I could stop saying I'm autistic if it send you into that much of a rage, but it seems like more a "you" at that point. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi, autistic administrator here. Autism is not a "get out of jail free" card. There is a certain standard of behavior that all users are held to, whether it be autistic, allistic, neurotypical or neurodiverse. I've stated in the past my opinion that you tend to be argumentative to your own detriment, and I think you are a valuable contributor, but even with your challenges, you should be able to know at some point when to stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. I really don't like it when people use their autism diagnosis to counter when people are trying to hold them accountable. (I don't know if that's the case here however). Abzeronow (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I totally agree. Which I why never used my autism that way. Nor would I. I simply expressing to admin who left me a message on my talk page that it causes me communication issues sometimes. Nowhere have I said it is an excuse or reason for anything outside of that. Let alone have I ever said complaints about my behavior are invalid because I have autism. Quite the opposite actually. I'm sorry if you or anyone else got that the impression that I using it for as excuse for anything or to dismiss people's opinions though. That certainly wasn't my intention. I think that's the only time I've ever brought it up and certainly have no plan on doing so again regardless if people are just reading to much into it or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I can understand why people are fed up. Using the F word 4 times in 7 years is totally disgusting and egregious. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
It has next to nothing to do with that. You’ve just latched onto that detail for no particular reason. Dronebogus (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can understand in retrospect why this and the ANU complaints preceding might come of as tendentious. I actually don't report people to ANU that much, but clearly three ANU complaints within a couple of days of each other is overkill and I am here a lot more then even I'm comfortable with when the amount of reports other people open about me is factored into it. So I'm more then willing to at least take break from it on my end for the foreseeable future. It's an admins call to make if a topic ban or anything else is warranted, but if I am topic banned from ANU though I will just stop contributing completely. I'm sorry if me opening this or anything else involved with it caused needless drama though. That was and never is my intention.
The same goes for the comment about having autism. I didn't bring it to excuse my behavior, but I can see why Dronebogus, Jeff G., or anyone else might have gotten that impression. I'd probably have the same response. So I apologize to them and anyone else who was offended by me bringing it up. I'm 100% reasonable for how I act regardless of having autism or anything else.
I can be defensive and over forceful about my opinion sometimes. Again, that's 100% my issue and I make no excuses for it. I'm much more friendly and willing to change my opinion if or when people message me about my talk page. Anyone who has a problem with me or anything I've done is free to do that. I'm more then willing to change or alter anything about how I do things as long as the criticism is reasonable and actually doable. If anything here or anywhere rises to the level of a block or topic ban though. Fine that's totally on me, and again I'm sorry if anything I've said or done here or anywhere else caused needless drama or upset anyone. I'm going to at least not file ANU complaints that aren't fully backed up by adequate enough evidence going forward since it's clearly a time suck otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support a block, or some specific restriction on community discussions. This user's battleground approach to certain disagreements is discouraging and a timesink, when it happens. This comment, which caused an admin to shut down discussion on a CfD, is textbook COM:UNCIVIL. Adamant says above that they'd be willing to change their behaviour as long as the criticism is reasonable, but it's not clear from that whether they consider the civility concerns raised by this boomerang to be reasonable. --Belbury (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Adamant1 is clearly bludgeoning this discussion (again, not a term I throw around lightly) and they’re doing no-one any favors, not least of all themself. They should probably be forced to disengage (i.e. someone should block them from this page already). Dronebogus (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Out of the roughly 3200 people who have edited this page since 2014, according to this page, Adamant1 has made the 4th most edits and added the 4th most text to this page... and all of that since just 2021. It's too much. I'm not saying they're always wrong (or even usually wrong), but the above competition to see who can bludgeon more in a discussion about bludgeoning, presented with almost no evidence, is a good example of why many people's patience is worn thin. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User:JesseWx

JesseWx (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a new user that multiply duplicate of File:13L 2024 path.png with wrong or prospective data. All his images should be deleted and he should be warned by an administrator. Pierre cb (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

After elimination, he keeps reloading those image and should be blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

MrRobot211

Continuous copyright infringment. He uploads the same picture again and again either as File:Natalia Morari 2024.jpg or File:0P5A1703.jpg. It is very likely CoI editing, per his comments on the latest upload and the fact that Mrs. Morari is a candidate in the presidential elections in Moldova. Strainu (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Taivo! You might also want to delete the latest upload under Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 (see previous deletions for details). Strainu (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Mahdiye amjadi

Mahdiye amjadi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has been uploading multiple images without permission. They're a new user, so a warning would probably suffice. I dream of horses (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
hello dear
Firstly could you please tell me what do you mean by informal in my draft because I thought I used good words writing it .
Tel me how to fix that please:/
and second
I am a little bit confused and this artists pictures are all over the internet and his Instagram Mahdiye amjadi (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I emailed the permission administrator
I checked with the artist and said im a fan and he was ok about me creating his draft here
I joined Wikipedia just for him
I had the chance to visit him once he is a great artist but as i said his pictures are really available for everyone Mahdiye amjadi (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wonderfulearth

The user insists on uploading images from Facebook, including some with copyright infringement, license laundering, despite multiple warnings in his userpage and multiple requests for deletion. Taichi (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thedogishere931

Thedogishere931 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded multiple copyright violations over several months. --I dream of horses (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Sheikh Mart / Sheikh Ltd

Likely sockpuppetry given similar username and both have uploaded File:Sheikh Rayhan.jpg, see log. Jonteemil (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Sock blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Eric Martz

Eric Martz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploaded a bunch of unfree/potentially unfree files five years ago, and just did it once more. I dream of horses (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: You have to inform users when you report them here. Yann (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
@Yann You know I'm usually good at that, so thanks for the reminder. I dream of horses (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment by User:Eric Martz: The only file I uploaded to wikimedia in 2024 is a photograph that I took of the person in the biography I wrote about wikipedia:Edward Stinson Brown, Jr.. I explained that in the upload. The issue 5 years ago is that I did not understand the need to submit documentation that I owned the photographs that I uploaded. Either I took them, or my father (deceased) took them and I am his heir. I respect the rules of Wikipedia and I try hard to follow them. Eric Martz (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yugoslovakia/反共抗獨光復民國

Contacted me on my talk page on an undisclosed alt after I explicitly told him not to contact me again. (Me warning him, telling him to leave me alone the first and second time.) ReneeWrites (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Tried to remove his entry from ANU, see this edit. ReneeWrites (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the first for a week and Yann blocked the second indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done I reblocked Yugoslovakia indef. for abusing multiple accounts, as it is actually the newest account. [10] is specially telling. Yann (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Kri1974kri

Keeps reuploading deleted files after having been tagged with {{Dont recreate}}. Also some really interesting license choices on their newly uploaded files, that seem incorrect. Jonteemil (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Taivo. Yann (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Turqay Ahmad

Keeps reuploading deleted files after having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Erickpérez596

The user has been uploading movie logos for months, and apparently he has gotten carried away with the uploads, reaching images that clearly fall under fair use and exceed the threshold of originality. Despite the warnings for weeks, he continues to upload massively to this day with clear copies with an adulterated license. Taichi (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this user has been too lax, but I can't completely blame them as a lot of the logos they have uploaded are in fact, less creative than the File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg, which was declared to fail the US ToO. So maybe they should be more careful but I can understand where they are coming from - of all the images you just nominated, none of them clearly fail the US ToO, at worst they slightly exceed it. They should be more careful though. They used to incorrectly label things own work but it seems they have gotten better about this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
The situation may have initially been that the user started with real {{PD-text}} logos, but in the last weeks he has been moving towards more complex designs and even as in File:Wonka Movie Logo.png, despite being deleted, he uploads them again with the altered license. Taichi (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Hm, that is an issue, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
 Not done. You warned the user and after that Erickpérez596 has no activity. If he will continue, then he can be blocked. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

CMF12315

Keeps uploading copyvios after given last warning. Jonteemil (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A1Cafel and hostile behaviour towards Flickr original sources

A1Cafel is banned from using Flickr2Commons, to be implemented via Special:AbuseFilter/208. They may continue to use other means to import files created by others, but if that turns out to be problematic, appropriate measures can be taken. No consensus on a site ban at this time. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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

A1Cafel 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)

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)
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)
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)
@Bidgee, Did you find some diffs? -- Ooligan (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
[11][12] Nakonana (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
"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)
  •  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)
  •  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)

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)

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)
During this most recent unblock request here:User talk:A1Cafel/Archive 13#Unblock request, @Mdaniels5757 wrote "Thank you for your thoughtful unblock request. I'm leaning towards granting it. Before I do, however: there is still a section on your talk page, "Request: Please, name files with good file names, before you upload", that I think deserves a response. Please do so (and I expect you to respond to these sorts of things in the future; this is part of communication)."
  • This referenced Talk Page section is here: User talk:A1Cafel/Archive 13#Request: Please, name files with good file names, before you upload., where A1Cafel made this promise: "I will make use of the "Prefix selected names" function to added meaningful filenames before uploaded. Even I missed it, I will submit a file rename request to change it." [exact quote] This Unlock request related written "promise" has not been kept. Complete disregard for their own promise to the unblocking Admin and other Commons volunteers.
  • After A1Cafel promised to do this on 22 May 2024, over 500 photo files have been uploaded that- as of today- still have meaningless file names [13]. Also, no file rename requests have ever been submitted for these as promised.
  • This is relevent, because it shows that A1Cafel's most recent promise has not been kept. My review of these uploaded files with meaningless names, since the May 2024 Unblock Request, shows a serial non-compliance with at least one of the terms for granting the unblock request. -- Ooligan (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
 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)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Washington School for the Deaf, entrance mural, July 2020.jpg. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
 Support indef. block, net negative, as in the last one. Strakhov (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
 Support indefinite block. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support indefinite block without the right to review in order to protect Commons's integrity once and for all as per Strakhov. They had their chance, didn't take advantage of it, and let this serve as a lesson for future trolls who try to subvert the project with their long-term abuse. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
    I’m getting punitive justice vibes from this, which as you probably know is not the point of blocking. We don’t “make an example” of people, especially a user who just seems to veer more towards the “incompetent” end of the Hanlon scale. Dronebogus (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It sure seems like a lot of the issues with A1Cafel could be resolved with just a topic ban from transferring images from other sites rather than an indef. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree and  Oppose a complete block. IMO quite a lot of their other work regarding deletion requests seems to be good, frequently for images that are deleted for lack of FoP. I have no reason to assume that they systematically or malevolently make excessive deletion requests. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
 Weak oppose i always against indef block. but community want indef block i guess.. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose There are two things that are true. 1) A1Cafel does a ton of very good work on this project. 2) A1Cafel gets brought to this noticeboard a lot. I think they move too quickly, and at the volume of edits they make, that means that when they break stuff, it has an outsized effect. But I don't think there's any malice behind it, and I don't think the project is served by an indefinite block at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Rhododendrites. A topic ban on transferring photos since the issue seems to be the respect of other artists' wishes when it comes to interacting with Commons. I say this as an avowed Flickr and Commons user, I would certainly rather transfer my own images to Commons and release them under a more current license here, as Flickr hasn't moved past cc-by-2.0, something nobody but me can do with my own creations. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 19:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support indef per nom, Ooligan, and other supporters above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    Why do you vote twice for he same block? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    I !voted for Blackcat's proposed block, and I !voted for yours (in different months). If I shouldn't have done that, I withdraw the second !vote.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose indef. I’ve read and attempted to understand what is going on in this bureaucratic gordian knot, and I fail to see anything that screams “this user is an immediate and intractable threat to the wiki”. I agree with Squirrel Conspiracy that A1 is a very productive editor that sometimes makes glaring mistakes. The overall vibe I get from the pro-block voters is “looking for an excuse to block a user for being sloppy and tiresome to deal with”. Maybe they need a topic ban from something, but I can’t really tell what they specifically did wrong. Just sounds like a lot of petty errors to me. Dronebogus (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Based on what Squirrel Conspiracy said [14] and what Dronebogus reiterated [15] RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
 Support indefinite block for A1Cafel, also revoking adminship access. --103.190.228.133 02:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

XamAlili

This user is keeps uploading copyrighted files. I warned him on the local wiki. Gadir (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. No activity after warnings. Uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Darrenissodogwater

Darrenissodogwater (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded multiple screenshots from Roblox. A warning is likely in order. I dream of horses (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. User is warned and copyvios stopped. I nominated the last one for deletion as well. Taivo (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Paternal wpedzich.jpg

Uploader keeps removing my tags. An impartial set of eyes would be appreciated Gbawden (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done I deleted it, and the account is already globally locked. We should have a filter preventing reupload of this trash. Yann (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Yann Gbawden (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

ArionStar

ArionStar is blocked for a year, and indefinitely banned from Featured pictures candidates. They may appeal the ban after they have demonstrated that their behavior has changed. Yann (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Hi, For the record, I blocked ArionStar for 3 days following this disruptive nomination, and edit warring after I told them to stop. Hopefully, they got the message. Yann (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  1. The message has not reached its target after the first block, and I doubt a user currently writing "I will restart my male nudity agenda after the block" is much promising as part of the expected behavior.
  2. For the record also, it is far from an isolated incident. ArionStar has been often nominating three candidates instead of two, for years. Warned several times. All warnings ignored. The "three active nominations proposal" made by this user has been explicitly rejected by clear consensus a few months ago. Still the user continues to nominate three candidates frequently. Incredibly, the participants who do maintenance are sometimes reverted once or twice when they add the legitimate {{FPD}} template. Again and again, so we are tired and finally tolerate an inadmissible behavior. Frequently also, we miss the third / fourth nomination because it goes too fast (nominating withdrawing the same day or the day after) and because maintenance workers are not numerous enough. Sadly, ArionStar often chooses the disrupting option to create problems. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    While I don't disagree with what you've said (in fact I'm just as frustrated as you are), I think the first link (Special:Diff/365419659; the "F*ck you, Wikimedia Commons" edit) can get a bit of rope since it was around 5 years ago. Point 2 I strongly agree with you and I hope they use the time of a more extended block to self-reflect. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. Five years ago yes, but same person, and according to yesterday's reaction, nothing has / will change(d). This is just a parallel to suggest caution regarding Yann's optimism. A reminder for "careful, maybe the message will not be listened as expected". Point 2, yes, look at this withdrawal at 14:04 for example. It occurs only after this nomination is still open and Zzzs's warning at 14:02 on the new nomination. If nobody notices, then there are three nominations instead of two. And it's so often like that! Even worse when the FPD template is removed without withdrawal. Check the archives. When ArionStar removes the FPD template (meaning "stop") at 20:26 to allow a wrong third nomination, it is clearly before this one finishes at 21:18:52 and while this one is still open until the day after. Mad! And that's the second time ArionStar reverts the template! What?! This is like telling us "I don't care the rules, I rule my way and you must accept 3 nominations from my person". -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, you are right that the perspective that ArionStar accepts and respects such a ban without a block is slim. So what do you propose? Full block? Block of the Commons namespace? Yann (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Or, as suggested by Cmao20, a "topic ban" (FPC section) that will be carefully monitored by all of us. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
If you happen to do a partial block on Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list indefinitely, it in practice will stop ArionStar from being able to make any nomination. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Great! Please give us normal work, not unnecessary concerns. There are newbies that legitimately need standard supervision from regulars. That's fair and enough maintenance. We don't need extra tasks for the whims of seasoned users like ArionStar. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that I'm quoted in several of the links in this discussion, trying to make ArionStar behave according to Commons standard. As an old maintainer at FPC, I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to help, give advice, correct and support them, all to get them to better behave at FPC. Finally gave up and instead resorted to admonishing, telling, begging and warning. All to no avail. ArionStar has set out to live by their own "rules" on Commons, be it on FPC or other Commons projects, and usually creating a mess that other have to deal with. They do sometimes find good images that get promoted to FP, but it's a numbers game made on the efforts of other users, and it sets a bad example for all the new users who are trying out FPC. ArionStar's net contribution to Commons is something we can do without, and I would strongly recommend an extended site block with a minimum of one year. --Cart (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

If we don't go with an indefinite partial block, I'm with Cart for a 12-month-long site-wide block. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify what I meant by "on the efforts of other users". ArionStar don't make many FPC photos themselves, but usually nominate photos by other users. However, they can't edit them enough for FPC so they go around asking other users to do this for them. Some examples: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Not sure all the FPC users knows about this behavior. And then there is of course other cleanups that don't get noticed on the FPC page. --Cart (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Big mess. Without forgetting that the number of requests directly filed on the FPC pages is even higher. Often also, many reviewers make efforts to review a nomination, some improvements are requested, diverse participants waste time and energy to offer a better version, like Radomianin here for example, and then ArionStar just withdraws without qualms. As if the ratio of 5-1 was nothing, and as if the reviewers and helpers were totally devoted to this unsuccessful business. -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Another "highlight" from Arion (made a few months ago) that illustrates why they after ten years on Commons, and much of it on FPC, still don't understand the basics of photography outside using a phone camera: What's "shutter speed"? This unwillingness to learn is what creates much of the extra work of having them around on a project that's supposed to select the best photos on Commons. I have no problem with teaching young participants here, it is often fun and rewarding, and this mindset was one of the reasons I initially helped Arion and tried to set good examples for them. Unfortunately, Arion is only here to play. --Cart (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Cart and Basile have given excellent and very typical examples here. I am happy to help other people, also by trying to improve photos taken by other photographers, but it’s really frustrating if altruistic aid is carelessly despised, like Radomianin’s help in Basile’s example. Arion arbitrarily jumps in and out of nominations. This is a big contrast to the behaviour of other experienced nominators like Cmao20, Ikan Kekek, Tomer T and others. If they nominate a picture, they nominate it because they regard it as an excellent image and have good reasons for that, therefore they withdraw a nomination only if somebody points out serious problems which are not fixable. This shows that they are really interested in the pictures and in identifying the best images on Commons. But when somebody often quits running nominations just because they have found yet another darling, this suggests that they may be interested only in getting as many FP stars as possible as easily as possible. That’s not the purpose of Commons Featured pictures. – Aristeas (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. I mean I can't pretend I don't like getting lots of FP stars. It's fun. But I do it because I genuinely like and appreciate good photography. I can happily spend an hour looking through old FPs by authors like Basile Morin or Poco a poco or Charlesjsharp. And because of that I try my best to put some real effort into nominations, to add categories, make improvements if necessary, and I think my roughly 80% historical success rate shows that while I don't always get it right, I do my best. Likewise Ikan and Tomer T both of whom have an excellent eye for photography. ArionStar on the other hand just dumps pictures on the page in a scattergun nominate/withdraw, nominate/withdraw pattern until he finds one that passes. I sometimes doubt if he even looks at pictures apart from in the thumbnail. And this creates a lot of work for others in reviewing substandard photos, dealing with the frequent mistakes in his nominations, and trying to offer advice that tends to fall on deaf ears. It isn't a pleasure for any of us to review bad photographs or to shoot something down in flames. One that annoyed me recently was this nomination in which ArionStar created it, admitted it was not FP in its current form, and then tagged another user in the hope that he would fix it. This attitude of creating work for others and then taking the credit appears in his Picture of the Year 'lobbying' too. Arion claims that it is his 'lobbying' that got POTY off the ground but he didn't do a single thing to actually help, that was the users who rewrote the scripts to make the contest possible. Arion's contribution was vandalising his own pictures and harassing Jimmy Wales on his talk page. Cmao20 (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Dear colleagues, I find it a great pity that it had to come to this with ArionStar, because many of his nominations were an enrichment to the FP archive. But I agree with Aristeas and Basile that ArionStar seems to be inconsistent in his intentions, based on the available data. Building a diverse FP media library should be the primary aim, not feeding the ego. Perhaps there is still a way to talk to ArionStar to make him understand this. Personally, I am sorry and wish there could be an alternative to such a long planned ban. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Addendum: But I also have to agree with Cmao20; making it too easy for yourself by leaving the evaluation of technical quality to others is not okay and counterproductive. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Aristeas and Cmao20 depict well the way it happens. The investment bet on others is too great, so much so that these participants saturate, get fed up, or even flee out of weariness. Example, the renomination that failed in November was made just one month after Ikan Kekek asked ArionStar to (really) stop. So it's a real deep problem, not just some trifles of behavior to correct. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
A year goes by quickly. And then it will start again. There is no reason for things to change, since the previous 2 blocks of 3 days, then 3 months have proven to be sterile. Or maybe it should be 3 years? Let's say indefinite. When someone is warned not to do something, and still continues as if nothing was said / learnt, it means the sanctions are not effective. The reason of the last block was "Excessive Featured Pictures nominations by ArionEstar of low quality photos". Look at the current archives, every month, they are just full of similar low quality nominations. An example: 7 nominations by ArionStar on the same candidate list! 1) KatyPerry, 2) a poor picture of an ordinary bridge, 3) a house interior obviously withdrawn too early (see the post-withdrawal votes), 4) a truck, 5) a parrot, 6) a painting of a horse 7) a singer, with this nomination that caused a lot of work afterwards, due to a bad DR by the same user. How is it possible? The maximum is supposed to be 2 (excellent) pictures per nominator. Sometimes if you withdraw, you can have 3 nominations on the same page, or if really not lucky 2 active nominations 2 withdrawals = 4. Seven, that's because ArionStar has been continuing to nominate poor candidates all the time. Extremely irritating. BUT, very patiently (and politely) the user is warned on the last nominations with the dedicated FPD template. Results? ArionStar deletes the comment as if we could talk to someone else, or do something else than checking the quotas. How to bear this? Next year again?... Never, thank you. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for that impressive example, Basile – yes, 7 running nominations by Arion at the same time, a mixed bag of candidates of very different quality, but also a load of problems. Oh yes, that deletion request was a real mess; it took me hours (a) to understand exactly who did what when and why; (b) to find a clean solution; (c) to explain the issue and the solution to the involved persons. And Basile’s example is not an exception, and that weird deletion request was quite typical for the behaviour of the user in question. Therefore, while I am normally very hesitant about user bans, I must endorse completely the consequences proposed by Basile, Cart, etc. – Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ban ArionStar = ArionEstar (= "★") from FPC, proposal due to recurrent / unsolvable disruption

ArionStar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

  • ArionStar has been nominating three candidates (instead of maximum two) for years, and has been warned many times in the past. The proposal to increase the number of nominations has been refused by the vast majority of us. Despite this clear message, the user is regularly breaking our rules so as to place more candidates than possible (see Yann's block above).
  • The user also employs disruption so as to rule FPC in a crazy manner, going until disrupting Wikipedia. It has gone so far that several of us decided to accept the disruption and not to revert anymore! Thus, a few days pass after the disruption is located / identified / ready to be reverted.
  • There is always a quick "excuse" that helps people to to let it go in the instant. But the truth is that it happens again and again, with redundant schemes and exhausting actions.
  • Re-nominating the same unsuccessful pictures many times, and encouraging others to do the same until we are so tired to let it go / abstain from voting / do something more productive.
  • ArionStar was warned by Jimmy Wales himself (yes, Wikipedia creator) last July not to disrupt Wikimedia in this second paragraph: "So, that'd be extremely immature, premature, and unproductive.", but ArionStar did not listen and rushed headlong in August to give us unnecessary extra work like vandals do. Except in this case it is 100% deliberate.
  • The user has already been blocked three months for disruption at FPC, warned several times here at COM:ANU, and warned many many times after at COM:FPC. Now a ban is the last solution for us to find peace. This idea comes from another user, Cmao20 and I think this is a clever suggestion that admins should consider. All the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Okay also with a full block if preferred. Because that's true there's a risk some content is changed in some candidates at POTY for example, or elsewhere. See for example this revert at 02:45, 6 August 2024 to insist with disruption after the clear warning was sent by another participant. At this stage, everybody was aware of what was happening, however no one had the courage to fight with such narrow-minded behavior. Thus the picture was pure disruption on Commons and Wikipedia during three extra days, until another user fixed the issue on the 9th of August. There have been other pictures like that, all of them constituting potential playground. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    One question: may I ask other users for help? May I ask them to nominate photos? Or not? ★ 00:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Bye bye. But really read what is written above. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Completely agree with the idea of a topic ban - thank you Basile Morin for compiling these links above that help make the problem clear. I'll also add that ArionStar continues to double down on defending his behaviour on his talk page, and that his attitude seems to be one of other people are fine with me, therefore I won't get blocked, so I win, you lose, together with a passive-aggressive emoji. Struggle to believe that this user is going to learn from his actions after the years of warnings followed by apologies and then swift returns to previous behaviour. Cmao20 (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    • An indef topic ban from FPC would be a good start, but I fear that it's not enough and they will only find other ways of making a mess of things if they are allowed on other parts of Commons. (See comment about "Thanks to my lobby for the POTY contest") ArionStar is far too happy to cajole other users to do things for them. Therefore I would prefer a site block. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
      • As another maintainer at FPC and as current maintainer of related stuff like the FP gallery pages, I can only second Basile’s, Cmao20’s, and especially Cart’s statements. – Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
        I concur with the above. I am convinced that a partial block would not be enough to stop the user's disruptive behaviour. I would support a site block or a site ban, leaning towards the latter. Zzzs (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Site ban
As there is currently a consensus for a site ban, and given the elements showing disruption outside of COM:FPC, I also support this simple option. It will be an improvement for Commons, and a time saver for many participants. It is so obvious that the user disrupts after multiple clear warnings, and still with enthusiasm. Like "This is a disruptive nomination", or "I am more radical on the issue: I propose a total blackout on Commons images" (and don't care about Jimmy Wales's message or anyone else's) "I'm overwriting my FPs", implied "and voluntarily violate Commons:Overwriting existing files#DO NOT overwrite Files that have been awarded a special status like Commons Featured Picture", pollute the FP galleries and Wikipedia (see for example the article Papaye in French where the picture is used). Well, and for how long like that? Are we idiots? Perhaps yes, we are the naïves who ignore that Arion has "never been and will never be banned from there"? But I don't believe this fact. A prerequisite, in my opinion, to participate, should be: being able to listen and understand the recommendations expressed. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, with all the stuff that ArionStar has done to the point when the co-founder of Wikipedia stepped in? And continuing their disruptive behaviour after? Definitely deserves an indefinite site ban with a site block for good measure if you ask me. I'd also support the regular conditions except, if possible, the FAC participants be notified when the user appeals. Zzzs (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm all for an indef, appealable in 6–12 months time. SHB2000 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I can cooperate in not using more  I withdraw my nomination in my nominations.
I really like the FPC proposal, but I can't spend my time trying to understand all the nuances and definitions of photography. I still want to collaborate in the way I can and I commit to make no more than two active nominations. This will no longer be a reason for any discussion and won't happen anymore. ★ 23:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
That is only one part of the trouble you are causing, as you can see from the links above. And I'm not trusting your word one bit. We've heard it all before. The part where you say: "I can't spend my time trying to understand all the nuances and definitions of photography" says it all about you. You are on a photography site and can't be bothered to learn about photography. After ten years. --Cart (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
This is all I've learned in these 10 years; almost nothing. It might take me another 10 years to become reasonably acceptable. If my little knowledge as an enthusiast is not enough to continue existing as a user here, sorry. I'm only 24 (almost 25) years old and I have other things off to do. You don't have to trust me, just wait and request my ban if it happens again. Save my statement.
By the way, how old are each of you? ★ 23:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Why do our ages matter? --SHB2000 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
If you have other things to do, then please go and do them instead of making extra work for the rest of us. You are treating this site as a social media playground, not the media repository it is. Age doesn't matter here, only the number of years on the site. --Cart (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, I just want to know if I'm the youngest here. I started nominate images when I was 14/15 years old. I'm absolutely sure that if I started today I would not have any blocking problems in 2019. I'm committing to being a little better. I had a big accomplishment this year: I got my first star (and this was one of the reasons why I changed my signature to ★). Someday I will buy a camera that was recommended to me by some users and I will be less worse off than I am today. Someday I will have a star taken from a still camera. As I said, trust the process. No disruptions from today. ★ 00:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
If you are about 25 now, you've spent all the years when your learning abilities were at the highest here. And as you say, learned nothing. From now on it will only get harder for you to learn new things. That "I'm just a kid" line you are trying doesn't work. You are an adult now and should act like it. --Cart (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I spent my time learning lessons at school. ★ 01:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Cart, you have always given me good advice and I have always enjoyed our interactions. Thanks for another one, I know that you, unlike the user below, are trying to help me (thanks to you I learned about ICM and I just loved the effect). ★ 01:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea why all this dialogue about ages matters except ArionStar trying to make excuses for behaving disruptively, but for what it's worth, he is not the youngest here, if he is 24/25 then I'm slightly younger than he is. Cmao20 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Not trusting either. Moreover, abstaining from withdrawing is not useful at all. A bad picture should be withdrawn. Otherwise the page gets cluttered. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Basile, I also don't trust someone who accused me of something nonsensical. I ask you kindly, treat me like you do with Wilfredo. ★ 01:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, I made my promises and I imagine that for now you (Cart, Cmao20, etc) can keep an eye on me on these issues. Part of the issues. ★ 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
None of us here want to "keep an eye on you" and waste time babysitting a grown up user. You may not like Basile's tone, but he is right in his assessment of this situation. --Cart (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The question is not whether he is right or wrong, but that he always puts me in the mud even though it's not my fault. This issue is a pretext for him to get me banned, this is what he wants. He doesn't like Wilfredo and he knows we're friends, so he doesn't like me. ★ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Ever if ArionStar's disruptive behavior, I believe that blocking him won't address the root problem. The FPC section has become a toxic environment, leading several significant contributors to withdraw. There is an obsession with obtaining more featured pictures, which results in harmful behavior among users. I agree that Arion needs a break, and I would prefer if he took it voluntarily. I, myself, needed time away due to the pressure I feel in FPC and have stopped nominating photos. Additionally, there is a concerningly low representation of underdeveloped non-European countries. BTW, victimization through arguments like "I’m very young," "I’m black," "I’m homosexual," "I’m Jewish," "I’m Brazilian," and "you all hate me" does not help resolve conflicts. I believe that an open and honest dialogue is more effective for addressing misunderstandings. I recommend that the user withdraw from FPC for a set period to learn to manage emotions and not take things personally. I also acknowledge that Basile's behavior has been particularly toxic, just like mine in the past with the infamous fake FPC and my misuse of ChatGPT, which led to Cart's distrust when she claimed that my eclipse nomination was purposefully false. I could mention other examples; some users have stopped casting negative votes—which are the ones that help us grow as photographers the most—to avoid unnecessary drama and conflicts. In this situation, I personally don’t care if Arion is blocked or if I am blocked in the future. However, I believe something is not working well in FPC; even Colin pointed this out at some point. It’s essential to discuss these issues collectively to improve the environment in FPC and foster a healthier community, rather than simply resorting to accusations. Wilfredor (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the disruptive moment. 😔 ★ 02:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
"MomentS". -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Your mocking tone deserves my silence. ★ 02:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Your original uploads will only be restored if/when round 1 starts. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Round 1 has already started. Stay updated. ★ 03:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
That's a very, very subjective opinion, Wilfredor. I remember you refrained from participating until you "receive an apology". That doesn't mean the apology was due, nor that the others were wrong. And contrary to you, I think that the "open and honest" dialogues "more effective for addressing misunderstandings" already occurred a sufficient number of times to shorten the latter and not spend ages on it. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Your dialogues are always mocking. You want me to fail. You want an opportunity to (Redacted) me. You don't deny it because you know it's true. Period. ★ 02:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Period, bye bye. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Deny it. I'm waiting for… [mocking mode] ★ 02:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Memba'bout the IBAN? Do u wanna? ★ 03:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
⛔️ -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
✓ IBAN requested. ★ 03:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Site BAN requested. (No mockery intended, sincerely a honest request).-- Basile Morin (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  1. Once again, this request has been initiated by a very respectable user here. The truth is that I did not even participate before reading it (like everyday) at COM:FPC.
  2. Deliberate "disruptive nomination" according to the nominator (ArionStar). Obvisouly, many of us, visitors included, prefer to scroll the page with "no disruptive" nominations. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I think ArionStar's continued use of an aggressive and confrontational tone together with further excuses for bad behaviour and use of mocking emojis makes the situation clear. I would like to say that I have always found Basile Morin a polite and considerate user who tries to offer advice to newbies and has helped out in my own nominations, and if he has been mocking towards ArionStar it is because of ArionStar's continual refusal to be considerate towards others and the needless work he creates for others in this project. Also, re. "I can't spend my time trying to understand all the nuances and definitions of photography", no one is asking ArionStar to learn every nuance about photography, only to comply with the rules of FPC, not create extra work for others, not be rude, and try to learn the basics of what makes a high quality photograph. I believe in second chances, but this is more like the fifth or sixth chance now. Cmao20 (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Cmao20. Moreover, the "ArionStar" section was opened here by an admin, Yann, the previous day, and certainly several of us discovered the thread naturally at the moment to report it / check the report. This case has absolutely nothing to do with me. Cmao20, W.Carter, and Aristeas confirmed with relevant diffs, while Zzzs and SHB2000 shared similar opinions. Everybody know that it's time consuming. But I think the current and various efforts are made in the motivating perspective of a tangible progress. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you're being far too gracious with the "fifth or sixth chance", to be frank. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_116&oldid=946043429"