Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems
Latest comment: 5 hours ago by Yann in topic Wonderfulearth
Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
- Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~is available for this. - It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
- Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
A1Cafel and hostile behaviour towards Flickr original sources
editA1Cafel 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2024_Georgian_Protests,_April_28_(3).jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Protest_Tbilisi_21_April_2024_(53987798696).jpg){kind=link}
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)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
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 [3]. 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)
- 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)."
- I neither support nor oppose any sanctions of A1, but this seems both unacceptably sloppy and relevant to the case. Dronebogus (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am for an undefinite block at all from Commons. Their deletion requests (see absurd, senseless and often groundless deletion requests) and generally maintenance requests are more harmful than useful. -- Blackcat
12:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- How many deletion requests by A1Cafel have you processed or commented on this year? Krd 12:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Blackcat, you wrote "I am for an undefinite block at all from Commons" - to be clear, did you mean "I am for an indefinite block from Commons?" -- Ooligan (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: , to be even clearer, I am for a block with expiration date: never. -- Blackcat 10:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: , to be even clearer, I am for a block with expiration date: never. -- Blackcat
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Insults, bludgeoning, and canvasing around AI generated media by Prototyperspective
editThere'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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I did not say that. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:00, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
W:WP:BOOMERANG for Adamant1?
editAdamant1 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @Wolverine XI: Swearing is Permissible --Adamant1 (talk) 22:20, 25 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)
- 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)
- 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 ([4], [5]) 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 [6] 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)
- “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: 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)
- 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: 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Seems relevant: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Harrassement_by_User:Dronebogus Dronebogus (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Beating a dead horse, beginning with “I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but…”: User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy#ANU report about Dronebogus Dronebogus (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support a ban from admin noticeboards or a block Adamant1 seems to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to police other people's behavior on this noticeboard, then getting into long, heated back and forths with those people, and it's become incredibly tiresome to deal with. When they first posted this thread, I thought to myself "Why is it when something happens, it's always you" and kept going because every time I try to clean up the messes they make, I become less invested in Commons. The user does a lot of work elsewhere on Commons, and if they just concentrated on that work and stopped picking fights here and on user talk pages, the project would be much better off. If they're not willing or able to do that, they need to be removed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support a ban from admin noticeboards or a block Just as per the conspiring squirrels above. Yes Adamant, there really is A Conspiracy against you here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- It’s not *A Conspiracy* (read in the Disco Elysium narrator voice) if it’s out in the open. It’s just a lot of people who are fed up. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 27 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Dronebogus: We have eyes and do not need you to tattle. Also, it takes two to tango. You responding to everything they say is not helping. Please disengage. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:25, 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.
A user uploading potentially copyrighted images
editBorderman1993 (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 permissions-commons@wikimedia.org 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
editSmartiperson (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)
- 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)
- @Smartiperson: Fair use is accepted on the English Wikipedia, but not on Commons. Yann (talk) 22:06, 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: 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)
Enmanuelgac
edit- Enmanuelgac (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
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:Seiichi Miyashita
edit- Seiichi Miyashita (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
This user has no understanding of the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, repeatedly creates categories whose purpose is unclear, and and does not attempt to explain why it is necessary in the discussion. He does not even seem to accept repeated warnings. Also, in that discussion and the category he created, he remarks that “let's upload a photo to commemorate the visits”(Revision #929658148) and seems to mistake Commons for SNS. Bart Buchtfluß (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Bart Buchtfluß: You must inform users when you report them here. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate it. Bart Buchtfluß (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted the category, and warned this user once more. Yann (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- みなさん、ありがとう、つかれるね、よろしく。宮下 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- （ご参考）https://seiichi-miyashita.jimdofree.com/2024/09/28/cross-architecture/ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- 拙稿の英訳も遅れがちなので、説明の原文も、翻訳してから、ブログのページに載せますね。お元気にてお過ごしください。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- アーキテクトとして、わたしの目から見て、コモンズの写真群も、フリーなアップ先に、思えたんですけどね。
- よく撮れているなら、いいんじゃないかな。みなさま、それぞれ、お考えも、あるとは、十分に心得ています。。。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- かさねがさね、せっかくなので、
- Pages in category "Commons users"
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Commons_users
- に、「User:Seiichi Miyashita」というページを、作らせてもらって、
- 適度なレイアウトにて、「十字架と教会」の写真群と説明文も載せる、というのなら、よさそうに感じます。
- そんな方も、いらっしゃるけど、「他の人もやっているから、自分もよいだろう」ということになるのかな？ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- FYI : User:Seiichi Miyashita I want to upload my media to this page. ok? Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- （試しに、作ってみました、ご意見、待っております、説明文、いらないのかな） Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- ＦＹＲ：ガイドライン、スレスレかも。よいのではないかな。説明の英文は、もう物議をかもさないよう、そのうち、ブログのほうに載せますね。いつか、お目にかかれますことを、心より、楽しみにしております。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- （試しに、作ってみました、ご意見、待っております、説明文、いらないのかな） Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- FYI : User:Seiichi Miyashita I want to upload my media to this page. ok? Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- 拙稿の英訳も遅れがちなので、説明の原文も、翻訳してから、ブログのページに載せますね。お元気にてお過ごしください。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- （ご参考）https://seiichi-miyashita.jimdofree.com/2024/09/28/cross-architecture/ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- みなさん、ありがとう、つかれるね、よろしく。宮下 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- （ご指摘を受けとめ、直しました）
- 「Cross & Architecture」
- 『十字架とともに、映るチャペル』
- 〜十字架と建築の織りなすビスタ〜
- いつも、十字架と教会は、互いに、強く、暖かく、慕うように、支えあいます。
- ハーモニーは、美しく、確かに、広がり、我々の心に、深く、永く、響きます。
- 教会を訪れたら、建物の光景と、重厚な風格を、破天荒な輪郭にて、捉えます。
Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- ＊ご了承いただけたのでしょうか、もしそうなら、ありがたいです、これから、翻訳を依頼しますね＊ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bart Buchtfluß: もしよろしければ、ゆっくり、英訳お願いします。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Seiichi Miyashita 今一度こちらのコメントをご確認いただいた上で，コメント内でBart Buchtflußさんが言及されている質問「なぜCategory:Church Apex crossesがすでにあるのにCategory:Cross & Architectureを作るのか」にお答えください．「カテゴリに関するガイドライン」についてはCommons:Categories/jaをお読みください．
- なお，ご存知であれば申し訳ありませんがCategoryという英単語には「分類上の区分」「種類」などという意味があり（参照），ここにおいては写真を種類ごとに分類する機能です．貴殿の「いろいろなトピック」というコメントは少々解釈違いに見えましたので，見直していただけると幸いです．--Tmv (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- それは、コメントにも軽くふれたように、
- 「頂点にある十字架」というワードには、
- コモンズにアップする品格の写真を撮る、
- モチベーションを維持できないと感じた、
- ということも、大きな、動機、理由です。
- 「教会の頂点にある十字架」だけでなく、
- 教会建築との、確かで、豊かな、一体感、
- を捉えた、写真群の、構成を考えました。
- また、ガイドラインを、すべて把握して、
- トライするには、無理もあると思います。
- まずは、気軽な投稿を、勧めてもいます。
- 当初、個人の制作物のコレクションにも、
- 見えるような成果も多いと、感じました。
- ただ、相応に、テーマ、分類、などなど、
- コンセンサスもあるようにも、思います。
- いまは以上です。ありがとうございます。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- 私もウィキ関連の価値をよく学び知るべきだけれど、新しい多くのユーザーを迎える優しさも大切に思う。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- 「井戸端」にても、話題になっているようです。
- なので、気は進まないのですが、付け加えます。
- 自分の利用者ページに、写真群の説明文の英訳、
- さらに、当面において、最後のアップロードに、
- プロテスタントの礼拝堂の正面の壁面の十字架、
- レリーフ、を捉えた、写真を、撮りにゆきます。
- これは、「教会の頂上の十字架」というよりも、
- 「十字架と建築」に、なるのかもしれませんね。
- ただ、すでに、議論の的になった当カテゴリは、
- もうありませんし、作品を置けても、みなさま、
- カテゴリをチェンジされていましたし、わたし、
- 自分にしか撮れない写真群、かもしれないから、
- 自分のページに置けるなら、それがベストだと、
- 思うようになりました。それでよいでしょうか。
- FYR:https://www.satohide.co.jp/works/05/05-11.html Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Seiichi Miyashita 返信ありがとうございます．やっとMiyashitaさんの意図が見えました．確かにCategory:Christian crossesには「建築と共に十字架が写っている写真」のカテゴリはありません．作るにしても，より明確なタイトル（例えばCategory:Crosses with religious architectures）と説明が必要だと思います．ちなみにレリーフについてはCategory:Reliefsがあり，他のものについても大抵は既存のカテゴリに収まるのではないかと私は思います．これ以上は管理者の仲介が必要なさそうなので，（まだ腑に落ちない部分があるのであれば）井戸端に場所を移しましょうか．
- @admins: according to his comment above, he created Category:Cross & Architecture for photos of crosses with religious architectures. He says the existing category is limited to crosses on tops, and there is no category for photos of reliefs — crosses on the front wall of a chapel, etc. I told him about Category:Reliefs, but it may be true that there's no overarching category for crosses with religious architectures. Anyway, we don't seem to need to be here anymore, so we will move to the project chat. Thanks, --Tmv (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Tmv さん、
- ありがとうございます。
- 『Category:Crosses with religious architectures』は、コモンズの創作・撮影・アップのモチベーションを、
- ガイドラインに基づいて、より確かに、伝えてもらえる、とても、素晴らしいネーミングと、感じますし、
- ぜひ、個人的にも、強く、支持したいですし、ぜひとも、カテゴリとして、活用させていただきたいです。
- 自分の利用者のページにおいては、いまのまま、シンプルなイメージにて、わかりやすく、伝わりやすい、
- ナチュラルな「Cross & Architecture」として、写真群のギャラリーを、キープしておけたら、と思います。
- よろしくお願いします。
- 宮下誠一 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- わたくしより、『Category:Crosses with religious architectures』も、ご提案したい、と、願っております。
- コモンズにふさわしい、普遍的かつ客観的な、英文の説明も調えたいので、しばらく、お時間をください！ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @admins:
- 今後とも、お力添え、お願い申しあげます。
- 宮下 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- 私もウィキ関連の価値をよく学び知るべきだけれど、新しい多くのユーザーを迎える優しさも大切に思う。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bart Buchtfluß: もしよろしければ、ゆっくり、英訳お願いします。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
User:きよりん
edit- きよりん (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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
editBroichmore (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[7] (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)
- Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Naval people by country --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely (and overdue) BOOMERANG time. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
- I revoked TPA/e-mail for another good measure. Regards, Aafi (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
- They did continue to do it after being warned, and it's more than two files. - Sebbog13 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 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)
Drjksa0
edit- Drjksa0 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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)
Ashishkumarpate, et al
edit- Users: Ashishkumarpate (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Ashishkumar Pravinbhai Patel (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , and 61.69.118.118 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)
- Reasons for reporting: Abuse, spam, and sockpuppetry.
— 🇺🇦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
editCrimsonalfred2022 (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 [8] and [9], 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)
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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
editTuvalkin (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
editZivkagobelic (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)
User:JesseWx
editJesseWx (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)
DevonSchwartz
editDevonSchwartz (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)
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
editMahdiye 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)
User:Elcobbola and out of process deletion.
editPlease see this history Creating File:Shellenberger2024.jpg - Wikimedia Commons: and this series of edits on the Undeletion requests. User:Elcobbola reverted my undeletion of this file which I did before his comment, and I commented afterwards, saying it was done.
As far as it goes, this file should remain undeleted and a deletion discussion take place, because of the disagreement. Also, User:Elcobbola needs to be instructed not to revert other admin actions without discussion first. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also, he threatened to block me on my userpage. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say by me. There's that critical reading again. Эlcobbola talk 20:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide the policy where out-of-process admin actions cannot be reverted. That an admin believes "Creative Commons - free for reuse" is an acceptable license is so blatantly wrong as to be embarrassing. Эlcobbola talk 20:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your delete of my undeletion was out-of-process. I undeleted it before your comment and was getting ready to close the discussion when we had an edit conflict. The fact that we had a disagreement mean that this should have been taken to deletion discussions. "Creative Commons - free for reuse" is certainly an expression of intent, and should be good enough until we can have proof of source, since the individual did not apparently know about the impending deletion until there was time. You have the worst case of never assuming good faith. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is, of course, a lie. My comment was entered at 19:57, 4 October 2024, the same exact time as the out-of-process restoration (19:57, 4 October 2024). It also took time to research the source and write the comment; it was "in process" well before the out-of-process restoration. There has been discussion, after discussion, after discussion resulting in consensus that UDRs are to be left open a reasonable amount of time to allow for feedback. You gave it a mere four minutes. Where have I made any reference to your intentions? Have you not read COM:AGF either? Эlcobbola talk 20:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about my intentions. There's your critical reading skills problem. Again. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also, point me to the policy that explains how long UDRs are to be left open before acting on them, since I've been away for some time. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- COM:AGF refers to intent. I didn't reference a policy. Critical reading, indeed. Эlcobbola talk 20:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking you about assuming good faith of me. Reading skills. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- COM:AGF refers to intent. I didn't reference a policy. Critical reading, indeed. Эlcobbola talk 20:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is, of course, a lie. My comment was entered at 19:57, 4 October 2024, the same exact time as the out-of-process restoration (19:57, 4 October 2024). It also took time to research the source and write the comment; it was "in process" well before the out-of-process restoration. There has been discussion, after discussion, after discussion resulting in consensus that UDRs are to be left open a reasonable amount of time to allow for feedback. You gave it a mere four minutes. Where have I made any reference to your intentions? Have you not read COM:AGF either? Эlcobbola talk 20:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your delete of my undeletion was out-of-process. I undeleted it before your comment and was getting ready to close the discussion when we had an edit conflict. The fact that we had a disagreement mean that this should have been taken to deletion discussions. "Creative Commons - free for reuse" is certainly an expression of intent, and should be good enough until we can have proof of source, since the individual did not apparently know about the impending deletion until there was time. You have the worst case of never assuming good faith. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- CommentThis is getting ridiculous. It feels like we're talking over each other and I don't want to do that with you, you've put in a lot of time and work here, and I don't really have a problem with you, only the last action I disagree with. I have only recently been active again in these discussions recently and it's clear that a culture has developed around them that I need to navigate.
- It's not the end of the world if we retain the picture for a deletion discussion and it's not the end of the world that it stays deleted until the user gets their ducks in a row. Truce? Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please tell me why this isn't en:WP:wheel-warring, which is just about the worst thing that you can do on a WMF project? So ban everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would’ve thought the worst thing you could do was pretending to be an an admin and gaining the trust and respect of the entire Wikimedia community only to turn around and reveal you were a deep-cover troll the whole time. But apparently the real mortal sin is the sysop version of edit warring. Dronebogus (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola and Bastique: both of you, be ashamed of your actions. Log off, go outside, have some sleep. Come back tomorrow. Tomorrow you'll see you both made mistakes. Multichill (talk)— Preceding undated comment was added at 21:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Wonderfulearth
edit- Wonderfulearth (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
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)