Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Latest comment: 3 hours ago by Adamant1 in topic Insults, bludgeoning, and canvasing around AI generated media by Prototyperspective

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Note

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

Charlesjsharp

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago37 comments14 people in discussion

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

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

IMO, this ANU complaint should be not about long history of inappropriate behaviour (though there definitely is such), but about this terrible and unsubstantial accusation in particular. Because, if this is left unsanctioned, this of course would be a clear message to him and others that this kind of comments are tolerated in general. Please remember, that blocks are not punitive but preventative. --A.Savin 19:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Rhododendrites: See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 55#User:Charlesjsharp, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 80#Charlesjsharp, and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 62#Charlesjsharp.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Only one of those is good evidence, really. Maybe I'm used to the enwp way of doing ANI, but usually new sections without a bunch of diffs about a long-time user just get speedily closed. Not saying there's no merit here -- just needs more effort to substantiate. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jeff G.: We really need some recent evidence, i.e. not stuff from five-nine years ago. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 20:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Charlesjsharp accused publicly A.Savin of having an illegal conduct and this can be considered as defamation (criminal offence). Charlesjsharp seems to have adopted an illegal conduct that requires exemplary sanction. Charlesjsharp also has a long history of attacking people. - Examples : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ann-Sophie_Qvarnstr%C3%B6m#Discussion%20on%20deleting%20this%20article commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:House_sparrow_feeding_behaviour.jpg - Charlesjsharp had immunity all these years because he posted pictures of animals but it is time that he learns that unacceptable behavior can't stay unpunished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:ad30:4940:c927:876e:e855:ea82 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Accused of attacking El Golli Mohamed but he complimented the El Golli Mohamed and suggested an improvement - Excellent quality, but if you cropped, I think the crop is too tight top and bottom
  • Their criticism of getting too close to a nest is valid IMO
Perhaps charlesjsharp does come across as short and as someone who doesn't suffer fools. And some of the diffs go back years. I think an admonishment to be less grumpy and not to bite users would be appropriate Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think, if you claim the "nesting bird" comment to be valid, then you are doing the same libel as Charlesjsharp and are subject to a block as well. It was already explained several times why the accusation is invalid, no need to repeat. --A.Savin 10:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Methinks you are a bit agressive threating to block a fellow admin for having an opinion Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not every opinion is compatible with Commons guidelines and also with the UCoC... so for instance, an insult is also an opinion... that is, if I insult you that means I have a certain (not high) opinion on you which I tell in public, but nonetheless I would have to expect a block for saying that opinion, because according to our rules it's harassment or personal attack which is prohibited and usually sanctioned with a block... Perhaps you aren't aware, but hey, there are further admins who are not aware of UCoC, of guidelines, of common etiquette etc... --A.Savin 11:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • This should be closed as producing more heat than light. There are a variety of valid complaints that can be levied at Charles -- including some I'd probably agree with -- but this is just an effortless free-for-all of past grievances. If any of the parties here want to agree to an interaction ban, fine, but otherwise I'd invite anyone to come back after taking the time to put together a halfway decent case backed by a whole bunch of unimpeachable diffs. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Does that mean you agree I did criminal offence, or does that mean Charlesjsharp is allowed to accuse publicly of criminal offences because he is kind of a judge or something, or otherwise special and above all guidelines? --A.Savin 17:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • You've both made legal accusations/insinuations about the other, no? "Libel" and "slander", with references to WMF Legal? I'm not at all saying that what Charles said was ok. Quite the opposite. Even if I agreed with him on the substance of the claim about the bird, which I don't, his approach was poor and opening this ANU thread was not good judgment. I'd be bothered if I were you, too. That said, I think GPSLeo more or less said what needed to be said in the other thread. That's more or less what I'm saying here -- that we don't need yet another thread unless someone's going to do the hard work of producing more evidence. Until someone does that, IMO it should be closed. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • So El Golli Mohamed gets blocked for 2 weeks because he said an insult after being harassed by permanent attacks of Charlesjsharp and Charlesjsharp commits a crime (defamation-slander) and should get away with it ?! Two different ethnics, two different treatments, with as always white privilege ! Shocking. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2603:6011:8400:AE6:488E:E5E5:3DFA:6506 (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • For the record, El Golli Mohamed was blocked for two weeks last April for saying to Charlesjsharp, (this is verbatim) "Fuck you." If you can point at something similar from Charlesjsharp, I will gladly make a similar block. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Ya think. Wolverine XI 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      '**** you' from El Golli Mohamed (Tunisian) against Charlesjsharp = insult = small infringement = 2 weeks block
      Defamation from Charlesjsharp (British) against A.Savin = criminal offence = infinitely worse = no sanction ?!
      Two different ethnics = two different treatments because of white man privilege
      Charlesjsharp publicly accusing A.Savin of committing criminal activity = defamation
      commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Close_wing_Basking_of_Athyma_perius_(Linnaeus,_1758)_-_Common_Sergeant_(4)_WLB.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=920599782 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:644:4384:C900:10F7:2462:CA6E:6458 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      How is this IP involved in any of this, if may ask? Wolverine XI 14:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes --A.Savin 23:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bedivere

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago32 comments11 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

A1Cafel and hostile behaviour towards Flickr original sources

edit
Latest comment: 21 hours ago21 comments14 people in discussion

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

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

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

A1Cafel has often explained to us that normal social mores do not apply to them and that as they are unable to achieve them, they cannot be expected to comply with them. I was involved in at least the last couple of ANU complaints having to do with A1Cafel's behavior and I don't remember them ever saying that. So do you have diffs of where they have said anything even remotely along those lines or are you just making up stuff? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Be that as it may, User:A1Cafel, if a Flickr user is interested in uploading their content here themself, you should certainly allow them to do so rather than preempt them. -Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Problem is they don’t seem to care going by the discussion on A1Cafel’s talk page. Plus I have seen them upload duplicates of what another contributor was uploading and even uploading photographs containing FoP/copyrighted elements, same type of material they DR others for. Will try and get some diffs when I get home but the lack of archiving will make it time consuming. Bidgee (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand, but uploaded it after 12 hours they changed the license is not preempt them IMO. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Admittedly I didn't read through the whole conversation on A1Cafel's talk page but it sounds like the original photographer didn't intend to upload the images to Commons but then decided to when they found out A1Cafel was doing it. Then they changed the licenses on some of their photographs in the process. I wouldn't put it on A1Cafel if that's what happened. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, that particular issue is about the fact that A1Cafel applied a rule about (alleged) copyright protection on an element in a photograph of my hand that I uploaded, while four minutes after that deletion nomination they decided to upload a range of pictures from that same series, among which was one photograph with an element that would have violated Commons rules. I then informed them about this double standards and them violating the same rule they applied to me. After that they decided to upload a version of my photograph with a blurred element in it just so it would fit within the Commons rules. Let's just put it bluntly. This is about hypocrisy. Somebody who is hunting down violations and does mass nominate photos for violations, while at the same times doesn't apply that rule to themselves. In this particular example, the blurred part is also part of the political message which the photo is about, effectively vandalizing and damaging the whole purpose of the photo.l, hence my appeal to have it deleted altogether. This is not about the permission change but about the fact that the image was firstly uploaded in violation with the rules (hence I was not planning to upload it, while allowing it to be used wherever it would fit in the rules, a CC2 license is not exclusive to Commons. And secondly, it's about altering the image to fit in the rules correcting the violating that the uploader in all their haste at first did not notice, and thereby effectively vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless. Labrang (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your aware that the CC2 license allows for people to modify the image for any purpose right? I don't really see why that wouldn't include someone blurring part of the want to. You can complain its vandalism all day, but your the who released the image under a license that allows for it to be modified. And so what if A1Cafel blurred the file after uploading it? We do that all the time. At least they noticed the problem and fixed it. Which isn't the case with most of the image they nominate for deletion BTW. A lot of uploaders could really care less about following copyright and most of them don't fix offending images after the fact when its brought up to them. So I don't really see what the issue is here. Like only people who have a 100% perfect record can nominate images for deletion. Anyway I'd suggest changing the license on your images if your going to be that offended by someone modifying them. I'm not sure if CC2 can be retracted though. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"At least they noticed the problem and fixed it." - in fact - I was the one pointing it out to them. They uploaded the photo minutes after they nominated a photo from the very same source and Flickr album for deletion for this very same [alleged] violation of rules. Under any normal circumstances we would use the "H" word or "double standards". I understand that is an unacceptable word here as it breaches "assume good faith", although, as a good faith user myself, it feels not like that. So what we have here is someone who systematically nominates files for deletion for (alleged) violations of rules and at the same time mass grabs photos and then in the rush of the moment to upload these photos "because they can" forgets the rules they just applied to others. I have seen others doing more or less the same. Is it a credit based system here? [seriously wonder that, not bad faith question - not every critical assessment is bad faith]. Labrang (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"You released this file under Creative Commons, so your fault when we mess with your work [Next time don't do that]" - This attitute from multiple people is very disrespectful towards the actual creators of the high quality content we want & need.
Obviously, the licence allows it. But basic collegiality, which is also expected on Commons dosen't. If a author wants to organize their collection on Commons themselfes, instead of everything being quickly dumped, and requests to do so, then this should be respected. (Those authors don't want something, they provide volunteer work) I don't see why that would even be up for discussion. If a uploader dosen't want their files overwritten, then this should be respected. ~TheImaCow (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just to clarify I don't have an issue with Labrang saying they don't want their photographs to be modified if they are uploaded to Commons. That's their prerogative. My problem is purely with them saying blurrying out part of the photograph is "vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless." Since as you say basic collegiality is expected on Commons and photoraphers don't get a special pass from that just because their photographs are high quality or whatever. 100% a photographer can ask someone not to overwrite one of their photographs but they should do it without baselessly screaming vandalism at the drop of a hat. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"disrupting" the message of the subject. I am willing to apologize for too casually using the word "vandalizing", but let's be frank here. In this particular example the said user only did that to bend the photo to fit in the rules, regardless whether it would actually remain valuable. Again, there's no harm in deleting a photo if it doesn't fit in the rules. Labrang (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •   Support indefinite block – they were blocked indefinitely for similar discourse of disruptive behavior a while back, but this discussion gives me little hope they have changed. I'm afraid to say that this is the only course of solution, except that a potential unblock request in the future should also be voted on by the community. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •   Comment: The last time this account was blocked (indefinitely, by the way), I thought they would wait some time before requesting their return to the project, something like 6 months to a year. But they came back a month later... At the time, Mdaniels5757 had pinged me to give my opinion on A1Cafel's return, but I chose to remain silent due to my conflicts with the user. Well, whatever is decided here, I believe that if the block is not permanent, we will eventually face the same problems as before. It's a shame... I was thinking of suggesting that the user request an unblock on the English Wikipedia – I would support that – to "clean" their global history. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

I totally agree, and I will refrain from uploading files from Labrang's Flickr stream (Jelger Groeneveld). --A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support, and also the user neglected to create or transclude Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erdogan and MBZ.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support indef. block, net negative, as in the last one. Strakhov (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

Please, can someone follow this up? As shown in the link, I asked 7 Sept if someone would do so, but no one did. I'm out the door in 10 minutes, so not doing it myself now. - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @Yann,@Taivo AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Comment I deleted the most obvious copyright violations, and warned this user. For the rest, someone more knowledgeable about the threshold of originality in the country of origin should have a look. Yann (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Fox de Quintal

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago25 comments5 people in discussion

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

Pinging Yann and Abzeronow, who have both recently interacted with de Quintal. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@RodRabelo7: I will answer you on the WP en. Fox de Quintal (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@RodRabelo7: in summary of what's on WP en, you ALWAYS revert my edits without explanation, see WP en, see WP pt. Fox de Quintal (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Please avoid bludgeoning the process. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@RodRabelo7: Fallacy! I am defending myself, I've already added links to your reverts on the English Wikipedia, and I will search to see if there are more! You like to show up out of nowhere and then revert without any explanation! I already have editing experience on Wikipedia, I've been on Wikipedia for years! I've made over 7,000 edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia. And stop reverting me, especially without providing an explanation! You only haven’t reverted me more because I'm usually on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and on that wiki, you are blocked! (Thank God!) Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@RodRabelo7: I suggested on the English Wikipedia that there should be an interaction ban! Reason? You ONLY revert WITHOUT explaining! You NEVER explained the reasons! Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Only"? "Never"? Exempli gratia: here and here. In regards to the first reversion, English Wikipedia administrator ToBeFree admonished you (so I was correct, to say the least); in regards to the second one, Aafi and Abzeronow also reverted you, and I don't think these two administrators are trying to "harass" you. What's more now? I won't feed you anymore. Pinging DarwIn, Commons and Portuguese Wikipedia administrator, in case they have anything to add to this discussion. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DarwIn: he comments as if this were an isolated case, this is not an isolated case, NO! Several times he has reverted me WITHOUT explaining, and I have already explained to RodRabelo7 that it's because of this that I'm already tired of it! Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@RodRabelo7: if you presented yourself as a helpful person, I would be thanking you, but instead, you come across as someone who wants trouble, all of this is happening because of you. Stop reverting my edits WITHOUT explaining. This is annoying! Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not because of me, otherwise you wouldn't have been reverted by two administrators, Aafi and Abzeronow, as I have mentioned before. You tried to edit war here, decided to harass me in three different projects (honestly, what's the next?) and now pretends to be harassed by me, ignoring the fact that I haven't had any interaction with you for the past months. Please stop trying to pass as the victim. This is my last comment on this section before someone else appears. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply


The user made a request for them to be permitted to upload an MP3 file. You say you "provided a detailed explanation in the edit summary as to why I had done so", whereas in fact you wrote "wrong section" and didn't point them to the right section. It sounds to me like you made a quick, unhelpful revert on someone you've been in conflict with, and when the predictable problems occurred, you're trying to act blameless. (Seriously, "wrong section", even "Undo revision 925603517 by Fox de Quintal (talk) wrong section", is shorter than "provided a detailed explanation in the edit summary as to why I had done so".)--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Although I agree that detailed description may not be the best description of this specific edit summary, I at least commented on it, countering de Quintal's argument. However, your comment seems to ignore the harassing behavior initiated by Fox de Quintal on the English Wikipedia, where he has been blocked for disruption, on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where he was reverted by a former administrator, here, where he was admonished by two administrators, and more recently on the Spanish Wikipedia, where he invited me to join a WhatsApp group. Absurd as that may seem, this group includes a long-term abuser to whom the Fox de Quintal account has tried to associate me for months, if not years. It's a persecutory behavior that I have never seen before around here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@RodRabelo7: Let’s clear things up. I’ve been associating you with Pórokhov and Quintinense for about a year, not years! Ever since Pórokhov started attacking me, you showed up reverting my edits without any apparent reason. When you requested to be unblocked on Portuguese Wikipedia, you were associated with Quintinense, which only reinforced my suspicion that you are in contact with both, especially since Quintinense is a friend of Pórokhov.
Also, what’s the explanation for this strange behavior? Now here we are, at 2:19 AM (Brasília time), discussing this. Yes, I was hoping that the checkusers on Portuguese Wikipedia would discover some connection between you, Pórokhov, and Quintinense, or that sockpuppets were being used to vandalize the project. However, they found nothing. Coincidence?. To me, it was Pórokhov himself who asked you to do that. I’ll bring more details in my next message. Fox de Quintal (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@RodRabelo7: In 2023, I returned to editing Wikipedia with a new account, Lalala2000. During this period, Ertrinken, a sockpuppet of Pórokhov, requested my block and treated me poorly. Pórokhov also created a fake account, IaIaIa2000, to pretend to be me and caused problems on Wikipedia. Additionally, another fake account named Alexandre Exalts appeared, suspected to have been created by Pórokhov. In this context, I also went through my first block discussion and question the coincidence of @RodRabelo7: appearing during the same period. Fox de Quintal (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

de Quintal's request simply wasn't reasonable. They wanted the autopatrol flag to upload a single audio file, a personal song called "The Samba of Fox de Quintal", generated by an artificial intelligence. RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
If it was in the wrong place on the right page, move it to the right place. It's not unreasonable to want to upload an MP3 and thus request permissions needed to do that. Scope is complex; it's probably not appropriate to upload here, but that's at least subject to discussion. Instead of working with the user, you just reverted it, despite the fact that it wasn't spam and you knew that they didn't want to interact with you. I'm not praising their behavior, but you seemed to looking to cause problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with RodRabelo7 that their request wasn't reasonable. The file they want to upload is out of scope. I warned Fox de Quintal about that at 18:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC). I further warned them now about edit-warring. Yann (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Yann, Jlwoodwa, ColinFine, and Hftf: Actually, it's not about an edit war, but rather that RodRabelo7's behavior irritates me because he reverts my edits and doesn't care. It seems like he does it intentionally to annoy me.
Please, I am blocked on English Wikipedia. I am already disgusted by his behavior. Can someone open an interaction ban on English Wikipedia for me? Or is it difficult to open one?
Comment:
It was already very well understood before that I don't want any interaction with RodRabelo7 (he's the one insisting on it).
Now it's made very clear here. Fox de Quintal (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In view of the above comment, it is clear that Fox de Quintal didn't get the message, so I blocked them for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Funny Man 1999

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

User:Vô Danh 69

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

This could be is almost certainly another sock of User:Funny Man 1999 and User:Thich an che. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Unusual Deletion of Images of Vietnamese Artists. I'm going straight to an indef-block here, but this time I leave it to someone else to deal with any files that were deleted based on this person's dubious nominations. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Băng Tỏa: this probably should have been reported to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. Please do note that for Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems you are supposed to notify the user in question on their talk page that there is a discussion of their conduct. But since this is straight-out vandalism, no problem with you not having done that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Funny Man 1999‎. Yann (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

محمد شیرازی سلیمانی

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Okukawachi

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Grandmaster Huon

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago17 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

This user has continuously tagged files that I have uploaded, it is quite annoying because I receive notifications from them. It's also clear that they don't understand when it's appropriate to use the copyvio tag. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Copyvio tags are used when the logo is too sophisticated or if the image is derivative. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The requests have nothing to do with you as an editor or our relations towards each other. These notifications only deal with the file itself that you may have contributed. If you do not wish to see these notifications, it would be best to contact the mediawiki staff for a way to implement the reduction of repetitive notifications. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I find this user also very troublesome, after I questioned many of his actions of mass-deletions he even sent me private e-mail claiming "I don't have good mood" and other such trolling. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't meant to be trolling. I wanted to check up with you and to de-escalate. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It seemed like you didn't feel well and tone is impossible to tell in written form. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I concur with the other editors. Whilst I have no doubt about the reasonability of raising questions about the compliance of specific files, this user's behaviour is disproportionate regarding the goals pursued. What's more, there's rarely any focus on file history, instead choosing to tag files in bulk, many of them with claims settled in past nominations. Appealing all the notices connected to files was a time-consuming process due to the risks involved in speedy tagging. In addition to all these issues, the presence of good faith in the nominations and replies has not been evident in some occasions. I believe there ought to be a recommendation for the user to choose a different, more balanced approach to achieve the intended ends. Fer1997 (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
What is such a plan? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wanted some files to be deleted because they were percieved to violate copyright. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
If there were OTRS verification, I would leave them alone unless they were derivative of other copyrighted content and aspects of the legality of the file may change years after the original decision to keep them in deletion requests, either with new rationales or insights. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, is there an easy way to challenge a speedy delete other than manual editing? Perhaps one could implement that feature in Visual File Change. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The misunderstanding about the Ukrainian logos only happened once. Once it was clear, I left it alone. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The vast majority of my copyvio indications have ended with a speedy delete from administrators, since most of them were obvious copyvios anyway. Especially the logos. It is the goal of Commons to be as free of copyright-infringing content as possible. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do you understand that files they where kept in a regular deletion request should never be requested for speedy deletion? If you think the decision was wrong make a regular deletion request and write why you are challenging the previous decision. GPSLeo (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, got it. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you understand the problem and if you are willing to act according there is no sanction needed at this point. But if there are more complaints on to many unjustified speedy deletion requests we have to ban you from creating speedy deletion requests. GPSLeo (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kattoor2004

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

edit
Latest comment: 3 hours ago46 comments7 people in discussion

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

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

I can remember not much but you bludgeoning these discussions with walls of text to which I responded probably too often. I point out when people vote without any explanation and without addressing any points which I think is my right and consistent with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Unlike you, I never insulted anyone and it's quite likely you have participated in these discussions more than me. Participating a lot in discussions about topics you care and know a lot about is not something bad or at the very least not a reason to censor or block somebody. without just insulting anyone who disagrees with him False. Name just one example where I did that, I never insulted anyone and I am asking for explanations and people to address points instead of ignoring all of them. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
With the bludgeoning I'm purely talking about the current discussion on the Village Pump, which the last time I checked I didn't write walls of text in. So I'm not sure what your talking about. More on point though, your the one who's responding to essentially everyone who supports the proposal in a bad faith, insulting way. But apparently you think that's totally cool because I bludgeoned a similar conversation 6 months ago. Right. Anyway, I pointed out the insults in my original messages. Anyone is free to read them and others from the discussion that I've left out. That's not even including the canvasing either BTW. I don't really have anything to say about it outside of that though. Except I think the evidence of your bad behavior is pretty clear. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In a discussion with 33 posts I made 10 comments. All of them contribute constructive information to the thread such as potential problems, alternative approaches, etc. I'm not responding in an insulting way but I was asking for people to add some explanation and/or to address critical points, you can't give an example because I was not insulting anybody and instead contribute to make the site based on rationality rather than behavior that would be inconsistent with sound decision making and the policy above, maybe there's better ways to do that since I'm not the most sensible (is that the right word) with words. What you said in the post above is not the full thing I said, I said "I doubt you have seen the video I linked and neither replying nor providing any rationale or addressing any points shows how this is about ignorance, not anything thought through and possibly some emotional knee-jerk reaction because voters simply don't like the use of AI tools for whatever personal reasons." How is ignoring all points not ignorance and why am I forbidden to say the word ignorance which in this case is I think constructive (and we may disagree even when your language is often much stronger)? And I said it could possibly be mere emotional hasty reactions without having thought it through, not that this is the case and why would that not be the case and why would I not be allowed to say that? Maybe I replied a bit too often and should have spend more time to work out more diplomatic softer language for what I meant to say. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also meant to not comment in that thread anymore at post 9 except if anybody asks me something. I raised the issues I wanted to raise, asked once or twice for voting people to address explanations or to address points instead of only leaving WP:NOREASON comments, and addressed a few points and that's it. This provides a basis for people looking into this to see a fuller picture and have more information at hand before they decide on this policy proposal. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't call saying that people approving the proposal is "ignorant knee-jerk reactions by people who simply don't like the use of AI tools for whatever personal reasons" just addressing a few points. We'll have to agree to disagree though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did not say that. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, you did say that. It's slightly shortened for the sake of brevity but that's exactly what you said. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just two comments above I added the full quote to correct this false statement of yours and no I didn't say that if you can read. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here's the exact quote without the wall of text "neither replying nor providing any rationale or addressing any points shows how this is about ignorance, not anything thought through and possibly some emotional knee-jerk reaction because voters simply don't like the use of AI tools for whatever personal reasons." That's essentially the same thing I said. Except again, my version was shortened for brevity, but you still called people ignorant and said the whole thing was an emotional knee-jerk reaction because voters simply don't like the use of AI tools. So you were clearly being extremely insulting even if I left out a common and a few words from the original message. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can't "shorten it for brevity" if that makes your statement false. This is going in circles, I already addressed this in the linked comment above where I also put this full quote you added here again. My reply to your accusal of me calling the practice of ignoring all points ignorant was How is ignoring all points not ignorance and why am I forbidden to say the word ignorance which in this case is I think constructive (and we may disagree even when your language is often much stronger)?. I don't think it makes sense to continue going in circles and this is again the wall-of-text producing kind of commenting of yours that I previously mentioned. I don't think saying "this is about ignorance" is insulting and in fact you are the person who I so far found most insulting on WMC and who made actual ad-hominem insults rather than maybe a bit too direct criticism and not an as diplomatic softer language as may be best. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think I can if it still retains the original words that I said were insulting to begin with. And to the ignorant thing, there's no reason people need to have their personal motivations, cognitive abilities, or level of knowledge called out in the first place. It's totally pointless and adds absolutely nothing what-so-ever to the conversation. Plus it clearly goes against the whole thing about assuming good faith. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It provides some explanation, again probably not expressed diplomatic enough, for why it would be better if people provided explanations and addressed points and to some small degree may contribute to contextualizing things. I think that AGF is not a WMC policy is what may have allowed you to be so insulting many times in the past so it's kind of bizarre that you are calling me out on this which is much more constructive and softer than what you did multiple times without any repercussions. I'm not going against AGF even if it was a WMC policy which I think it should be to some degree. I did not call out "personal motivations or cognitive abilities", I said there is the possibility/the risk for emotional hasty reactions that do not consider the full consequences of this policy. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how exactly I've been allowed to be insulting in the past without repercussions when I've been blocked like 4 times. You've certainly gotten away with the condescending attitude more then I have at this point. Whatever helps you justify the bad attitude though. Feel free to file an ANU complaint if you think I've said anything recently that justifies one. I could really care less, but this isn't about me. Your just deflecting. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not an attitude. It's merely my conviction that decisions should be based on rationality, well thought through debate, and reasoning rather than things like for example only mere votecounts or emotional reactions or quick reactions without much thought, consistent with the cited WP policy. I have another opinion about which attitudes are more problematic and calling such out in a direct way is also seen as problematic. I may have commented a too often or not worked out diplomatic enough language toward that ideal which I think is important for society and the health of Wikimedia. I don't think I was condescending. What I said about you was just a note (and afaik the ANUs I have seen where some cases I know of were mentioned didn't result in a block), not meant to be deflecting. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't really see how you calling the whole thing a ignorant knee-jerk reaction or saying people just hate the technology is rational, well thought through debate or reasoning. If anything comments like that get in the way of people having that type of conversation because it just comes off as needlessly conformational and dismissive. You can't have it both ways where there's a rational, thought out debate but then whatever someone that you disagree with you just dismiss as them making ignorant knee-jerk comments. That's not how it works. Skip it and let people have their opinions. Otherwise just don't comment. I'd love to see one fucking conversation having to do with AI where you don't just insult people and bludgeoning the whole thing. Just once. Seriously is it really that hard for you to keep your mouth shout and let people have their opinions without acting condescending? I know you can do. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well again: I didn't say that. I don't just insult people and actually don't insult people at all. I made points like raising likely unforeseen problematic consequences, pointed out the lack of explanations, etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah you did. Your just being disingenuous. Just don't bludgeoning the conversation or saying people are ignorant and just hate the technology next time. It's not that difficult. There's absolutely no reason what-so-ever to act the way you do over it every fucking time AI comes up on here. "Wahhh everyone who disagrees with me is an ignorant over emotional hater of AI and I'm just trying to have a reasonable, thought conversation about it!" Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

@Jmabel: I doubt anything will be done about it anyway but here's a diff from the current Village Pump discussion, forth line down "I doubt you have seen the video I linked and neither replying nor providing any rationale or addressing any points shows how this is about ignorance, not anything thought through and possibly some emotional knee-jerk reaction because voters simply don't like the use of AI tools." --Adamant1 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but that's a nothingburger. You yourself did worse right in this discussion here. "I'd love to see one fucking conversation having to do with AI where you don't just insult people and bludgeoning the whole thing [etc.]" I'm not at all interested in blocking either of you, but I wish both of you would ratchet it down. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You've been involved in at least a couple of discussions where he acted the same way. So your the last person I should have to give diffs to. But there's plenty of other stuff out there. He constantly acts condescending and defensive to people. I just don't feel like wasting the time finding specific examples when it's obvious by reading any discussion that he's ever been involved having to do with AI and he's probably not going to be sanctioned anyway regardless. And there's always cherry picked comment I made that someone can point to try and act like it's my behavior is equivalent. Prototyperspective repeatedly insults people and bludgeons every discussion he's involved in that has to do AI, but apparently it's a wash because I said one thing in an ANU complaint. There's always going to be some dumb cherry picked reason not to sanction someone when I report them but then I'll get blocked if I so much as blink in the wrong direction. Whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with some of what you've said (and with some of his criticisms of you), but if you want administrative action over behavior that is of concern to you, then you need to build the case rather than say you "don't feel like wasting the time" while asking administrators to spend theirs. - Jmabel ! talk 08:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel: That's totally fair. I just don't have the time or energy to provide diffs for every thing he's said in the last year in relation to AI generated artwork. It's a super pain in the ass and takes a lot of time to find diffs for something that chronic. Plus there's already the exiting conversation on the village pump anyway. Cool if that's not enough though. All I can do is report someone on my end with the evidence I'm able to find and provide at the time.
  •   Oppose any sanctioning of Prototyperspective. This is yet another case of Adamant1 escalating a garden-variety argument into an unnecessary conflict about a controversial subject with no intention of trying to back it up. Prototyperspective is not “bludgeoning” here; making 0.01% more comments than some arbitrary number is not “bludgeoning”. Making a few ad hominem attacks or whatever in the heat of the moment is not sufficient to sanction an otherwise productive user. What I see here is clear W:WP:BOOMERANG material, and I don’t use that term casually. Dronebogus (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • P.S. @Adamant1: I think you are a productive user; however you have some serious, chronic problems with incivility, intolerance of different opinions and litigiousness. I feel like you’re importing the worst tendencies of Enwiki (where such behaviors are tolerated, particularly among high-ranking users) to Commons (where such behaviors are frowned upon by most regulars). The user problems board, unlike ANI, is not a place to vent in hopes of getting revenge for some perceived slight; it’s a last resort for users who are huge timesinks or have otherwise crossed a very clear line of acceptable behavior. Don’t be one of those users. Dronebogus (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Making 0.01% more comments than some arbitrary number is not “bludgeoning”. @Dronebogus: Sure, I'd agree if he had of only made 0.01% more comments than some arbitrary number. He made 12 comments and essentially every other comment is from him. That would certainly be bludgeoning if I was the one doing it. Plus like I said, there's a pattern of him doing the exact same thing in other discussions. The same goes for the ad hominem attacks. Again, it wasn't one comment made in the heat of the moment. He makes the same exact comments and acts the exact same way EVERY TIME there's a proposal having to do with AI generated artwork on here. Either you haven't looked into or your intentionally being disingenuous.
And yeah, I do think a chronic pattern of bad behavior in a specific area over a year warrants a block. Especially considering that he's already been warned and asked to stop doing it. I've certainly been blocked for way less myself. It's not my issue if you aren't willing to see past my screen name though. I have as much right to report a user for chronic bad behavior as anyone else does. It's not like you weren't the first one to report me a few months ago the second I was issues in deletion requests even though you've been reported and blocked almost as much as I have. I'm not out there wagging my finger at you about either. I could give a crap if report someone as long as they deserve it. So spare me the condescension and sanctimony. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No diffs = no evidence = no sanctions. I skimmed the discussion and then re-read it just now, and saw a lot of you two arguing, evidence you should probably both disengage. In any case citing one discussion is not sufficient. Without diffs you’re just casting aspersions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can guarantee you'd just make some other excuse about how I'm the one who should be sanctioned even if I did provide diffs. There's no amount of evidence that good enough for axe grinding opportunists like you. So I'm not wasting my time. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I try to give you advice and you insult me? When you’re trying to claim someone else is uncivil? I’ll be blunt: you need diffs, period. Otherwise drop this. If you continue just asserting your rightness with minimal evidence you will lose this case and possibly get sanctioned again. Dronebogus (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can say that, but where were the diffs and evidence when you got me blocked a few months ago huh? I asked for both repeatedly and no one provided any. You certainly didn't. So it's not even your own standard except when I'm the one reporting someone for some reason. You were more then fine with me being blocked based on essentially nothing though. I could care less, but I'm not going to provide diffs and evidence to you when you clearly wouldn't care about either one I was the one being reported here. That's why I said your an axe grinding opportunists BTW. You Clearly have no standards about this outside of piggy backing on and exploiting whatever benefits you at the time. It's not an insult. It's literally how you act, repeatedly, essentially every time we've interacted with each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the discussion you mentioned I provided 9 examples of your behavior from the get-go and added more later. You have provided 1, and it’s not even a good one. Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I actually mentioned three. The Insults, bludgeoning, and canvasing. Regardless, in the ANU complaint all you did was link to a couple of discussions and then made some vague assertion about how I don't care about deletion policy. That's not evidence of anything and nowhere did you provide any diffs, which is what we're talking about. It's literally no different then what I'm doing here either. Your just moving the bar and being disingenuous. Thanks for proving my point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mentioning is completely different than showing. I showed you didn’t seem to care about policy by linking to examples of you making DRs that violated said policy, which a bunch of users and an admin agreed showed problematic behavior. You just say provide one link that displays behavior that’s barely over the line, and then baselessly claim this is somehow a chronic problem. Here you have an admin looking at your “evidence” and shrugging. I’m simply agreeing with that admin. If you answer this with yet another “it’s not my fault”/IDHT type answer I will formally propose a boomerang against you. Dronebogus (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Dronebogus: I'll say this and then drop it on my end. There was you, a few people who were lying and axe grinding because I nominated a couple of their images for deletion, and an admin who clearly on a power trip (and I say that because he said as much when subsequently chewed my ass out in private emails for no reason). At the end of the day it's not that hard to get someone blocked by repeatedly lying about them until an admin comes along who gets off on blocking people.
Here's the thing though, the fact is that I work in an extremely wide area of subjects on here and quit of them are either controversial to begin with or the guidelines around them are very unclear. And I get an almost endless amount of insults, threats, and harassment over it. 99% of the time nothing is done about it though and I just have to sit with a big grin on my face while being endless barraged with xenophobic, insulting bullshit since there's essentially zero point in reporting people for it. It what it is. The difference is that I'm not out there lecturing you about how to act or saying you should be blocked when you report people to ANU. Your only doing it me for some reason, and I don't even have anything to do with you or the areas you edit in. So It comes off like weird, stalkerish nonsense. I'm not going to say anything else about it outside of that, except your behavior is bordering on harassment at this point. But I'm done with this on my end. Maybe find someone else to have a weird obsession with. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

W:WP:BOOMERANG for Adamant1?

edit

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)Reply

Pinging @Jmabel: to get an administrative opinion Dronebogus (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@Wolverine XI: Swearing is Permissible --Adamant1 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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 ([1], [2]) 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 [3] 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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
@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)Reply
@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)Reply

A user uploading potentially copyrighted images

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

  Done. User is warned, all uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Depending on which images you are referencing, I was granted permission to use them along with the several websites that freely use them across the internet. I requested the photographer to release the rights to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for clarity Borderman1993 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Borderman1993: I don't have time to look right now, but did you follow the instructions to mark them all with {{PP}} when uploading? - Jmabel ! talk 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yousef_kazemi is blocked for a week due to uploading copyright files

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

these two Sockpuppetry accounts are blocked indefinitely

upon opening again uploading copyright files like this

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

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

Technological Gyan

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Lascorpion

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I deleted some of the most complex files, and warned the user. Some of the flags are fictional, so are probably out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I think however there still are bunch of copyvios left. Jonteemil (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes probably. Please tag them. Yann (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay I tagged a bunch of files with {{Logo}} but of course some might be incorrect taggings. Jonteemil (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

PancakeBoah

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

A user uploading copyrighted photos over several months

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

User:14.236.170.225

edit
Latest comment: 4 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

  Done blocked for 2 weeks by Pi Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=929090652"