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

Browse history interactively

← Older edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Add topic

Revision as of 07:48, 5 July 2024 edit ArchiverBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 227,664 edits m Bot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 7 days) to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 113 ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 20:00, 26 July 2024 edit undo Adamant1 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrollers, File movers 376,591 edits →‎Adamant1
(560 intermediate revisions by 98 users not shown)
Line 5: \|archive = Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive %(counter)d \|algo = old(7d) \|counter = ~~113~~114 \|maxarchivesize = 250K \|minthreadsleft = 0 Line 21: {{clear}} == ~~[[User:Laurel Lodged]]~~Quickero005 == {{user3\|Quickero005}} continues uploading copyvios 10 days after {{noping\|Yann}} warned them. [[User:Günther Frager\|Günther Frager]] ([[User talk:Günther Frager\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Khankendi is a city in Azerbaijan and since 2023 it is under Azerbaijani control. Its previous name was Stepanakert but in 1991 it was renamed and today its official and since 2023 de facto name is Khankendi. Even in recent reliable sources this city is mentioned first of all as "Khankendi" but "Stepanakert" is mentioned only as a name "known to Armenians" or "known in Armenia"[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66995976][https://www.reuters.com/world/aliyev-says-azerbaijan-start-resettling-capital-karabakh-region-september-2024-05-29/]. Even the recent report of The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights uses the name of Khankendi throughout the report, only once in the beginning mentioning that the city is "referred to as Stepanakert by Karabakh Armenians"[https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/armenia-and-azerbaijan-effective-human-rights-protection-of-all-persons-affected-by-the-conflict-over-the-karabakh-region-is-key-to-the-success-of-the-peace-process]. For that reason all categories containing the name of this city in their names should be with "Khankendi". And categories with "Stepanakert" should be redirected to the categories with "Khankendi". But user {{userlinks\|Laurel Lodged}} continues edit warring reverting the categories with "Stepanakert" back misleading the readers of Commons. I asked this user on his talk page to not revert "Stepanakert" back and explained why the categories should be with "Khankendi"[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Laurel_Lodged&diff=next&oldid=883383329], but he ignored my message and continues mass edit warring [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Laurel_Lodged reverting the wrong and not actual name of the city back and removing ]the redirects to "Khankendi"[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AMonuments_and_memorials_in_Stepanakert&diff=887512251&oldid=887417167][https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ASculptures_in_Stepanakert&diff=887508607&oldid=887419109][https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAzatamartikneri_boulevard%2C_Stepanakert.jpg&diff=887511516&oldid=887418153][https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AReliefs_in_Stepanakert&diff=887510269&oldid=887418680][https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AStepanakert&diff=887509652&oldid=887417077]. So, please stop this user from posting false information into Commons and help to revert his edits on these categories. [[User:Interfase\|Interfase]] ([[User talk:Interfase\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC) : We should now be using the Azeri name, with the Armenian name as a redirect. It's possible that there are certain historical categories where the Armenian name is correct, especially if it is part of a longer proper noun phrase. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 20:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC) ::For example, we have redirect from "Swaziland" to "Eswatini"[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Swaziland] which is relatively new renaming (in 2018), but Stepanakert was renamed to Khankendi in 1991 and the old name ceased to exist de facto in place in 2023. We should have the same redirect here as well: from "Stepanakert" to "Khankendi", not the other way around. There is no any "Stepanakert" in Azerbaijan today. The current situation is simply absurd. [[User:Interfase\|Interfase]] ([[User talk:Interfase\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC) :::This is just my personal take of course, but I'm hesitant to say we should adopt a new name for somewhere the second it's changed. Depending on the circumstances categories aren't supposed to be 100% accurate depictions of the current facts on the ground to begin with and lots of times they aren't (or can't be) anyway. That's fine. The main thing is that people are able to find and organize media related to the topic. In this case maybe locals know the name has changed, but it takes time for the rest of the world to catch up and this isn't a project just for locals or people who are overly obsessive about the latest trends in geopolitics or whatever. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC) ::::More than 30 years passed since the city was renamed to "Khankendi" and today this name is widely used in the world press nad other sources. The rest of the world already catched up the name "Khankendi". Just 2 years passed when "Swaziland" was renamed to "Eswatini". What is a problem here? We have more that enogh sources showing that "Khankendi" is widely used in the world. [[User:Interfase\|Interfase]] ([[User talk:Interfase\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC) :::::{{ping\|Interfase}} See Prosfilaes' comment below this one. Your claim that The rest of the world already catched up the name "Khankendi" is clearly false. Regardless, there's no point in changing it if the vast majority of other projects are still using the original name. Again, the point in a category is to find and organize files. That's it. Not be a 100% accurate representation of the current facts on the ground, whatever those facts are in this case. Maybe take it up on Wikipedia's end though and then we can update it once they do. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC) ::: The English Wikipedia (and [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q129352 probably the majority of Wikipedias]) hasn't changed the name yet. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia says there's not much of a Khankendi in Azerbaijan, either; the entire population appears to have fled on the approach of the Azerbaijan military. When you say "Stepanakert was renamed to Khankendi in 1991", that's omitting who gave it that name; the Azerbaijan government may have made that change, but the people of Stepanakert never accepted it. This is complex; instead of renaming anything, I'd almost recognize it as a new city on the same location and completely separate categories depending on time period. It's like the difference between [[:Category:Königsberg]] and [[:Category:Kaliningrad]].--[[User:Prosfilaes\|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC) ::::So, do you think that here we should use the same approcah? Keep both categories with "Khankendi" and "Stepanakert" and put files related to the period since 1923 to 2023 into "Stepanakert" and the files related to the period till 1923 and since 2023 into "Khankendi"? [[User:Interfase\|Interfase]] ([[User talk:Interfase\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC) :::::How many images have been uploaded since 2023 compared to before that? --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC) ~~::::::Almost 100. [[User:Interfase\|Interfase]] ([[User talk:Interfase\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)~~ ::::::But I am not agree to have two different categories for the same city because almost all of the images related to the city were taken at the period when the city was officialy called "Khankendi". [[User:Interfase\|Interfase]] ([[User talk:Interfase\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC) ::::::Hmmm, I could really go either way with it myself then. Although it's probably better not to create two different categories anyway. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC) :Speaking as an administrator, this does not appear to be a user behavioral issue. If the category was at a longstanding place, and you are seeking to change it against opposition, please utilize the [[COM:CFD\|categories for discussion]] method in order to attempt to gain a consensus. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk\|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk\|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 03:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC) ::But user did not bring any arguments for his reverts. It seems that he did reverts for the reverts without any explanation on his talk page after my message. [[User:Interfase\|Interfase]] ([[User talk:Interfase\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC) ::Anyway, I opened the discussion here: [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Stepanakert]] (thanks for navigation) and proposed to move the categories carrying the "Stepanakert". [[User:Interfase\|Interfase]] ([[User talk:Interfase\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC) '''What was this even about?''' My bad behaviour? Bad categorisation? Annoyance that the Azerbaijani victory over Arksakh is not getting proper recognition? I refrained from comment here and on the categories because I have experience of the complainant: dialog is useless as his sole goal is to advance a political agenda. He's not that subtle about it. I'll continue the "discussion" in the above talk page. Thanks for your attention. [[User:Laurel Lodged\|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) :I think the user was objecting to your objection to the renaming of a category, and didn't quite know the proper channel to discuss it. The user has since been directed to it, and has [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Stepanakert\|opened a discussion]] regarding whether or not to move the category. I feel like we can close this with no action. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk\|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk\|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 04:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :{{done}} by EugeneZelenko, 1 week banned. [[User:Modern primat\|'''modern_primat''']]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Modern primat\|ඞඞඞ]]</sup><sup>[[User talk:Modern primat\| ----TALK]]</sup> 21:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC) ~~== Rare behavior ==~~ :Still continues. --[[User:Geohakkeri\|Geohakkeri]] ([[User talk:Geohakkeri\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Hi. I've noticed [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AHeliconia_psittacorum_plant_in_a_Park_of_Dhaka.jpg&diff=889480017&oldid=889297534 this edition] of [[User:Lahsim Niasoh\|Lahsim Niasoh]] where he changes the author of the file. I've checked his contribs and I've seen the same behavior indicates as "Changed claim: creator (P170): some value". When I've checked the edits it seems he's the uploader, but the author ''before'' was another user O.o I'm not sure what is going on here. I've never seen anything like this. If someone can please help me I'll be glad. At this point I'll withdraw the permission untill some light come to this issue. Thanks. [[User:Ganímedes\|Ganímedes]] ([[User talk:Ganímedes\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC) : User:Yubrajhn redirects to UserːLahsim Niasoh - so it looks like he is changing authorship manually [[User:Gbawden\|Gbawden]] ([[User talk:Gbawden\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC) :Sorry for my behavior, My username has been changed so I am changing my uploads authorship manually. All files is uploaded by me. Please pardon me. [[User:Lahsim Niasoh\|Lahsim Niasoh]] ([[User talk:Lahsim Niasoh\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ::Also I have sent severals permission email for my uploads before my username has been changed (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lahsim_Niasoh&diff=prev&oldid=889314587). So I just manually renamed my new username to my files authorship (those files were also captured by myself). Before my username was Yubrajhn and new username is Lahsim Niasoh. So please review those files, I didn't give authorship to another person two username is mine and I am the author + those files were uploaded by myself. Again I am very sorry for my behavior. Please take a step so that my username manually changes don't affect to get the files copyright Permission. Thank you so much. My English is weak so please pardon me again. @[[User:Ganímedes\|Ganímedes]] @[[User:Gbawden\|Gbawden]] [[User:Lahsim Niasoh\|Lahsim Niasoh]] ([[User talk:Lahsim Niasoh\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC) :::@[[User:Ganímedes\|Ganímedes]]: Doesn't seem any problematic edit given a valid account rename: [[Special:Diff/889314587]]. Regards, <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">signed, </span></sub></small>[[User:Aafi\|<span style="font-family:sans-serif; color:#4682B4; text-shadow:.2em .2em .4em #AfAfB1;">'''Aafi'''</span>]] [[User talk:Aafi\|<sup> '' (talk)''</sup>]] 16:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ~~{{section resolved\|[[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 19:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)}}~~ == ~~[[User:Enhancing999]]~~Krzysio.szubzda.1 == {{user5\|Krzysio.szubzda.1}} ~~{{atop\|Enough. The only likely admin action here is if someone won't let this drop they will be blocked. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 17:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)}}~~ ~~User is continuing editwarring in the [[:Category:Zeichen 244, StVO 1992]]. --[[User:A.Savin\|A.Savin]] 13:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)~~ ~~{{abottom}}~~ I blocked this account for a week for uploading copyright violations after warning. I deleted obvious copyvios, notably screenshots. There are still many files to check, most of them probably not OK, despite the EXIF data. 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) {{unsigned2\|14:40, 18 July 2024\|Yann}} ~~=== [[User:A.Savin]] ===~~ {{atop\|Not a problem that requires administrative action. Enhancing999 and A.Savin should discuss their edits on the category/user talk page or village pump and come to a consensus. —'''Matrix(!)''' <nowiki>{</nowiki>''[[User:Matrix\|user]] - [[User talk:Matrix\|talk?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix\|<sub><small><s>useless</s></small></sub>contributions]]''<nowiki>}</nowiki> 17:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)}} User is redoing an edit that was reverted at [[:Category:Zeichen 244, StVO 1992]], despite having been provided an explanation and without opening a discussion on the topic. Seems rather inappropriate for an administrator. [[User:Enhancing999\|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ~~:What should it be, kind of a [[:en:Tit for tat\|Tit for tat]]? Childish --[[User:A.Savin\|A.Savin]] 13:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)~~ ::Why did both of you open this report here without starting a discussion on category talk page or user talk page or event the village pump? These are the places to resolve content disputes not the admin board. [[User:GPSLeo\|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC) :::The categorization matter is currently resolved. We are now reviewing the conduct of A.Savin in the matter (first the revert, then the report here, further the "childish" qualification). [[User:Enhancing999\|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ~~::::How is the categorization matter resolved? Do you have a special "final say" right, or why aren't you willing to discuss? --[[User:A.Savin\|A.Savin]] 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)~~ :::::The purpose of AN/U isn't to discuss categorization, but to evaluate your conduct. [[User:Enhancing999\|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ::::::Yes, we do not discuss the content dispute here. This also means that your statement "categorization matter is currently resolved" does not belong here. So please start a discussion on the question on the pages were it belongs. If you discuss in an appropriate way and accept the conclusion there is nothing to do here. [[User:GPSLeo\|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) :::::::I suggest we block A.Savin indefinitely until he withdraws the above qualification and presents an acceptable excuse for their conduct. [[User:Enhancing999\|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ::::::::Please stop demanding totally inappropriate actions because of a minor content dispute. The report here without a prior discussion apart from the undo comments is not best practice but never a reason for a block. [[User:GPSLeo\|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC) :::::::::Besides that A.Savin's report here violates the instructions above, do you consider the comment by the user here ( 13:13, 28 June 2024) acceptable? [[User:Enhancing999\|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC) :::::::::BTW, my report has nothing to do with a content dispute, it's a matter of user conduct by the administrator. [[User:Enhancing999\|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC) :::::::::I recently found the noticeboard behavior by Enhancing999 towards me equally unconstructive. They were literally the only user pushing a particular POV, but they used pretty much the same language as here: "issues resolved" (in their opinion, in the opinion of many other users not resolved); "we are discussing whether Ymblanter should remain and administrator" (instead of "I am discussing"), and so on. Seems to be a recurring issue. [[User:Ymblanter\|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ::::::::::Both of you were involved in admin conduct I consider inappropriate about that user. Interestingly, nobody could name a categorization question we needed to discuss at [[User_talk:Jeanhousen#Cimetières_et_patrimoine_classé]]. [[User:Enhancing999\|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC) :::::::::::I am afraid if you still do not understand what the problem was (despite being told many times) you are not likely to understand this. Then what you consider inappropriate is irrelevant, since you do not have sufficient understanding of our policies. This is also very clear from this thread. [[User:Ymblanter\|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ::::::::::::You were pressing a user for answers to questions you consider open, but don't bother naming nor did you explain what report lead you press that user. [[User:Enhancing999\|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, perfect counduct, I fully agree. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AZeichen_244%2C_StVO_1992&diff=889607787&oldid=889607044 Continuing editwarring] with the explanation as much as "there is no consensus for your edit", and then [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=889658146 demanding indefblock] of a user who doesn't happen to agree with you. --[[User:A.Savin\|A.Savin]] 14:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC) {{o}} Minor content dispute, no action needed against Alex. --[[User:SHB2000\|SHB2000]] ([[User talk:SHB2000\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC) {{o}} I had a similar issue with A.Savin a while ago. That said, both of their ways of handling this are clearly not great. So either both should be sanctioned or neither one should be, and I doubt either one would accept a sanction just to get back at the other. Especially considering how menial this whole thing was to begin with. So I don't really see what else needs to or should be done here. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC) == Adamant1 == If you're editwarring and get reported at this noticeboard, best way to avoid sanction is... to report the one who reported you! The Enhancing999 thread just above is still empty. Editwarring and obvious misuse of COM:ANU is apparently allowed, if your name is Enhancing999. Wow, just wow --[[User:A.Savin\|A.Savin]] 06:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC) ::Both of you seemed to have jumped the gun on the ANU complaints. Even if yours was technically filed first. So maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC) :::How is this helpful in any way? If persistent editwarring is not to report at COM:ANU, then what else is to do about it? Or are you just trying to showcase your knowledge of some German idioms? --[[User:A.Savin\|A.Savin]] 08:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC) ~~:::: {{ping\|A.Savin}} little idea what here you consider a "German idiom".~~ :::: As it happens, I agree with A.Savin on the matter at hand. That text is apparently part of the sign, even if it isn't visible in every photo and, yes, attaching it to the category is better, and I might well have done just what he did on that page, though I would certainly have tried to discuss by some other means with the other user before coming to AN/U. {{pinging\|Enhancing999}} it looks like you made no argument more meaningful that "no, this is how it should be", then reported A.Savin here for not accepting that impeccable logic. I don't think this calls for a sanction against you, but it ''certainly'' doesn't call for a sanction against ''him''. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 16:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC) ~~{{abottom}}~~ {{user3\|Adamant1}} has made a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content ( [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin)]] ), and their conduct in this matter has been less than civil and respectful. Their demands for extra proof from uploaders are unreasonable and have caused unnecessary disputes. Instead of being receptive to others’ input, they consistently double down on their position. ~~=== Sequence ===~~ ~~{{atop\|Enough. The only likely admin action here is if someone won't let this drop they will be blocked. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 17:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)}}~~ {{ping\|Jmabel}}: Maybe you got the sequence wrong, but A.Savin reported myself here on a content debate, not the opposite. I reported here them for their way of approaching this, by not discussing it and their insults, even suggesting users would seek their block for not agreeing with them on matters of curation. Besides, there seems to be a pattern with A.Savin to use administrative action instead of discussing their approach with other users. Take [[User_talk:Jeanhousen/Archive_5#Rorschacher]]: without barely letting time to respond (during sleep?), A.Savin issued an "administrative warning" on a trivial editorial question. [[User:Enhancing999\|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC) ~~: Yes, I was aware. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 17:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)~~ ~~{{abottom}}~~ Their claim of years of experience leading to "a pretty deep understanding of the laws and policies around these things" led me to find a multitude of similar issues which have seemingly not yield a meaningful improvement in their conduct. The first of which dealt directly with FoP in Belgium ([[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_112#Adamant1]]). ~~===Enhancing999's temperament===~~ ~~{{atop\|Enough. The only likely admin action here is if someone won't let this drop they will be blocked. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 17:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)}}~~ This is the second time (that I'm aware of) in a very short window that Enhancing999 has been told to disengage, the thread they've been feuding in has been closed, and they've tried to reopen it. You can see the first at [[User_talk:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy#AN/U]]. (There are several other complaints against Adamant1 that I have not reviewed in detail, but they can be found here: [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_113#Adamant1]] {{ping\|Enhancing999}} Bluntly, you need to learn to disengage, especially when other users give you an off ramp to do so by closing threads where you're engaging in non-productive arguing. If you continue to try to reopen threads like this after admins have said that there's nothing actionable, ''you'' are the one that's going to get blocked. The admins on this project are overworked as it is without having to deal with people that seemingly enjoy fighting for fighting's sake. [[User:The Squirrel Conspiracy\|The Squirrel Conspiracy]] ([[User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_107#Adamant1]] ~~::Which thread was reopened? I think you are making inappropriate personal attacks and falsely accusing me of reopening a (open) thread. I'd appreciate a correction from your side.~~ [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_99#User:Adamant1]] ::If you think it wasn't useful to include subsequent behavior in the thread you closed by agreeing that the taunting by the reported user wasn't appropriate, it's obviously your choice. I could have opened a new thread. [[User:Enhancing999\|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_102#Adamant1]] :Not to say that I think Enhancing999 should have continued it after the complaint was closed, but A.Savin seems to have a real problem with trying to goad people into fighting with him to. I have yet to have a conversation with A.Savin where he didn't just misconstrue what I said to cause needless drama. Really at this point both of them should be blocked. Although for an extremely short time, but I think both of them could benefit from a short cooling off period. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_98#Adamant1]] :I'd like to add [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJameslwoodward&diff=890211345&oldid=890211089 falsely accusing me of harassment and threating to report me to the WMF for no reason on top of it to]. A.Savin clearly has an attitude problem and likes to stir up drama. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_92#Adamant1]] ::Should we open a separate thread or new section on A.Savin behavior not discussed above? [[User:Enhancing999\|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_81]] ::: {{ping\|Enhancing999}} Almost certainly we should not. The two of you should either try (both) to talk civilly to each other or just plain disengage for a while. [[User:A.Savin]]: I realize you are an admin, but really, it looks like you and Enhancing999 have enough difficulty with each other that unless something is at the level of threatening the general operation of the wiki, you should probably just lay off of him for a while. If his behavior is bad enough, I'm sure some other admin will notice it. And [[User:Enhancing999]], if you post again on this thread I personally will block you for a week. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 17:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive_20#Adamant1]] ~~{{abottom}}~~ [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_100#Editwarring_by_Adamant1]]) [[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] has even threatened to repeat these FoP deletion requests and has made vague demands to “properly document and license” my uploads after their arguments have been thoroughly refuted ("Otherwise don't be surprised if your files get nominated for deletion"). I would much prefer to avoid any further dealings with them, and I believe the community would benefit from this as well. --[[User:Trougnouf\|Trougnouf]] ([[User talk:Trougnouf\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC) ~~== Susudela ==~~ The idea of any sort of collegial working has always been alien to Adamant1. This is entirely typical. [[User:Andy Dingley\|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)] :::{{ping\|Andy Dingley}} It's funny to me how that critizim always comes from some of the rudest people on here. But whatever. See my comment below. Are you seriously going to rude or worth blocking someone just because they said people shoud properly license and document their uploads? Come on. Trougnouf tells me I'm waging an "inquestion" against FOP, refuses to drop it after I asked them to multiple times, and somehow I'm the rude one here. It's pretty obvious you have zero ground to stand on. You never have had any. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC) ::A couple of things here that the person who opened this is just being dishonest about. ~~{{user5\|Susudela}}~~ ::#{{tq\|[[User:Adamant1]] has made a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content}} I didn't open a "broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content" The DR has to do with a single mural that all the images where in the same category for. That is not "a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content" and there's no rule against opening a DR for multiple files for the same subject that are in the same category. ::#{{tq\|their conduct in this matter has been less than civil and respectful. Their demands for extra proof from uploaders are unreasonable and have caused unnecessary disputes.}} All I said was that the images weren't properly licensed or cited to the creator and it's on the uploaders to provide that information. That's it. There's nothing uncivil about that. Trougnouf then decided to treat me like I was doing an "inquisition" (their words) against FOP in Belgium. They also refused to drop it and continued responding to me after I said it I rather not continue the conversation. Both of which was extremely rude. It's not on me that Trougnouf decided to beat a dead horse after I told them multiple times that I was done discussing it. ::#{{tq\|[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] has even threatened to repeat these FoP deletion requests.}} That's patently false. Nowhere have I said I was going to continue the FOP deletion requests. All I said is that they shouldn't be surprised if people nominate their there images for deletion if they don't properly license or document them. That's not a threat and nowhere did I say I was planning on being the one do it. So this ANU is totally baseless. Trougnouf needs to just accept that their uploads will be nominated for deletion sometimes, drop the retaliatory bad attitude, and move on like I repeatedly asked them to in the DR. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC) I'd rather not see any admin action here but, [[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]], your really don't have to -- indeed, ought not -- respond to ''every'' statement you disagree with on a DR. Your own view is clear, people agree or disagree, fine. Unless they've specifically addressed a question to you, or raised a substantive issue ''relevant to the DR'' to which you have a substantive response, typically you should just leave it alone and trust that the person who reads the closes the DR will read what everyone said and evaluate it. You actually make it much harder for them to do so when the DR becomes a long thread of tangentially related discussions. User keeps edit warring unnecessary categories into their files. [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC) : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Standing_sexual_intercourse.webm&diff=prev&oldid=889573405 looks like a totally inappropriate edit. More specifically, it looks not only like edit-warring but like an effort by [[User:Susudela]] to "promote" their (sexually explicit) content by getting it into as many categories as possible. I've posted to their page asking them to come to this discussion but whether they do or not: if this conduct continues, they should be blocked. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 19:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC) I don't want to overstate what I just said -- I've sometimes seen genuinely productive, broader discussions arise on a DR ''and'' I'm sure you didn't respond to literally ''everything'' you disagree with -- but if it's turning into more or less an argument, it's rarely productive to keep disagreeing at length. It "sucks all the air out of the room," discouraging other people from participating productively in the discussion. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 05:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC) ~~== [[User:LustfulWyvern]] ==~~ :That's totally fair in general. I think it's a little unfair in this case considering I told Trougnouf to drop it and their the one's who continued responding, but whatever. It's not really that I disagree with people. It's that they say things that are either patently false and/or involve personal needling. If someone says I'm on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" or that I'm wasting everyone's time with the DR then I'm going to respond. Their the ones sucking the room out of the air by not sticking to the actual reason the images were nominated for deletion. :I'm 100% there to have a substantive conversation. You can look through my past DRs. 99% of the time when I respond to someone it's because what they say is totally vacuous, personal nonsense that adds absolutely nothing useful to the discussion. I guess I can cut down responding to those types of things, but I think a better solution would be for people to just stop making blathering, off-topic personal comments in deletion requests. It seems like know one really cares about it though. It's not the personal needling that's a problem, the real issue is responding to it for some reason. I'll be sure to shut up and nod my head silently in agreement the next time someone won't stop responding when I ask them to and says I'm on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" though. I swear the priorities on here are fucked. You want me to shine their shoes to while I'm at it? --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC) ~~Inappropriate username; only uploads are dick pics [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)~~ :{{quote\|I'd rather not see any admin action here}} :{{d}} for the latter. [[User:The Squirrel Conspiracy\|The Squirrel Conspiracy]] ([[User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC) :While I'm not advocating for an outright ban, I think there should be a clear message from the admins that [[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] is not allowed to open FoP Deletion Requests (or DR altogether). :@[[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] What's the problem with the name? Is "lustful" offensive to you? [[User:Counterfeit Purses\|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC) :This isn't the first issue with them, communication is broken and goes nowhere despite what everyone has to say, and it is a legitimate fear that uploading anything supposedly protected by Freedom of Panorama (as well as the countless content already uploaded) will result in such frustration again. ~~::In context yes because the user is an exhibitionist [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)~~ :I'm sure that [[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] has some positive contributions and these DR are certainly not part of them, so it would be in everyone's best interest if they were to refrain from making them. --[[User:Trougnouf\|Trougnouf]] ([[User talk:Trougnouf\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC) ::[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]], you recently told me about all the things that are more important to you than deletion discussions - will you promise to stay away from deletion discussion for at least half a year so things can cool down? I know this is a long time for you, but as I said ... there are many other things you can do that are not perceived as problematic, where on the contrary the communiy sees your edits as productive. So could you consider this? --[[User:Kritzolina\|Kritzolina]] ([[User talk:Kritzolina\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC) :::{{ping\|Kritzolina}} honestly I would, but it's almost impossible to do anything that doesn't involve deletions on here some how. I accidently upload a scan of a postcard that's wrong and want it deleted as a curtesy then I'm screwed there. Read through the DR. Trougnouf says in this that "communication with me is broken." I'm the one who said twice to end the conversation and stop beating the horse about it. They continued it and had the last word. :::I don't care if they feel like there's a "a fear that uploading anything supposedly protected by Freedom of Panorama is going to deleted." It's one DR for a single mural that I at least felt was justified at the time due to the questionable circumstances and told Jmabel I probably would have been fine retracting half way through if it wasn't for Trougnouf's attitude and badgering. Their "fear" is totally unfounded concern trolling just because their upset that I nominated one of their images for deletion though. That's all it is. There is no wider "inquisition" against FOP on my end here. People get DRs wrong sometimes. That's it. And again, the DR seemed justified at the time. ~~== [[User:Nonickillo]] ==~~ :::I'll meet you halfway though. Show me any evidence what-so-ever that I'm an "inquisition against Belgium FOP" or threatened to go on one and I'll accept a full six month block. I'm not doing that or accepting a topic ban based on zero evidence though. That's not to say I don't accept Jmabel's feedback or won't listen to it. I certainly could reply less in general. But that again, in this case I'm not the one who continued it after I was told to stop. Trougnouf did and I think Jmabel's feedback is certainly enough. Again though, I'm more then willing to accept a six month block if you provide evidence of me being on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" or whatever. Otherwise this should be dropped and/or Trougnouf should receive a warning not to file baseless, retaliatory ANU complaints again. I don't think it's unreasonable that if your going to say I should take a six month topic ban or full for something that there should be some actual actual evidence of it though. Otherwise your just feeding into retaliatory drama farming. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC) ~~{{user5\|Nonickillo}}~~ ::::I accept that it would be very awkward not to be able to nominate your own uploads for deletion, if something went wrong. So yes, we could make this a "I promise to step away from DRs, except nominating own uploads". The user reuploaded the pictures that were deleted. Would it be possible to delete the pictures again, please? [[User:CoffeeEngineer\|CoffeeEngineer]] ([[User talk:CoffeeEngineer\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC) ::::Otherwise this conversation sounds eerily like the one we had over the last AN/U coplaint against you - which, if I may remind you, was also about too broad DRs. So the problem might not be Belgian FOP, but overly broad DRs in general. This is why I am asking you to step away from DRs. And please notice, I am trying to pave a way to close this without admin action. So stop and think before replying again. [[User:Kritzolina\|Kritzolina]] ([[User talk:Kritzolina\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC) :::::Totally different circumstances from my perspective. In this case I said Jmabel's feedback was totally valid and that's something that I'm more then willing to work on. At least one of the images in the DR, [[:File:A street in Brussels de minimis.jpg]] was already deleted as a copyright violation and had been reuploaded against the previous consensus. I'm pretty sure there were others. Regardless, that DR was both start and closed by admins and I partially based the deletion request on the previous conclusion by them that these images are copyvio. So I disagree with your characterization that there was or is anything "overly broad" about this. The fact is that I looked into it, there was a previous consensus by multiple administrators that the images were copyrighted and one had already been deleted as such. :::::So I ~~re-uploaded~~thought it was worth nominating it and the ~~images~~other ~~because~~one's for deletions. I'm ~~have~~more ~~full~~then ~~permissions~~willing to ~~share~~admit ~~them,~~the ~~permissions~~consensus ~~that~~has ~~specifically~~clearly ~~include~~changed ~~their~~about ~~use~~it insince ~~the~~then, ~~document~~but Ithat doesn'mt ~~working~~make onthe DR "overly broad" or whatever. ~~These~~Nor is a deletion request being kept for images ~~are~~that ~~crucial~~were topreviously ~~illustrating~~deleted mybecause ~~work,~~a ~~so:~~consensus ~~Could~~about ~~you~~it behas sochanged ~~kind~~over time worth blocking or topic banning the nominator over. Again, that's asnot to ~~explain~~say I don't accept or won't listen to meJmabel's ~~why~~feedback though. I just reject the way you and Trougnouf are socharacterizing ~~interested~~this inand ~~removing~~I ~~them?~~don't ~~What~~think ~~should~~writing Ia docouple tomore ~~upload~~messages ~~them~~in soa ~~that~~DR ~~you~~then noI ~~longer~~probably ~~disturb~~should myhave ~~work?~~justifies ~~Kind~~a ~~regards~~block or topic ban. --[[User:~~Nonickillo~~Adamant1\|~~Nonickillo~~Adamant1]] ([[User talk:~~Nonickillo~~Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 2114:0626, 3019 ~~June~~July 2024 (UTC) ::~~{{ping\|Nonickillo}}~~::::I ~~Please~~am ~~read~~now ~~the~~taking ~~warnings~~time onaway ~~your~~from ~~talk~~this ~~page~~discussion. ~~You~~I ~~need~~would alike ~~formal~~to ~~written~~ask ~~permission~~you ~~from~~to also step away and use the ~~copyright~~time ~~holder~~to ~~before~~really ~~uploading~~think ~~works~~about ~~not~~things ~~created~~like byyour ~~you.~~discussion ~~Please~~style ~~see~~and ~~[[COM:VRT]]~~some ~~for~~of the ~~procedure~~advice I also shared via email in our last discussions. DoAlso ~~not~~please ~~reupload~~remeber ~~these~~- ~~files~~deletions ~~'''until~~make aeveryone ~~VRT Agent~~touchy and anone ~~Admin~~should ~~have~~be ~~completed'''~~especially ~~the~~careful ~~formalities~~when discussing them. [[User:~~Yann~~Kritzolina\|~~Yann~~Kritzolina]] ([[User talk:~~Yann~~Kritzolina\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 2214:1749, 3019 ~~June~~July 2024 (UTC) (bold addition by   — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.\|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping\|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk\|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 22:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)) {{Non-administrator observation}}- per the [[COM:PRP\|precautionary principle]], I think it is a good idea to submit DRs when someone has legitimate questions about copyright. Indeed the permissions under these files did not recognize the copyright holder of the characters in the mural - they should be tagged {{t1\|FoP-Belgium}} and recognize the original artist in Author, as the photos are [[COM:DW\|derivative works]]. Without the context discussed in the DR, they do look like copyright violations. But Adamant1's behaviour in the DR, arguing with seemingly every responder, is not pleasant. It would be better if they left their rationale to their initial nomination, where they did clearly explain themselves, and let the closing admin evaluate the validity of the nomination and responses. [[User:Consigned\|Consigned]] ([[User talk:Consigned\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC) :::Ok Yann, but in the case of images in which no one knows who took the photo, or in the case of images that are over 80 years old and no one knows the name of the photographer, and who is probably deceased... How should we proceed? Thank you. [[User:Nonickillo\|Nonickillo]] ([[User talk:Nonickillo\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC) ~~::::@[[User:Nonickillo\|Nonickillo]]:~~ ~~::::#Assume they are still copyrighted.~~ ~~::::#Assume they are still copyrighted until 120 years have passed, then use {{t2\|PD-old-assumed}}.~~ ::::  — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.\|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping\|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk\|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 22:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC) :::::Ok Jeff G., I'll try to clarify all this. It is really difficult, almost impossible, to use images on Wikipedia, despite having all the permissions from the owners of the photographs. Kind regards. [[User:Nonickillo\|Nonickillo]] ([[User talk:Nonickillo\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC) ::::::@[[User:Nonickillo\|Nonickillo]]: Sorry about that. I have 31 surviving uploads on enwiki, so I know it can be done. We follow copyright law worldwide. Individual Wikipedias follow what they want, subject in many cases to non-free content criteria. See [[COM:L]], [[m:nfc]], [[Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy]], and [https://freedomdefined.org/Definition/1.0 https://freedomdefined.org/Definition/1.0] for more info.   — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.\|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping\|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk\|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 23:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC) ::::::: "Owning the photographs" is a completely different matter than owning the intellectual property rights for the photographs. If the copyright is orphaned, that can be really annoying, but it's reality. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 01:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC) {{oppose}} No admin action needed here, at least from what I can see. --[[User:SHB2000\|SHB2000]] ([[User talk:SHB2000\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC) ~~== User: Zeus2107 ==~~ {{user3\|Zeus2107}} continues copyvios upload even after warnings and blocks. Media that were uploaded by this user seems not own work, but copy from various sources and some looks like AI images and cropped and AI enlarge, and EXIF does not give enough data. I'd suggest to delete all uploads. [[User:AntanO\|Ant<font color="red">a</font>n]][[User talk:AntanO\|<font color="red"><big>'''O'''</big></font>]] 13:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ~~:{{d}} Blocked for 3 months. Please check their uploads. [[User:Yann\|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)~~ ::The user blanked the page. Is it appropriate? I have tagged some images for deletion nomination, but they should have been tagged for copyvios. [[User:~AntanO4task\|~AntanO4task]] ([[User talk:~AntanO4task\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC) The problem is not that all or even most of the DRs are completely unreasonable. The problem is that Adamant creates several in one go and not all of them are clearcut. Which also wouldn't be a problem, if Adamant1 didn't defend their opinion the way they do. Which is a problem. But after a bit of more thought I am not the right person to close this discussion, so I am stepping away for good. --[[User:Kritzolina\|Kritzolina]] ([[User talk:Kritzolina\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC) ~~== Adamant1 and deletion discussions ==~~ My memory of the last AN/U thread about Adamant1 was that they had made a large volume of specious DRs for in-use images, and when asked about this, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_women_by_Stable_Diffusion&diff=prev&oldid=891050501 made up fake quotes] that weren't in the [[COM:INUSE]] policy, personally attacked people for disagreeing with them, et cetera; see [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&oldid=890586949#DRs_for_in-use_images here] for some more context; they were eventually given a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&oldid=897875941#Comment_about_block two-week block] for this. While it's obviously not against the rules to have been blocked in the past, it seems like a pretty consistent recurring problem. Adamant simply wants to make giant, indiscriminate DRs -- basically wasting everyone else's time so that Adamant doesn't have to bother figuring out if nominations are valid or not. They refuse to admit when they are incorrect, and their response to any criticism is to deny everything and blame the other person. They have been [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AAdamant1 repeatedly blocked] for doing this, arguing so aggressively the last time that they had talk page access revoked. You can see this happening even in this thread, where repeated gentle attempts to propose diplomatic face-saving gestures (e.g. voluntarily stepping back from DRs for a while) are met with scorn and derision. It's one thing to be wrong about stuff every once in a while, that's fine. But I really don't think it's a net positive to be wrong about stuff every once in a while, and constantly refusing to admit it, refuse to change your own behavior in any way, disruptively double down, and accuse everyone else of being the problem. I think that Adamant1 should not be allowed to make DRs anymore apart from their own uploads, as them continuing to do so wastes large amounts of everyone else's time, and they have said again and again that they do not care about this or intend to stop. [[User:JPxG\|JPxG]] ([[User talk:JPxG\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC) {{atop\|Closing with a two weeks block, see rational below. --[[User:Kritzolina\|Kritzolina]] ([[User talk:Kritzolina\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)}} :I agree with @[[User:JPxG\|JPxG]] here.   — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.\|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping\|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk\|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 12:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC) [[User:Adamant1]] has made a habit out of indiscriminately nominating every single file in a category for deletion, particularly if the category is AI-related, under vague rationales along the lines of “not educational”. They also seem to have a complete lack of respect and/or understanding of [[COM:INUSE]], both disregarding it in the first place and trying to argue it doesn’t apply after the fact. Examples of behavior: :Adding some history, Adamant1 was most recently blocked on [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_113#Adamant1_and_deletion_discussions\|2 July 2024]] due to disruptive DRs (talk page access was removed on 5 July). This block expired on 16 July and they submitted the DR in OP two days later. [[User:Consigned\|Consigned]] ([[User talk:Consigned\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC) [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated toys]] :Just a note I have closed the original DR as keep per the overwhelming consensus. —'''Matrix(!)''' <nowiki>{</nowiki>''[[User:Matrix\|user]] - [[User talk:Matrix\|talk?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix\|<sub><small><s>useless</s></small></sub>contributions]]''<nowiki>}</nowiki> 05:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC) [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Animals by Midjourney]] [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude or partially nude women by Stable Diffusion]] [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated images by David S. Soriano]] [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Superstraight]] [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated steampunk]] [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated gibberish]] [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Superstraight]] (similar behavior shown at Categories for Discussion) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adamant1#DRs_for_in-use_images worth linking I do not think Adamant1 knows or cares enough about deletion policy to be trusted with it any longer. Their willingness to disregard [[COM:INUSE]] is particularly concerning. I think they should be topic banned from this area and potentially CfD as well. [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC) : I think a topic ban is excessive at this time, but @[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] I think it is incumbent as you as nominator to at least make a solid pass at working out whether images you are nominating are in use or not (and if so where), rather than pushing that work off onto other people. I just spent an hour trying to make sense of the very varied statuses of images at [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated gibberish]]; I feel that is work that you as nominator should have done. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 19:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ~~:I appreciate the need for some cleanup regarding unused AI-generated personal artworks, but I agree with Dronebogus' concerns above.~~ :Also, apart from Adamant1 repeatedly misrepresenting policy and making various other factually wrong claims in favor of deletions ([https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:AI-generated_toys&diff=prev&oldid=890585146 example], concerning an image that is currently in use on 14 different language Wikipedias, often since over two years ago), there are also serious civility issues with Adamant1's behavior in context of these DRs. (Folks more familiar with the conventions of this noticeboard: Feel free to advise in case this should rather be made into a separate thread.) See e.g. Adamant1's personal attacks against [[User:JPxG]] just within the last 24 hours: :* {{tq\|Sorry, I didn't know you couldn't read multi-sentence paragraphs. My bad. I'll be sure to draw you picture next time. I'd say to see my comment below this for further clarification, but it's probably to many sentences for your reading compression level. Again, sorry, I'll try to stick to simple kindergarten level diagrams next time. Since that seems to be all your capable of reading}}[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdamant1&diff=890518883&oldid=890517885] :* {{tq\|I was just trying to be accommodating to your reading comprehension level since it seemed like it's short. No insult intended though}} [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFiles_in_Category%3AAI-generated_toys&diff=890545058&oldid=890523167 ]. :I [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&diff=prev&oldid=890586949 raised this to Adamant1], asking to refrain from claims that another Commons user has deficient intellectual capabilities. However, they [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&diff=next&oldid=890586949 reacted badly], rejecting the request to stop such ad hominem attacks and justifying them as {{tq\|minor pushback}} to the above mentioned criticism of misrepresenting the relevant policy and (separately) to [[Commons_talk:AI-generated_media#Commercial_usage_restrictions_with_images_generated_by_Stable_Diffusion_3\|criticism of a separate mistaken legal claim]] Adamant1 had made in favor of possibly {{tq\|banning images that were clearly generated with SD 3 if not AI artwork more generally}} (although JPxG wasn't even involved in the debunking of Adamant1's assertions in the latter). ~~:Regards, [[User:HaeB\|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)~~ ::That’s another issue I’m seeing with their behavior— they don’t just disagree or even get mad when people call them out, they act like that person is stupid for disagreeing with their obviously incorrect interpretation of policy. They’re a good contributor in other ways, but this kind of behavior is patently unacceptable and should result in an indef if they don’t cut it out immediately. [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ::PS, to add regarding factually wrong claims, another very recent example: As detailed [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_women_by_Stable_Diffusion&diff=prev&oldid=891050501 here], Adamant1 straight up [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_women_by_Stable_Diffusion&diff=prev&oldid=890666041 misquoted] the scope policy in one of his belittling comments to JPxG. I.e. a supposedly verbatim "quote" in Adamant1's comment does not actually occur in the policy, and the corresponding section actually contradicts Adamant1's claims there. ::I would not bring these up if these were isolated mistakes of the kind that can credibly occur to anyone acting in good faith. But we are seeing a repeated disregard for the facts here that is very disruptive and is wasting lots of time by other editors who are confronted with Adamant1's many misleading assertions. (This is also already visible just in this section, see Dronebogus spending time below on providing detailed evidence to correct another such misleading claim by Adamant1.) ~~::Regards, [[User:HaeB\|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)~~ "Instead of being receptive to others’ input, they consistently double down on their position" is absolutely their typical behavior, I have never experienced Adamant1 in any other way than, well, adamantly insisting that they are right and other opinions are completetely and utterly wrong. Even if one can quote an official Commons policy that directly contradicts what Adamant1 says, Adamant1 insists that they are right. The issue are not the deletion requests by Adamant1 as such - some of them might be better justified than others, sometimes the outcome is that the images in question are deleted, sometimes they are kept, that's the normal experience for all of us here. The issue is the behavior. Not sure what to do, though. [[User:Gestumblindi\|Gestumblindi]] ([[User talk:Gestumblindi\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC) {{comment}} People are free to read through the multiple discussions on my talk page and the DRs that Dronebogus has linked to. The fact is that the same 2 or 3 users repeatedly messaged me in an extremely rude, lecturing way about something that I explained to them multiple times and refused to get the point that the guideline has exceptions for the "in use" clause. {{ping\|JPxG}} in particular repeatedly tried to act like I nominated the images for deletion because I just dislike AI-generated artwork and think it's "low quality." When I told them multiple times that the quality of the images has nothing to do with the DRs. :Just a point if I'm allowed since this is still going on five days later even though I've all but moved on and am supposedly the one who can't just drop things. But the idea that it's typical for me to constantly double down on my position is totally false. There's plenty of times where I've removed images from DRs, withdrawn them, or otherwise took steps to address issues and complaints. I'm also more then willing to take advice from when it's given to me in good faith. Both Jmabel and Kritzolina have given me advice about things in the past that I've listened to and taken to heart. Although I clearly screwed up with how I acted in [[:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin)]], but it's not my typical by any means. :Nowhere did I say in any DR what-so-ever that they have anything to do with the quality of the artwork or my personal opinions about the quality. Yet {{ping\|JPxG}} was clearly incapable of getting the point and dropping it. I'll also note that I told of them multiple times that I encourage them to ask about it on the village and get whatever they think isn't clear in the guidelines clarified. Which they refused to do. Instead continuing to message about it in an extremely lecturing rude way across multiple talk pages. This is 100% a made up issue though. I don't have a "habit of disregarding [[COM:INUSE]]." In fact rarely, if ever, nominate in use files for deletion. Except in extremely rare instances that I go out of my way to explain. Again, people like the commenters above (including {{ping\|Dronebogus}} are just being opportunists and are just refusing to get the point that there are exceptions to the "in use" policy. Again, I encourage them or anyone else to get the specifics of when and how it applies or not clarified on the Village Pump. They clearly don't actually care about though outside of harassing me because I didn't just a bend a knee to their nonsense. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ::: How do you justify comments like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdamant1&diff=890518883&oldid=890517885] and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFiles_in_Category%3AAI-generated_toys&diff=890545058&oldid=890523167]? I can't see any way in which they're acceptable according to our regular policies, they're far from exceptional for you and they would normally be seen as block-worthy. [[User:Andy Dingley\|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ::::Frustration over him and others refusing to get the point and drop it. That happens sometimes. It was a multiple day thing across multiple conversations that he and the other people involved refused to drop and get the point about. The first comment was also made on my talk page. Where I'm under the understanding that we have more leeway to express ourselves. I wouldn't have made that comment anywhere else, but it's my talk page and I can say what I want on it. That's on him for engaging in the discussion in an extremely rude way and then refusing to get the point. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC) :::::It's impossible to "drop it", because you are continuing to make invalid mass-deletion requests for dozens of images as we speak, in which you make demonstrable false claims about policy which nobody agrees with. This is blatantly disruptive and borders on trolling. [[User:JPxG\|JPxG]] ([[User talk:JPxG\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :::: How long have you been here now? We might excuse {{tq\|Frustration over him}} as an excuse for incivility in a new editor, but you've been here a while and know how things work. Not wanting to be Al Capone's tax inspector, I don't want to turn this behavioural issue into a simpler (and likely to be swept under the carpet) one about civility; but still these rules still apply to you and you're well into a blockable space. ::::: AI images are a problem for us, as they've recently expanded outside our established corpus of policy and practice. Clearly you hold that INUSE doesn't apply to them. There are real questions here as to whether Commons should hold AI images, preserve INUSE as applying to them, or even (which we are traditionally shy of) dictate to other projects that (like NFC, but unlike PENIS) 'we just don't store that stuff here'. There is room for debate on this. Traditionally DRs have been used as a forum for some of that. But your approach here is against our norms of behaviour. You didn't start these DRs with a question, "Should INUSE be suspended for AI? Here are some items affected." but instead you simply sledgehammered INUSE, on no more basis than "I, Adamant, am adamant over this." That's not good enough, it's not how we work. If you're really debating a policy shift, at least make it clear that this is what you're doing, not just using it as an assumption. [[User:Andy Dingley\|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::{{tq\|Clearly you hold that INUSE doesn't apply to them. }} More specifically to the ones I nominated for deletion. There's plenty of AI images currently in use that I wouldn't nominate for deletion though. Your just cherry picking to spin a non-exiting narrative about the deletion requests. :~~:::::{{tq\|You~~As ~~didn't~~I ~~start~~told ~~these~~Kritzolina ~~DRs~~after ~~with~~the alast ~~question~~block, ~~"Should~~I've ~~INUSE~~just bebeen ~~suspended~~pretty ~~for~~burnt ~~AI?~~out ~~Here~~on ~~are~~this ~~some~~whole ~~items~~thing ~~affected."}}~~and ~~Yeah,~~I guess I ~~didn~~'tm ~~because~~not Iquit ~~don't think~~over it ~~should~~yet. beThat's ~~suspended~~totally ~~for~~on ~~for~~me, AIbut ~~artwork.~~I ~~There's~~reject ~~plenty~~the ofidea ~~places where~~that it's ~~totally~~my ~~legitimate~~normal ~~and~~behavior ~~there~~or that I'sm ~~some~~totally ~~where~~unwilling itto ~~isn't.~~adjust ~~That's~~how itI act. ~~This~~People ~~has~~can ~~never~~look ~~had~~at ~~anything~~my topast doedit ~~with~~history. AII ~~artwork~~was ~~more~~a ~~generally~~lot ~~and~~worse ~~nowhere have~~when I ~~ever~~first ~~said~~joined. itI ~~does.~~think I ~~don~~'tve ~~even~~improved ~~disagree~~a ~~with~~lot over the ~~rest~~last couple of ~~your~~years ~~musing~~even ~~about~~if ~~it. That~~I'sm ~~why~~not perfect. I ~~invited~~just ~~the~~need ~~people~~to Itake ~~got~~more inregular ~~the~~breaks ~~dispute~~and ~~with~~not toget ~~discuss~~as itoverwhelmed onor ~~the~~fatigued ~~village~~from ~~pump.~~this ~~Repeatedly~~as ~~treating me like~~much. I'm ~~have opinions or position~~sure that's Isomething ~~don't~~we ~~really~~all ~~isn't~~have ~~helpful~~issues ~~though~~with. I'm ~~not~~just ~~advocating~~uniquely ~~for,~~horrible ~~nor~~at ~~have~~noticing when I'm ~~ever~~burnt ~~advocated~~out ~~for,~~and ataking ~~policy~~the ~~shift.~~proper ~~I'm~~steps ~~applying~~to ~~the~~deal ~~policies~~with asit ~~they~~for ~~currently~~some ~~apply~~reason. ~~While saying~~ I ~~think~~do ~~it's~~plan ~~worth~~on ~~getting~~dealing ~~some~~with ~~parts~~that ofbetter itgoing ~~clarified~~forward tothough. inBut ~~order~~I toat ~~help~~least ~~resolve~~have agood ~~dispute~~intentions. ~~You~~I ~~know~~just ~~that~~get ~~and~~overwhelmed ~~what~~by athe ~~strawman~~slog of this and lose the ~~argument~~plot issometimes. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:0338, 225 July 2024 (UTC) :~~:{{ping\|~~I am disappointed but unsurprised. This is yet another example of Adamant1}} ~~You~~pushing ~~just~~a ~~nominated~~fringe ~~''14~~position ~~in-use~~like ~~files''~~it’s ~~'''''in~~gospel. They [[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:~~Deletion requests~~Administrators%27_noticeboard/~~Files~~User_problems/Archive_113#Adamant1_and_deletion_discussions inwere ~~Category:AI-generated~~just ~~gibberish\|one~~here ~~deletion~~on ~~request]~~the 2nd for doing this] ~~alone!'~~and were blocked for two weeks. I sincerely want to believe Adamant1 is acting in good faith but this is getting really old; no user should appear ''three times'' ~~How~~in isthe ~~that “rarely,~~same ifANU ~~ever”?~~archive. [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 2213:0751, 126 July 2024 (UTC) ::~~:And~~ I ~~gave~~apologize ~~multiple~~in ~~reasons~~advance for ~~the~~going ~~DR.~~off-topic, ~~Ones~~but ~~that~~were ~~your~~you ~~free~~not tothe ~~disagree~~subject ~~with,~~of ~~but~~three ~~its~~threads ~~not~~in ~~like~~the most recent ANU archive? {{pb}}I ~~didn't~~hope ~~provide~~an ~~any.~~administrator ~~Anyway~~can doreview ~~you~~and close this discussion and take any ~~other~~actions ~~examples~~as ofappropriate ~~doing~~given ~~that~~the ~~before?~~discussion, ~~Because~~history, Iand ~~can~~Adamant1'ts ~~think~~responses. ofI doubt any ~~and~~new ~~your~~information ~~the~~or ~~one~~insight ~~claiming~~will ~~its~~come alight ~~pattern~~if the discussion continues. --[[User:~~Adamant1~~Consigned\|~~Adamant1~~Consigned]] ([[User talk:~~Adamant1~~Consigned\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 2213:2058, 126 July 2024 (UTC) :::I’ve been a subject of a lot of threads here lately; a bunch were [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 114#Repeated insults, threats and personal comments in DRs by Dronebogus\|frivolous]] and the most recent bunch you’re probably thinking of were a huge interconnected shit-show Adamant1 left a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=899664804 rather unpleasant remark at]. Adamant1 has had multiple non-frivolous reports on different issues all within the span of weeks. That’s a significant difference. <br> Back to the topic at hand, I am extremely hesitant to propose an indef for a productive new-ish user (Wikimedia is turning into way too much of an elitist old-boys club IMO) but I think Adamant1 is very lucky not to have been indeffed at this point. At the ''very'' least they need a topic ban from DRs per [[w:wp:CIR]]. [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC) ::::Well besides ''almost every other deletion discussion I mentioned'', I can’t immediately cite any, but I’m sure I can find at least one [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ::::A topic ban would do wonders for the Commons community. [[User:Wolverine XI\|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:purple">''Wolve''</b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#AA336A">''rine''</b>]] [[User talk:Wolverine XI\|<i style="font-family:Georgia;color:green">XI</i>]] 14:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC) ::::Here’s one: [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abraham Lincoln using a smartphone (anachronism).jpg]] [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ::::{{ping\|Dronebogus}} I looked into it because math is fun and I had the free time. But if my numbers are right out of the last 50 DRs I've opened 8 were kept and I withdrew 4 after people provided more information about the artist. It's worth nothing that a good portion of those 8 were in the last month while I've been dealing with the afformationed burnout. Regardless, you'd have to agree that someone blocking someone due to supposedly having lack of competence just they got slightly under 2 out 10 DRs wrong (most of which were due to burnout that the person is in the process of dealing with) would be an extremely low bar. One that I don't think even you live up to yourself. If nothing else I just worry about the precedent it would set. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC) ::::[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cosmopolitan Artificial Intelligence cover.png]] [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ::::[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Possible depiction of LHS 1140 b landscape with black grass and red starlight.jpg]] [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ::::[[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Police arresting Donald Trump (Midjourney)]] [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::{{ping\|Dronebogus}} I was hoping for another DR involving 14 files that were "in use" since that was your example. Its not against the rules to nominate images for deletion or for those images to be kept. There's certainly instance where I've nominated in use files for deletion and that waa the outcome. So your just cherry picking. Maybe compare that to my nominations over all and the one involving the images being deleted. The claim here is that I have a pattern of "indiscriminately" creating sparious DRs for "in use files" though. Not just I get something wrong once in a while. That's litterally how this works. No one, including you, has a perfect track record on here. You've certainly created plenty if DRs for porn files that weren't depeted. Clearly that must mean your just doing indiscriminate DRs because your against pornography. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC) :::::::Yes, let’s shift the attention onto me. [[W:tu quoque\|Because that’s a good debate strategy]]. [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::::{{ping\|Dronebogus}} I'm not trying to shift the attention to you, but your the one who opened this and if your claim is that I should be because have a pattern of indiscriminately nominating "in use" files for deletion then at least IMO it should be above and beyond the normal amount of mistakes people (including you) tend to make in deletion requests. That's not to say I'm not responsible for getting things wrong once in awhile, but again, everyone does and that's not the claim your making. I know "Adamant1 gets a few DRs wrong sometimes just like everyone else" doesn't have the same ring to it though. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :::::I don't know how much we need to get into detail about this particular misleading assertion by Adamant1; but yes, in general it does seem indeed worth documenting what looks like a frequent pattern (see also the case of the nonexistent policy quote, above). Regards, [[User:HaeB\|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::I'm really sure what your talking. What "nonexitent" policy am I qouting? As far as I know all the qoutes of guidelines on my side were copied directly from [[:COM:INUSE]]. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC) :::::::Please read the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=891054772 above comment] I was referring to, and the more detailed examination of your tampered quote [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_women_by_Stable_Diffusion&diff=prev&oldid=891050501 here]. Regards, [[User:HaeB\|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC) == [[User:Car-man08]] == :[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns4=1&prefix=Commons%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard%2FUser+problems%2F&search=Adamant1 Looking through the archives of this board], this is not 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 is not involved in the current exchanges AFAICS) seem to also describe the current problems quite well: :* {{tq\|1=This user has a problematic behavior, repeatedly going for personal attacks ([https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=prev&diff=871263704], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYann&diff=871267182&oldid=871028904]) when actions are contested, notably creating a large number of disruptive deletion requests about FOP in Belgium. I am not [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yann&diff=prev&oldid=867921334 the only one] thinking that this is a problem.}} [[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_112#Adamant1]]) :* {{tq\|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}} ([[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_112#Adamant1]]) ~~:* {{tq\|excessively hostile and condescending.}} ([[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_107#Adamant1]])~~ :* {{tq\|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.}} ([[Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_99#User%3AAdamant1]]) :This list of examples is non-exhaustive. It seems evident that many previous requests to Adamant1 to change their problematic behavior, and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AAdamant1 two past short-term blocks] for related issues, have not resulted in sustained improvements. ~~:Regards, [[User:HaeB\|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)~~ ::I think the combination of current examples, block history, and [[w:wp:IDHT]]/Everyone-else-is-wrong attitude are enough to recommend an indefinite block of Adamant1 for incivility, [[W:wp:CIR\|lack of policy understanding]] and continual misuse/overuse of the DR system. [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC) {{~~comment~~User5\|Car-man08}} ~~Show~~A huge amount of ~~hands.~~recent ~~Does~~copyvios ~~anywhere~~after ~~here~~two ~~seriously~~long-term ~~think~~blocks: ~~there~~[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Car-man08&diff=prev&oldid=900665738] isand or[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Skazi&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2024-07-19&end=2024-07-19&limit=50] ~~should~~({{ping\|Skazi}} befor asome ~~complete~~reason ~~ban~~there onare ~~nominating~~no ~~"in~~notifications ~~use"~~on ~~files~~the ~~for~~uploader ~~deletion?~~talk page). --[[User:~~Adamant1~~Quick1984\|~~Adamant1~~Quick1984]] ([[User talk:~~Adamant1~~Quick1984\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 0012:0829, 219 July 2024 (UTC) :This is an absurdly disingenuous comment that misrepresents the positions of everyone involved: nobody ever said that there was, or should be, a "complete ban" on deleting in-use files. Indeed, policies explicitly allow this in lots of scenarios: copyright violations, legal issues, bad-faith use of files. What they ''do not'' allow is the deletion of files that are legal, freely-licensed, not in violation of Commons policy, and used on other projects in ways that comply with their own policies, on the sole basis that you want them to be deleted -- people have asked you about a dozen times for literally any rationale that isn't "I want them deleted" (policy, guideline, consensus, etc) and each time you have refused, often insulting the person who asked. [[User:JPxG\|JPxG]] ([[User talk:JPxG\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :This is the User problems noticeboard, not [[COM:VP]] or another venue for discussing what [[COM:SCOPE]] or other policies should read like. Please address the specific concerns about your behavior above, instead of trying to distract from them. (But for the record and to discourage strawmanning: I for one am quite comfortable with the limited exceptions of [[COM:INUSE]] in the current version of [[COM:SCOPE]]. The problem is your persistent misinterpretations of this policy.) :Regards, [[User:HaeB\|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::{{ping\|JPxG}} The problem is that there's no way to determine if they files go against any of those scenarios because you both initiated this and attacked me over it right after I started the deletion requests and before they were actually closed. So it seems like that's your position. You can't have it both ways where it's both disingenuous to treat you like there should be any exceptions, but then repeatedly treat me like that's exactly what your position is. Otherwise you could have at least waiting into the DRs where concluded and other people had commented on them before claiming the whole thing spurious and not based on policy. :User indefinitely blocked. We need to review all uploads of this user. [[User:GPSLeo\|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC) ::{{ping\|Please address the specific concerns about your behavior above.}} The specific concerns where that I have a history of opening DRs for "in use" files in a way that goes against the guidelines and the question directly relates to that. I've also asked you multiple to clarify what exactly you think I'm misinterpreting and you haven't answered me. So it clear to me that either you just don't want to admit you have no argument or you think there isn't a situation where it's OK to nominate "in use" for deletion. Hence the clarifying question about it. So which one is it? Either there's exceptions and this is a nothing burger, or there aren't and it's justified. There really isn't any other options there though. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC) == [[User: Nil004y]] == :{{comment}} I have [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=891078543 reverted] the misleading move of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FUser_problems&diff=891067206&oldid=891060091 the above comment] that Adamant1 conducted as part of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=891074766 this edit]. :Moving the comment away from the above two responses to it rendered them unintelligible (by removing their reference point) and created the misleading impression that JPxG's [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=891070423 statement] {{tq\|This is an absurdly disingenuous comment ...}} was referring to a comment by myself instead of Adamant1's. (See also [[COM:TALK]].) I have asked Adamant1 to stop such disruptive behavior. Regards, [[User:HaeB\|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :::I commented about the move on talk page. There were comments to it at the time when I moved the question and I moved it so it wouldn't get lost in other stuff. I what happened is that both you and JPxG commented at the same time I was moving it. That's not a crime. Nor is it dispruptive. Your clearly just looking for things to be upset about. Especially since I already explained the mistake to you on my talk page. This whole thing is 100% bad faithed drama farming. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC) {{User5\|Nil004y}} It's a fact of life that sometimes we all have frustrating moments online, but this is not just one of those cases. This user has spent days making wildly disruptive DRs and repeatedly insulting people who disagree with them while substantially misrepresenting policy. I have already spent a substantial amount of time having circular discussions with this user, so I am not eager to spend even more, so I will try to keep it brief: they've claimed, repeatedly and falsely, that policy requires AI images to be deleted because they are "amateur artwork", regardless of them being in use on other projects. They have refused to provide any guideline, policy, or consensus that supports this claim. Their driveby mass-nominations include, for example, ''an image demonstrating DALL-E's own output, which is the lead image for the DALL-E article on thirteen Wikipedias''. When asked about this specifically, they accused me of "lying" and said my "reading compression level" [sic] is at a "kindergarten level". Nobody has supported these deletions, and indeed every participant in these discussions seems to robustly disagree with this interpretation of policy. Indeed, all relevant guidelines and policies go out of their way to explicitly say this is ''not'' the case. Adamant1 claims to "quote" policy that supports them... and then posts sentences that do not appear in the policy, which they made up. I believe the term to describe this is "lying".{{pb}} [[Special:Diff/890518783\|This]] diff is an example of what I'm talking about: {{tq\|Sorry, I didn't know you couldn't read multi-sentence paragraphs. My bad. I'll be sure to draw you picture next time. I'd say to see my comment below this for further clarification, but it's probably to many sentences for your reading compression level. Again, sorry, I'll try to stick to simple kindergarten level diagrams next time.}} Sure, it is on his own talk page, and I think people should have at least some latitude to be curt on their own talk pages, but it's completely ridiculous to post stuff like this and then act like people are displeased with you for absolutely no reason. {{pb}} In general, I am not an administrator on Commons and I don't know what the general precedent is about user conduct here, but I think that if somebody is repeatedly making disruptive nominations, insulting other users and then outright lying (e.g. "quoting" policy and then editing it to say different things) this indicates either temperament or competence issues which are incompatible with continued participation on the project. [[User:JPxG\|JPxG]] ([[User talk:JPxG\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :{{tq\|This user has spent days making wildly disruptive DRs}} From what I remember all the DRs that are being questioned here were opened either yesterday or last night. Nor has any of them been closed yet. In no way is me opening 4 DRs in the same night that haven't even concluded yet "spending days making wildly disruptive DRs." Comments like that are large part of the problem here. Your the one who repeatedly initiated the conversations, continued making spurious claims like that one in them, and then refused to get the point and stop making things personal. I'm sorry if I got a little defense in between countering your constantly disingenuous comments, but that's life. You had plenty of opportunities to just drop it and move on. Your the one who repeatedly decided to continue it across multiple talk pages when I made it more then clear that I was done with the conversation. Sorry, but I'm not going to just sit there silently while someone continuously makes spurious, insulting comments about me over and over in multiple places. That's not how this works. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ~~::The claims are objectively false, multiple people have demonstrated this, and Adamant's response is to just keep saying them over and over.~~ ::This is not acceptable behavior: it's disruptive editing, and moreover it's a pretty long-standing pattern. On the English Wikipedia they have repeatedly been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Adamant1&type=block siteblocked] for the exact same type of incivility paired with refusal to accept that their edits violate both guidelines and consensus, culminating in an [[:en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#NPA_and_CIVIL_issues_with_user_Adamant1\|indefinite topic ban from deletion discussions]] outside of articles they created. Indeed, it would not even be the first time their trolling/edit warring ''on Commons'' [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=Adamant1&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist warranted a block]. I think that a topic ban on deletion here may be warranted. [[User:JPxG\|JPxG]] ([[User talk:JPxG\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :::What's objectively false? From what I've seen all the examples are from the last day or two and none of them have been closed yet. Except for the CfD for "Superstraight" from May, but that's not a deletion request and it still hasn't been closed either. Your the one claiming I've "spent days making wildly disruptive DRs." So what exactly am I saying that's "objectively false" and where's the evidence that I've "spent days making wildly disruptive deletion requests"? --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::::It’s inherently disruptive to violate policy; CfDs take forever and a day to close even when the outcome is super obvious so that’s not much of an argument when the consensus at the discussion is clearly against you. [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :::::{{ping\|Dronebogus}} sure. But then a day into this and a ton of messages later you still haven't provided any evidence of me violating any policy. But then your still out there making off-topic personal comments in DRs about me. So...Why not drop it and move on? --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :The problems here are (a) Adamant1 is not putting in sufficient effort to exclude files which are likely to be kept as in scope; (b) any nomination of an in-use files on scope grounds ''needs'' a detailed explanation as to why the usual guidance of keeping in use files should not be followed; (c) Adamant1 does not know when to back down/cool off. Some of these nominated files look like they should be deleted. Some don't. I think we can probably move forward with some assurances/understanding here, but if it continues the way it has been a topic ban seems possible. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[[User:Rhododendrites\|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Rhododendrites\|talk]]</sup></span> \|  03:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::A and B are underpinned by the user's apparent conviction that they can ignore COM:INUSE because they don't think that it's written clearly enough. (They also keep calling it a guideline rather than a policy, but I don't know if that distinction means anything to them.) ::[[User_talk:Adamant1#DRs_for_in-use_images\|A June 29 thread on the user's talk page]] has three different editors asking them to follow COM:INUSE in future deletion requests. Adamant1 concludes that {{tq\|Personally, I'd love to see a lot of this get clarified. That's on you guys to do as the ones who disagree with the guidelines current wording to do though.}} and a few hours later opens deletion discussions on [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated gibberish]] (17 of 31 of which are in use on other projects) and [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated images by David S. Soriano]] (25 of 25 in use). ::If a user's response to finding a policy hard to understand is to ignore it, and to take multiple challenges of their interpretation as a sign that the ''policy'' needs to change, that seems like a fundamental problem with how they're using this website. [[User:Belbury\|Belbury]] ([[User talk:Belbury\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :::Where did I say I misunderstand it? I understand it perfectly fine. I was just talking about getting the disagreement being resolved on the village pump because it didn't seem like the dispute on my talk page about it was going anywhere. Isn't that the whole point in the village pump? --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::::You've said in a few places that COM:INUSE [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&diff=prev&oldid=890837832 "isn't clear"] to you. [[User:Belbury\|Belbury]] ([[User talk:Belbury\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :::::I don't think it's clear in general. That includes to me and It's obviously not clear to the people I got in the confrontation with going by their comments about it. But there's at least a couple of places where key parts of it either aren't well defined or contradict each other. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Admin questions for you Adamant1: Do you understand what parts of your behaviour are disruptive to many users as stated above? This is not about rules or if the behaviour is officially in line with policies or not. This is about collaborating respectfully on Commons. Are you willing to try and change at least some of that behaviour, to help this project thrive? --[[User:Kritzolina\|Kritzolina]] ([[User talk:Kritzolina\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :I don't have a problem changing anything I'm doing if there's a genuine issue with my behavior. That said, I'm kind losf about what the actual problem is here. I already said I got a little defense on my talk page. And I'll try to better about that of course. But I really don't understand what actual problem there is here besides a couple of people throwing a fit a few DRs that haven't even been closed yet and don't seem to be a problem anyway. It's a little unfair to tell me the rules and policies don't matter to this when a disagreement about the guidelines has what instigated this. Otherwise the uncivility was both sides and I more then went out my way to disengauge and move on. They continued it. That said, sure. I'll be more civil next time. But I'm not here to just get brow beat repeatedly over and over by the same couple of people while I nod my head about how much of a piece of shit I am or whatever. Sorry. Again, I don't know what the problem here is outside of that one comment on my talk page and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of justify a block. So can you be more specific about what the actual problem is? Otherwise that's really all I have to say about it. Sorry. I rather just move on like I've been repeatedly asking everyone else to do. Thanks. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::@[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]], this is a very unsatisfying answer. Several users took a lot of time to try to explain to you, what the actual problem is. Rules her are created to help avoid conflicts like these and to help a collaborative working atmosphere. You are doing a lot that is disruptive to other users. Most of it is related to Deletion Requests and discussion following DRs. Would you be willing to stop nominating images for deletion for a month and use the time to try and understand what others see as disruptive? We then could continue this conversation on your talkpage or mine, or even per mail, where it doesn't disrupt that many others. [[User:Kritzolina\|Kritzolina]] ([[User talk:Kritzolina\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :::{{ping\|Kritzolina}} I've provided 5 examples of deletion requests for "in use" files at the bottom of this. Including two where the person who started this voted to delete the images. One of those also happened to have from a few days ago and I was the person who started it. So no, I don't really see what the problem is here. The person who filed this literally voted to delete "in use" files a few days ago and then reported me for it. So it really isn't clear to me what the issue here is. The stuff being complained about here are things that the person making the complaints seems to have no-issue-what-so-ever with outside of this complaint. Uploads non-free files 💚'''[[User:Kelly The Angel\|<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#046A38">Kelly The Angel</em>]]<small>[[User talk:Kelly The Angel\|'''<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#046A38"> (Talk to me)</em>''']]</small>'''💚 05:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC) :::I would also appreciate it if you read the last discussion on my talk page "Do not rearrange talk pages in a misleading way." {{ping\|HaeB}} blamed me for an edit that was clearly an accident and then continued to do so after I told him as much. Even repeating the same claim that I did it on purpose here in this ANU complaint. This is clearly a bad faithed fishing attempt by both him and Dronebogus. I'm not going to take a month off from something that isn't a problem. And again, I say that because Dronebogus has no issue with it outside of the ANU complaint. :{{done}} - I have warned them, which you could have done. A block would have been excessive at this point. In future, if you bring someone here please notify them on their talk page [[User:Gbawden\|Gbawden]] ([[User talk:Gbawden\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC) == User:Lalhlimpuii == :::I'm not the one causing the disruption here. They are. I told them I was more then willing to discuss it on the Village Pump. They refused to and Dronebogus filed this instead. It's not on me if they didn't want to use the normal channels to resolve the problem before reporting me. Someone can't just refuse to seek a resolution to a problem through the normal channels and then file an ANU complaint about something they have absolutely no issue with doing themselves. Sorry. I'm not taking a break for that. There was no reason they couldn't have met me half way and discussed it on the Village Pump like I asked them to. Then waited to see what the consensus was before filing this if it was actually a genuine issue. I certainly would have been totally fine with that and not nominating any more "in use" images for deletion until it was resolved. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC) {{user5\|Lalhlimpuii}} Just a quick comment regarding the "in use" issue because I have only a few minutes free time now, the user seems to misunderstand under which circumstances files that are in use can be deleted and mixes up scope and other issues, see my recent [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFiles_in_Category%3AAI-generated_steampunk&diff=891274054&oldid=891075643 answer] in a DR to their ''Plenty of files that are "in use" get deleted pretty routinely'' argument. [[User:Gestumblindi\|Gestumblindi]] ([[User talk:Gestumblindi\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ~~:{{ping\|Gestumblindi}}~~Yet Inanother ~~use~~obvious ~~files~~sock doof ~~get deleted pretty routinely. Especially if the files are~~[[:Category:Sockpuppets of ~~AI-artwork.~~Chhanchhana ~~I'm~~zote ~~pretty busy with other things right now, but I'm more then happy to provide some examples when I have the time if you really want them~~hmar]]. --[[User:~~Adamant1~~Jonteemil\|~~Adamant1~~Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:~~Adamant1~~Jonteemil\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 1012:0711, 221 July 2024 (UTC) Here's three off the top of my head. The last two are specifically for AI-generated images and funny enough, but {{ping\|Dronebogus}} voted delete in the second one even though the files were being used at the time. Go figure. I'll add more when I have the time. [[:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Grammar Nazi icons]] [[:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wall Street Crash of 1929.jpg]] [[:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Khoriphaba]] [[:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hyju]] [[:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Communist California.jpeg]] (Another "in use" file that {{ping\|Dronebogus}} voted delete on. He must just not understand how [[:COM:INUSE]] works) {{#invoke:Autotranslate\|autotranslate\|base=Unsigned\|1=Adamant1\|2=12:14, 2 July 2024\|3=}} :{{done}} blocked and all deleted and reverted. I think we should delete all files uploaded by this user. [[User:GPSLeo\|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC) I think I'm more sympathetic than some others here to Adamant1's position that INUSE should be ''especially'' scrutinized for AI images. Let's look at an example, [[:File:Laikhulempi (Laikhurembi) - Goddess of argument, divine law, good counsel, justice, order, retribution & secrecy - Queen of the Underworld - Classical Meitei mythology & religion (Sanamahism AKA Lainingthouism) of ancient Kangleipak.jpg]]. It's one of ''many'' created by the same user. That user then added the images to a range of obscure Wikipedia articles in multiple languages and to Wikidata. There's no indication of some broad consensus to include -- it's just one person adding their own made-up representation of a mythological figure to places that don't get any scrutiny. I don't know if that image should be considered in scope here, but I certainly don't think its "inuse" status should preclude debate. That said, some of the in use files Adamant1 has nominated don't appear so problematic, being used for The Signpost, or to illustrate AI art itself, etc. That's why I say above the important thing will be for Adamant1 to be very articulate when they don't see an "in use" as valid. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[[User:Rhododendrites\|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Rhododendrites\|talk]]</sup></span> \|  13:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :{{ping\|Rhododendrites}} I looked into it more and I'm more then willing to agree that images being used on the Signpost, or to illustrate AI art itself are probably fine not to delete. Although I think there's a grey area with the last one though since a user created a Wikibook awhile ago specifically for the purposes of faking usage so AI artwork couldn't be deleted. So I think that one should depend on the situation. But I'm more then willing to say nominating the images for deletion that were being used on the Signpost and the Wikipedia article for AI artwork were probably to broad. I disagree that it warrants this whole row though. A simple message on my talk page explaining the situation in simple terms and sticking to the facts would have been perfectly fine. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC) == User:Delbatros == I am going to close this with a two week block - this is the second such block, next time should be for a longer preiod. @[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]], you should try to remember that collaboration is more important than defending rules and listen to voices that have different views on those rules from yours. You are causing others unnecessary work with your DRs and making problems by blaming everyone and not looking for your own part in those issues. Learn how to compromise or you are in danger of losing certain editing rights permanently (topic ban from DRs for example) or even all editing rights on Commons. I am still willing to communicate more with you about proper behaviour on Commons on your talkpage or via Wikimail, so feel free to start a discussion - but I will discuss only if it starts with real curiosity about what you could do differently, not if you are just going to blame everyone else. --[[User:Kritzolina\|Kritzolina]] ([[User talk:Kritzolina\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :{{ping\|Kritzolina}} I talked about it on my talk page and said I was willing to discuss it on the Village Pump. I was dog piled and reported to ANU before I had chance to though. So I don't really see how I wasn't being collaborative. It's not my fault that I wasn't given a chance to discuss it. I was more then willing to hold of on the DRs for a while well it was worked out to. Again, no one involved in this gave me the chance. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ~~{{abottom}}~~ [[User:Delbatros]] is removing legitimate IP contributions from a deletion request discussion. If IPs are not wanted in those discussions you should announce and make it technically impossible. İf not you should apply a sanction to Delbatros. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/186.172.250.216\|186.172.250.216]] 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC) ~~== Repeated insults, threats and personal comments in DRs by Dronebogus ==~~ :The wording of your comments on the deletion discussion is also not appropriate. So please stay friendly when commenting on discussion pages. And @[[User:Delbatros\|Delbatros]] you should also stay friendly when reverting inappropriate unfriendly comments. For now there is nothing to sanction but if this happens again the one of you who makes such comments will be blocked. The comment on the deletion discussion can be added if worded in an appropriate way. [[User:GPSLeo\|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC) ~~{{atop\|No admin action required. [[User:Yann\|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)}}~~ {{s}} a block. The IP might have been a tad snarky with their words, but IMO does not justify removal. Delbatross, however, continued to label the IP in question as a troll with no apology at hand. --[[User:SHB2000\|SHB2000]] ([[User talk:SHB2000\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC) ~~Just to quote a few of the many insults and personal comments from {{ping\|Dronebogus}} out there.~~ == User changing categories against convention == "yet another indiscriminate “let’s delete everything in a category because it’s AI” nomination from Adamant1." "I’m not going through them individually to say “keep toss keep keep toss x3” because Adamant1 clearly couldn’t be bothered themself." "This is a gross violation of policy and I’m half thinking of reporting them if it continues apace." "The OP is effectively trying to override [[:COM:INUSE]] as part of a campaign to purge commons of as many AI generated images as possible." [[User:AmsaTalla]] is moving categories and naming them non-alphabetically, going against convention. I [[:User_talk:AmsaTalla#Relations_of\|asked them about it]] on June 22 but there has been no response about it.<br /> Again, those are just the couple of comments I could find. There's plenty more out there though. Just to add to that, {{ping\|Dronebogus}} has been reported to ANU for his behavior multiple times. He clearly has a history of being overly aggressive, rude, and making things personal for no reason. I'm not going to suggest a an indefinite block since like he did for me above this because I don't think it's warranted at this point. He should at least be warned not to badger, threaten, or disparage other users in deletion requests though. Since, again, it's something he's been warned about multiple times now. [[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC) They continue to make changes in [[:Category:Bilateral relations of the European Union and members of the European Union]] and are moving categories: :Apart from the fact that this gives a strong impression of being a retaliation attempt for the report right above: How exactly are the quoted statements {{tq\|insults and personal comments}}? They all seem to refer to specific actions and statements of yours. I.e. they are {{tq\|comment[ing] on ''content'' or ''behaviour'', not on the ''contributor''}} in the sense of [[COM:NPA]]. From [[:Category:Relations of Belgium and the European Union]] to [[:Category:Relations of the European Union and Belgium]] ~~:Regards, [[User:HaeB\|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)~~ * From [[:Category:Relations of Bulgaria and the European Union]] to [[:Category:Relations of the European Union and Bulgaria]] ::{{tq\|They all seem to refer to specific actions and statements of yours.}} Where have I ever opened "indiscriminate" deletion requests or "grossly violated policy" in relation to this or anything else? Because I don't think I have and false accusations are inherently personal attacks due to the nature of the thing. Especially if they are made repeatedly and without evidence as is clearly the case here. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC) * From [[:Category:Relations of Denmark and the European Union]] to [[:Category:Relations of the European Union and Denmark]] :I recommend this section be speedily closed as trolling, as it is an obvious attempt at retaliatory filing due to Dronebogus opening a thread about Adamant1; indeed, it is the section directly above this one, opened just 7 hours ago. [[User:JPxG\|JPxG]] ([[User talk:JPxG\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC) * From [[:Category:Relations of Estonia and the European Union]] to [[:Category:Relations of the European Union and Estonia]] ::I don't see how this can be retaliation when I didn't even propose a sanction. Regardless, I thought you guys were all for holding people accountable for their behavior here. Apparently that only goes one way with you people. Then you get all ass mad when I say your just cry bullying. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC) This is like changing category names in [[:Category:Bilateral relations of the United Kingdom]] to put "United Kingdom" before "Belgium" for unknown reasons.<br /> ~~:: Agreed. [[User:Andy Dingley\|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)~~ Can these be reverted back and user given a warning about lack of communication? Thank you. // [[User:Sikander\|sikander]] <small style="font-size:85%;">{ [[User_talk:Sikander\|talk]] </small>} 🦖 16:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC) :::I would have reported him anyway since its a chronic problem that he's already been warned about multiple time. There's no rule against opening an ANU complaint about for chronically disruptive behavior just because a similar one exists at the time. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :~~:::What~~ ~~chronic~~User ~~problem? Warned when and where?~~warned. I'll ~~have~~do mythe ~~own~~reverts. ~~crap, yeah, but none of it’s relevant here or involves you.~~- [[User:~~Dronebogus~~Jmabel\|~~Dronebogus~~Jmabel]] (! [[User talk:~~Dronebogus~~Jmabel\|~~<span class="signature-~~talk~~">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>~~]]) 0320:4206, 221 July 2024 (UTC) : I believe this is now all correct but @[[User:Sikander\|sikander]], you may want to check. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 20:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC) :::::{{ping\|Dronebogus}} I don't the time to find specific diffs right now, but when there was the whole row over AI artwork a while back multiple people including myself repeatedly asked you to stop acting like anyone who disagrees with you about it just hates the technology and/or wants to erase it from Commons. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::~~::::That was a while ago. This is now~~{{ping\|Jmabel}}Perfect, ~~and~~thank Iyou ~~wouldn’t~~for ~~say~~taking ~~anyone~~care isof ~~currently~~this onso ~~''your''~~quickly. ~~side~~Regards. ~~right now.~~// [[User:~~Dronebogus~~Sikander\|~~Dronebogus~~sikander]] ~~([[User talk:Dronebogus\|~~<~~span~~small ~~class~~style="~~signature~~font-~~talk~~size:85%;">{~~{int~~ [[User_talk:~~Talkpagelinktext}}~~Sikander\|talk]] </~~span~~small>~~]])~~} 🦖 0422:1902, 221 July 2024 (UTC) :::::::So? It shows a pattern of behavior that you clearly have no concern about or willingness to fix. I thought that was the whole point here. Be the change you want to see in the world. As I've said, I'm perfectly fine with discussing the specifics of what people disagree with me on about the guidelines on the Village Pump. As I think it would help to clarify things. It doesn't seem like anyone involved in this wants to do that though. So I don't know what to tell you. At least do me a favor though and stop with the disruptive, off-topic personal comments in DRs going forward. I'm sick of asking. Thanks. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::::I generally try to abide by people's preferences here, but your repeated claims that others' comments are off-topic, personal attacks, et cetera are rather confusing to me; it seems like you say this based on the fact that a comment reflects negatively on you. I don't think it is reasonable to demand that users accept a blanket restriction on mentioning things that you have said or done (indeed this defeats the purpose of having discussions). [[User:JPxG\|JPxG]] ([[User talk:JPxG\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::::::{{ping\|JPxG}} I'm not saying any of that because the comments reflect negatively on me. I'm saying it because the comments have nothing to do with the deletion requests or why I nominated the images for deletion. As I've said, I could really care less about the comments on a personal level. I'm not here to clout shark or do things purely to boast my reputation on here with a bunch rondos. The issue purely comes down to the fact that the comments just create needless, extra noise that's a waste of everyone's time to read and respond to. The fact is that personal comments always get ignored by the closing admin. == Muhammedfasilkvkave == ::::::::::Full stop, they don't care about the needling. They want to hear actual policy based reason's for why the file should be deleted or kept. So all personal comments do is waste space and if anything, it's your lose because you then don't get to make a policy based argument that the closing admin will care about. That's fine, but at the end of the day we are here to organize a media repository. Not wax poetic about each other's fault or use deletion requests as a glorified grade school playground. At least do it someone else's DRs if that's all your here for. Otherwise make a policy based argument and move on. None of the admins give a crap about your personal opinion that I hate AI-generated media or whatever though. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC) {{user5\|Muhammedfasilkvkave}} :The utter pettiness on display here is yet more evidence that Adamant1 should be indeffed. ''Adamant1, you are not always right; getting theatrically offended every time you don’t get your way, or someone disagrees with you, is not changing that.'' [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::That's litterally what you've been doing this whole time. So I think your projecting. Regardless, those types of comments are inherently personal and off-topic to the DRs where you made them. I could really careless about it on a personal level, but they inherently disruptive to the process die to the nature of the thing. I don't know about you, but I have better things to do then constantly read through and respond to personal comments that have nothing to do with why I nominated the images for deletion. Uploads [[:File:SHOOTERS PADANNA.png]] after having been warned by Krd to stop uploading copyvios. [[User:Jonteemil\|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC) ::You can chalk that up to over sensitivity on my part. But I see it purely as a needless, disruptive time waster. If not an intentional attempt to derail things on your side. The same as it would be if someone constantly commented in DRs about their cat. More so in this case though because people have already told you multiple times to cut the sparious comments about other people's motiviations. I know I have swveral times. Your the one seems to be unwilling to get the point and keep your attitude in check after multiple warnings. Again, I could really care less about it on a personal level though. Its just extremely disruptive to the process and I would have reported you for anyway regardless of the other ANU complaint. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ~~:::“No you” isn’t a great counterargument. [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)~~ :Those quotes at the top don't strike me as personal attacks -- they're judgments of a pattern of mass nominations that several other people have also found fault with. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[[User:Rhododendrites\|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Rhododendrites\|talk]]</sup></span> \|  03:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::Your free to disagree that the term "attack" there is appropriate. They are inherently "personal" comments though because they relate to the personal motivations of the nominator, not the actual reasons they gave for the deletion requests. That's fine, but I don't think the place to raise such objections is to repeatedly do it on every single DR that the person making the comments disagrees with. Otherwise it's just off-topic, tendentious cruft. Especially in this case since I was more then willing to discuss the "faults" on my talk page and suggested multiple times that whatever the disagreement was about could be raised on the Village Pump. No one wanted to do that though. Including Dronebogus. ::IAnd ~~don't~~seems ~~think~~to ~~repeatedly making~~be the same ~~"personal" (again~~user as in[[User:Realmalabarboy]] ~~being~~which ~~purely about the nominator, not the nomination per se) in multiple~~is ~~DRs~~blocked as ~~nothing~~sockpuppet. ~~more~~See ~~then~~also a[[w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet ~~bad faithed derailing and~~investigations/~~or drama farming technique is really was an appropriate way to handle it though~~Bobanfasil]]. ~~Especially since again, I was more then willing to discuss things in other places. And like I've said, it's something Dronebogus has a pretty well established history of doing. So.. --~~[[User:~~Adamant1~~Jonteemil\|~~Adamant1~~Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:~~Adamant1~~Jonteemil\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 0318:5246, 221 July 2024 (UTC) ::{{od}} ~~any~~Blocked ~~sanctions since these aren't personal attacks~~indef. ~~However,~~for ~~to everyone else~~socking, ~~please~~copyvios ~~[[COM:AGF]]~~deleted. –It ~~unless~~would ~~anyone~~be ~~has~~useful ~~crystal~~to ~~clear~~link ~~evidence~~all ~~that~~related ~~this was a "{{!xt\|retaliation attempt}}", let's not go that way~~accounts. --[[User:~~SHB2000~~Yann\|~~SHB2000~~Yann]] ([[User talk:~~SHB2000~~Yann\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 0519:4528, 221 July 2024 (UTC) :::Okay, thanks. This account is also related and already blocked at enwiki as a duck: {{o}} It's rather Adamant1 who is currently doing drama and disruption, sorry. --[[User:A.Savin\|A.Savin]] 08:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::I:{{user5\|MhdFasii}} didn't propose anything anyway. I think its totally reasonable to expect people to stay on topic in a deletion request and not make it about the nominator's motivations though. That's literally all I'm asking for here and I certainly don't see how it's disruptive or causing drama on my end. --[[User:~~Adamant1~~Jonteemil\|~~Adamant1~~Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:~~Adamant1~~Jonteemil\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 0819:2535, 221 July 2024 (UTC) :::So it can be blocked here as well.[[User:Jonteemil\|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC) ::::{{d}} Blocked by Magog the Ogre. [[User:Yann\|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC) == User:The Editor committee == {{comment}} "[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFiles_in_Category%3AAI-generated_Propithecus_coquereli_at_computers&diff=890998748&oldid=890638642 Adamant1 once again nominating AI art for deletion because it’s AI]" and I'm supposedly the one being uncivil and causing drama here. Right. Dude can't even be bothered to write a single message that isn't a needless personal jab. But sure, I'm the one being disruptive. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC) {{question}}"This is a gross violation of policy and I’m half thinking of reporting them if it continues apace." Are we not allowed to bring up violations of policy anymore?--[[User:Trade\|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::It's mostly the "gross violation of policy" when there's zero I violating any policy, let alone grossly. As well as the "half thinking of reporting them." I don't think someone should go around saying in random discussions that they are "half thinking" about reporting another user to ANU generally, but it's part of a pattern of behavior in this case. Behavior that he's been told to stop doing. So it's more of an issue then it would be normally. Regardless, no one should be going around making comments about how they are considering reporting another user. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC) :::"Regardless, no one should be going around making comments about how they are considering reporting another user" That would make it way harder to have any discussion about other user's (perceived) problematic behavior. Not just you specifically, just in general [[User:Trade\|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ::::What does someone's personal urge to report a user have to do with that users' problematic behavior? If it's really an issue, just report them. There's no reason to go off about how your thinking about doing it though. Maybe it's just me, at least IMO the place to have a discussion about another users behavior is an ANU complaint. Talk pages of DRs aren't usually the proper place for that or resolving personal disputes. Not to say I haven't used them that way, but it inherently does distract from the DR and get in the way of the normal process. Like if someone was committing vandalism by way of a DR I'd just report them for it. I'm not going to waste my time pointing a finger at them well I go off about how I'm considering opening an ANU complaint about it. Otherwise it just doesn't seem like a genuine issue. --[[User:Adamant1\|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC) {{comment}} Adamant1 is now blocked for two weeks per above. I think this discussion should be formally closed without action as a frivolous revenge report. [[User:Dronebogus\|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ~~{{abottom}}~~ * {{userlinks\|The Editor committee}} ~~== {{user\|Knowledgebyme}} ==~~ After having a slew of files (images of newspaper articles) deleted for copyright violation, this user has re-uploaded the images, but now with public domain claims. This does not appear to be a case of a simple mistake, but rather an attempt by a user to purposefully circumvent Commons' copyright guidelines. [[User:WikiDan61\|WikiDan61]] ([[User talk:WikiDan61\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC) :{{done}}. I blocked the committee indefinitely due to inappropriate username. [[User:Taivo\|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC) == [[User:Utan VCRSN19]] == User keeps adding <code><nowiki>{{PD-US}}</nowiki></code> to images that are very clearly not from 1929 [[User:Trade\|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC) ~~:He~~{{User5\|Utan ~~have~~VCRSN19}} ~~never~~Some ~~participated~~recent incopyvios ~~any~~after ~~deletion~~multiple ~~request nor have he ever responded on his talk page~~warnings, ~~regarding~~including the ~~copyright~~''last'' ~~issues~~one. [[User:~~Trade~~Quick1984\|~~Trade~~Quick1984]] ([[User talk:~~Trade~~Quick1984\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:4746, 222 July 2024 (UTC) ::{{dnot done}}. ~~Blocked~~The user has not edited for amore than month. [[User:~~Yann~~Taivo\|~~Yann~~Taivo]] ([[User talk:~~Yann~~Taivo\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 1314:5110, 222 July 2024 (UTC) == [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]]: disruptive voting on [[COM:FPC]], refusal to listen to guidance == ~~== {{user\|Crimsonalfred2022}} again ==~~ {{discussion top\|1=I seems Prototypepersepctive is now listening to guidance, so closind this without admin action. Will leave a message of warning on their talkapge. --[[User:Kritzolina\|Kritzolina]] ([[User talk:Kritzolina\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)}} User has previously been blocked for copyvio in December ([https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_37#User:Crimsonalfred2022]), was reported again in January ([https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_95#Uploads_by_Crimsonalfred2022]), they have plenty of warnings and notices on their talk page going back to 2022 ([https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crimsonalfred2022&action=history&offset=&limit=500]), and they were indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia on 22 June for repeated copyvios there ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crimsonalfred2022&diff=prev&oldid=1230412621]). Since then (i.e. even since 22 June), they've continued to mass-upload images with dubious licensing information, all of which are clearly grabbed from somewhere on the web. (They're likely also evading their Wikipedia block through IP edits which are adding some of these files to Wikipedia; see evidence [[:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Crimsonalfred2022\|here]].) What the title says. User has been provided guidance on their [[User_talk:Prototyperspective#Your_FPC_votes\|talk page]] and several FPC nominations. --[[User:SHB2000\|SHB2000]] ([[User talk:SHB2000\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :I think it would be good to clarify what the concerns of users and my comments were. I voted oppose on three or four images or so because I think their educational content is low as [[COM:FP]] says {{tq\|Featured pictures are images from highly skilled creators that the Wikimedia Commons community has chosen as some of the highest quality on the site.}} and [[COM:SCOPE]] says {{tq\|Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content … The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". … Image quality is just one of the factors that may limit the educational usefulness of a file. Other limiting factors may include low resolution and hard-to-remove watermarks.}} so to me it is just a logical conclusion that the degree of educationality, how educational a file is, is very relevant to whether or not a file should become a "featured" picture "highlighted" by this site. In the recent uploads, the source is labeled "pinterest" (without a link), author is claimed to be "unknown", and license is tagged as [[Template:PD-Egypt\|PD-Egypt]], but no evidence is provided to support any of this. Examples include: [[:File:Ayman Younes (Zamalek SC).jpg]], [[:File:Zamalek - Cairo (1972).jpg]], [[:File:Farouk Gaafar 1981.jpg]], [[:File:Ashraf Kasem (1984).jpg]], etc. Even if the stated dates of the photos are correct (no obvious way to confirm this), my reading of [[Template:PD-Egypt\|PD-Egypt]] is that they are still too recent to be in PD in the United States and thus do not belong on Commons. :Where am I wrong about that and people can have other views but FP has turned into something that seems to assume WMC is some kind of photography critique platform. It isn't; a prime purpose is educational media so we shouldn't feature so many fairly (I'm not saying totally) uneducational images as the best of the site. People have applied very high standards to illustrations and diagrams and I also apply a high standard in regards to educational content of files and wonder why this hasn't been sooner as now again people seem to assume we're some kind of artistic photo critique site without focus on educational media. I don't think these opposes are disruptive in any way, it's just that not many other users have applied this criteria earlier. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::Per [[Special:Diff/901999164]], after I opposed one of your nomations because of the rationales of the voters, you said: {{talkquote\|I should just start voting oppose very often because the whole thing is a joke and some kind of technical photo competition rather than in lie with [[COM:SCOPE]].}} ::I believe you opposed all of those nominations out of bad faith. I did warn you on your talk page not to take it personally and to not continue disrupting Commons with your opposing votes. [[User:Zzzs\|Zzzs]] ([[User talk:Zzzs\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::Those are not in bad faith. I outlined the rationale above, what exactly is wrong with it? However, a point to make would be to create a discussion about this general issue elsewhere rather than voting in nominations of images that aren't very/sufficiently educational. I explained above why I don't think these are in line (typo there) with [[COM:SCOPE]] and I'm not taking it personally. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::::If you didn't take it personally, why did you address every opposing vote, especially mine, and mention that you'd start opposing more often with the text I quoted above? I also explained on your talk page why bird images (the nominations you mainly opposed for "violating" [[COM:SCOPE]]) are educational and within the scope. [[User:Zzzs\|Zzzs]] ([[User talk:Zzzs\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::::Just because people assume FP is something like a photo competition where images are judged by nothing than technical criteria doesn't make it so. One could make a coherent counterargument (and why is it me to make these) that FP has since inception / [[Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/2005-A\|2005]] often featured many relatively noneducational images, basically based on their aesthetics and technical quality. On the other hand, when going through the candidates log like this one often finds rationales related to mine [[Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/April_2005]] like {{tq\|very good quality, but how is the topic special, or at least of general interest?}} or {{tq\|…On the one hand, this picture is "topical" — i.e. it tells a story. On the other hand, the picture is not that good by itself…}} ::::Just because something has become widely assumed and deeply ingrained does not make it suddenly the required only way to assess for FP and silence those who apply criteria that seem foreign to you. Nowhere on the FP page or in any policy page could I find a requirement that things are only evaluated by technical criteria but not by <u>'''''how''''' educational</u> they are. In any case maybe it's better to discuss this before voting according to this criteria which seems uncommon in this FP WMC-subcommunity. I don't know where though, maybe the talk page of FP which is composed only of the very people who established and support this narrow way of evaluating images for FP? [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::::For starters, you could read all of the [[Commons:Featured picture candidates#General rules\|rules for FPC]], including #7 that says: {{xt\|Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by ''all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects''. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.}} Especially take to heart the part highlighted in Italics. Just because you can't think of a use for an image, doesn't mean there isn't one. The WikiProject is so much larger and more diverse than you seem to think. And that's without including the "future projects" part. :::::I'm not asking for miracles, just that you only concentrate on each nominated image and determine if it's a good photo/painting/drawing/whatever, and leave it up to the rest of the very large Wiki community to decide where and how the image could/would/should be used. The Wiki community has more ideas than you could possibly imagine. I'm always in awe about how and where images are used. They can turn up in the most unlikely places. At FPC we can only weed out the best ones. --[[User:W.carter\|Cart]] <small>[[User talk:W.carter\|(talk)]]</small> 14:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::This is not about suitability to be on WMC, but suitability as FP. I can think of a lot of uses of bird photos, including using them on Wikipedia pages, please don't assume things I never said – I never said or implied I was considering images just based on potential use on WP. Those are not the best ones of WMC so I oppose some. Maybe they're the best when it comes to technical photography criteria but that is not what FP is necessarily limited to/about. I'll open a discussion about the subject elsewhere, it's not good to discuss this in picture/photo nominations since it seems like the criteria of how educational an image is is so foreign that one gets sent to ANU if applied multiple times so it probably needs discussion rather than directly be used with little to no adoption by other FP evaluators. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::::::I never said this was about the suitability to be on WMC, that is why I quoted the rules for FPC - FPC as in what FPs are before they become FPs. We are discussing why you are disrupting the FP selection process, and your reasoning flies around in strange patterns. I give you a direct link to the FP rules and you start to talk about other things. Please just read the FP rules and act accordingly. --[[User:W.carter\|Cart]] <small>[[User talk:W.carter\|(talk)]]</small> 15:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::::It starts with {{tq\|Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is…}}. This doesn't address anything I said above and my comment applies 1:1. ::::::::Yes, please read the FP rules and intro/definition. They are among what I was referencing. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::::::::Minor addition: other than not denying that the criteria I used can be is used / is valid etc it also has {{tq\|Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects}} and {{tq\|Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.}}. I think more quotes from there aren't needed, these are quite explanatory and it becomes quite clear your assumptions about what criteria may or may not be used for FP are unreasonable. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :Prototyperspective uses countless words and tries to give the impression that they are the expert and that everyone else is getting things wrong. But that doesn’t mean that what they write is correct. Their interpretation of the FP rules and of [[COM:SCOPE]] is (to put it mildly) very one-sided, ignoring both other statements in the rules and the clear testimony of existing FPs and nomination discussions. Other statements by Prototyperspective, such as the one quoted by Zzzs above, even suggest that they are not concerned with the matter at hand, but that their intentions are questionable. As for the objective question of the nature and scope of FPs, I don’t need to repeat what others have said, especially not [[User:W.carter\|Cart’s]] excellent comments both here and in recent FP nomination discussions. Because Prototyperspective ignores the guidance given both on their [[User_talk:Prototyperspective#Your_FPC_votes\|talk page]] and in several FPC nominations ([[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pulitzer2018-mia-farrow-20180530-wp.jpg\|1]], [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fauvette à lunettes Aqueduc de Zaghouan.jpg\|2]], [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CH.VS.Zermatt Hotel-Wellnessresort-La-Ginabelle 4747 3x2-R 11K.jpg\|3]], [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Traquet rieur Gabes.jpg\|4]], [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Idealbild aus der Steinzeit - Höhlenbewohner (Darnaut).jpg\|5]], etc.), their behaviour must be classified as disruptive. – [[User:Aristeas\|Aristeas]] <small>([[User talk:Aristeas\|talk]])</small> 16:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::Thanks for giving the difflinks, Aristeas. The main problem with their behaviour is not that they have a different opinion. It is the fact that they approach the discussion from the perspective of being the only person who is right. And wanting to proof this on individual cases, not solving the differences in opinion by seeking a general consensus on the broader issue. [[User:Kritzolina\|Kritzolina]] ([[User talk:Kritzolina\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::I agree with Kritzolina regarding Proto's tendency to see himself as right and others as wrong. It seems that Proto is also unwilling to cooperate and "get the point". If this behavior continues, I suggest that we ban Proto from participating in [[COM:FPC]] and strike all of their votes. [[User:Zzzs\|Zzzs]] ([[User talk:Zzzs\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::::Also including [[:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Look into my eyes - 1 - Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto, July 16 1014.jpg]]. These edits are clearly [[Special:Diff/901999164\|intentionally]] disruptive. Block and striking out the FPC votes is probably most appropriate. [[User:Multichill\|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill\|talk]]) 17:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::::Glad to see an administrator on the same page as me. Just one question, should the block be sitewide or only to FPC? [[User:Zzzs\|Zzzs]] ([[User talk:Zzzs\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::{{Re\|Prototyperspective}} I encourage you to own up to your mistakes and inform everyone that, in this particular case, you were wrong. That's all I want to hear from you. [[User:Wolverine XI\|<b><span style="color:blue">'''Wolverine'''</span></b>]] [[User talk:Wolverine XI\|<span style="color:red">'''XI'''</span>]] 20:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::::::I second [[User:Wolverine XI\|Wolverine XI]] – it's not hard to just own up in this instance. --[[User:SHB2000\|SHB2000]] ([[User talk:SHB2000\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::::I already said I'm sorry and that I was mistaken to just suddenly use this criteria in multiple nominations [[#c-Prototyperspective-20240723204800-Wolverine_XI-20240723204400\|below]]. What more do you want to hear – about which other things were I wrong about that I should admit? [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::::::::I was also wrong about it not being in line with [[COM:SCOPE]]. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::::::Okay, thanks for apologising + accepting. Certainly a step in the right direction. --[[User:SHB2000\|SHB2000]] ([[User talk:SHB2000\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC) ::::::::I also second Wolverine XI: IMO, owning up is better than being banned from FPC IMO [[User:Zzzs\|Zzzs]] ([[User talk:Zzzs\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::{{ping\|Kritzolina}} That is one reason why I stated that a talk discussion is better suited than just voting and/or discussing these matters in the nominations. That it seemed like so may come from the fact that I was defending my vote rationale against objections to them so again a talk page discussion is better suited for this as apparently the criteria I applied is very controversial and rejected by other FP evaluators. I generally try to address other people's points so that may give the impression that I see myself as the only one right and everybody else as wrong rather than "solving the differences in opinion by seeking a general consensus on the broader issue" which is exactly what the ''talk page discussion'' will be for rather than my 4 FP controversial oppose ''votes'' plus replies to points raised in my 3 ''nominations''. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::I already stated that I would open the discussion on a talk page rather than keep voting which I only did a few times. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::Also in the first link I took home what people said and struck my vote since my rationale was refuted with solid reasoning. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::::You still didn't say it. [[User:Wolverine XI\|<b><span style="color:blue">'''Wolverine'''</span></b>]] [[User talk:Wolverine XI\|<span style="color:red">'''XI'''</span>]] 20:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::::I was wrong about how community seems to have decided to evaluate FP images. I thought it was not decided so I will cease my FP voting and rather open a talk page discussing whether 'how ''much'' educational' an image is can be valid criteria for people evaluating whether they should become FP. It was a bit disruptive to suddenly use this unestablished criteria a handful of times linked above and I'm sorry for it. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ::How can one say I {{tq\|ignore[s] the guidance}} when I already ceased voting there and even earlier said I will instead open a talk discussion about this? Cart has made good points, I addressed some of them and see a lot of sense in most of them, that's certainly not ignoring, I was not even challenging the decision where Cart commented. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC) {{question}} So assuming we accept, as we should, that an FPC of a small brown bird alone in the dessert is within scope, has educational value and is of high technical quality; how should a user who feels it has little wow, limited EV and a mundane composition vote to oppose it? You can substitute church, view, sunset, etc. etc. for small brown bird. [[User:Prototyperspective\|Prototyperspective]] has a valid point, though they have not approached the issue as well as they could. [[User:Charlesjsharp\|Charlesjsharp]] ([[User talk:Charlesjsharp\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Prototyperspective is not the only one who mostly opposes, who opposes for their own personal and/or arbitrary reasons, or who applies different standards to subjects based on what they personally like or find interesting; they're just doing a terrible job of trying to justify it and, in some cases, being transparent about disrupting "what it means to be an FP". Yes, opposing because there are [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Fauvette_%C3%A0_lunettes_Aqueduc_de_Zaghouan.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=902001545 "enough bird photos"] <small>(although I'd add we have about 1200 FPs of birds since the beginning of FPC and there are about 10,000 bird species)</small>, because [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pulitzer2018-mia-farrow-20180530-wp.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=899189966 "portrait photo of a woman"] (?), or [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:CH.VS.Zermatt_Hotel-Wellnessresort-La-Ginabelle_4747_3x2-R_11K.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=902000917 misrepresenting the role of COM:SCOPE] could all be considered disruptive. That said, I can think of a few people who frequently oppose based on some variation of "not special enough for me", "no wow", or technical nitpicks, even when the same person nominates their own photos with the same kinds of flaws. Hence it's hard to penalize someone because we allow wide latitude to oppose based on personal reasons. You basically just can't be insulting or nonsensical. Personally, I'd recommend doing what I do with the subjects I don't much care about: ignore them. For me, I don't much care for most of the photos FPC gets of churches or exteriors of [IMO] unremarkable buildings. However, I know that for a lot of people those have a lot of value and I don't want my personal bias to get in the way, so I only vote if I feel very strongly one way or the other. I don't think this is an approach we can enforce, though. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[[User:Rhododendrites\|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Rhododendrites\|talk]]</sup></span> \|  16:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC) :No, we can't enforce the policy of "I don't want my personal bias to get in the way, so I only vote if I feel very strongly one way or the other", but it's a very good recommendation about how voting could run a bit more smoothly. {{u\|Rhododendrites}} usually come up with good ideas since he has his ear on more online communications and sites than the rest of us do. He usually brings a clear and not-so-bogged-down-in-old-wiki-ways way of looking at things. :And regarding {{u\|Prototyperspective}}, I don't think they needs to be blocked from anything on Commons after this very thorough vetting. I've never liked the overkill in punishing users that sometimes is executed here; save that for the real vandals. Hopefully they understands how the land lies now, and will discuss their more overall views on image policy on preferably the [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates\|FPC talk page]], while voting strictly based on the quality (aesthetical and technical) of the image nomination in front of them. --[[User:W.carter\|Cart]] <small>[[User talk:W.carter\|(talk)]]</small> 18:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC) {{Discussion bottom}} == Abraham == Some of their older uploads – images of old actors and movie posters, etc – are tagged as PD, but they've put themselves as "author" and the "source" appears to be their own Flickr account (Crimson2022 Alfred), which is merely doing the same thing as their Commons account. At best, the author attribution is wrong, and at worse, it's impossible once again to confirm the copyright status of the original work. Examples: [[:File:Abdel Halim Hafez.jpg]], [[:File:Bahiga Hafez.jpg]], [[:File:Kham El-Khalili (1976).jpg]] (this one even has a mysterious watermark in the upper right corner), etc. ~~The~~{{user2\|Abraham}} ~~user~~not ~~has~~liking ~~200+~~a ~~uploads,~~comment soin Ia ~~don't~~DR ~~have~~made ~~the~~[[Special:Diff/902331476\|this ~~capacity~~comment]] tothat ~~investigate,~~I'm ~~tag,~~not ~~and/or~~going ~~nominate~~to ~~for~~adjetive. ~~deletion~~I ~~all~~understand ~~their~~that ~~problematic~~DR ~~uploads~~can be heated topic, but ~~this~~we ~~looks~~should ~~like~~not atolerate ~~pattern~~this ofkind ~~long-term~~behavior ~~ignorance~~in ofa collaborative project like [[Commons~~:Licensing]]~~. [[User:RGünther ~~Prazeres~~Frager\|RGünther ~~Prazeres~~Frager]] ([[User talk:RGünther ~~Prazeres~~Frager\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 0007:1736, 323 July 2024 (UTC) :{{~~cmt~~d}} ~~There~~Blocked ~~are~~for ~~some~~2 ~~problematic uploads, but the information provided is better than by many other users~~weeks. [[User:Yann\|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 1916:2725, 323 July 2024 (UTC) == ~~[[User:Joanmonito65]]~~Townpadne == {{user5\|Townpadne}} All of Joanmonito65's uploads are copyright violations and give no indication of free licensing [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Joanmonito65&ilshowall=1]. They uploaded two files ([[:File:"$456,000 Squid Game in Real Life!" Thumbnail (Original thumbnail).jpg\|1]], [[:File:"$456,000 Squid Game in Real Life!" MrBeast's video.jpg\|2]]) to supersede [[:en:File:Mr Beast Squid Game YouTube Thumbnail.jpg\|the free-use version on enwiki]], then reverted me three times on enwiki after I tried to remove it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=$456,000_Squid_Game_in_Real_Life!&action=history]. They reverted me after I tried to speedy delete the two files on commons. They have provided no edit summaries and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joanmonito65&action=history blanked] my talk page notice on enwiki. They were also previously warned [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joanmonito65&diff=prev&oldid=890830152 here] for their copyright vios. Thanks, [[User:PerfectSoundWhatever\|PerfectSoundWhatever]] ([[User talk:PerfectSoundWhatever\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Another sock of [[#Muhammedfasilkvkave]] per [[w:~~Deleted~~WP:DUCK]]. ~~all~~Reuploads ~~their~~the ~~uploads~~same ~~and~~files ~~left~~that ~~them~~previously awere ~~final~~deleted ~~warning~~as copyvios. [[User:~~The Squirrel Conspiracy~~Jonteemil\|~~The Squirrel Conspiracy~~Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:~~The Squirrel Conspiracy~~Jonteemil\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 0517:4306, 323 July 2024 (UTC) ::I{{d}} ~~appreciate it. However~~Blocked, ~~the~~all ~~file~~files ~~has been re-uploaded ([[:File:"$456,000 Squid Game in real life!" MrBeast's thumbnail~~deleted.~~jpg\|file]])~~ [[User:~~PerfectSoundWhatever~~Yann\|~~PerfectSoundWhatever~~Yann]] ([[User talk:~~PerfectSoundWhatever~~Yann\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 1510:3306, 324 July 2024 (UTC) ~~:::{{d}} Blocked for a month by The Squirrel Conspiracy. [[User:Yann\|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)~~ ::::{{d\|Extended to indef}} per evidence on en.wiki that it's a VoA. [[User:The Squirrel Conspiracy\|The Squirrel Conspiracy]] ([[User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC) ~~:{{cmt}} Now also globally locked. I deleted the user page. [[User:Yann\|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)~~ == ~~Ominae~~New aqrtilce acception == I wrote an article about a member of the Ukrainian parliament: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rostyslav_Pavlenko]]. I used official (state, govermental, financial) links for proofs of truthfulness of information about a member of parliament (Rostyslav Pavlenko). In other words, the link is of the highest level of credibility in my country (Ukraine). Article has been rejected for publication by a [[User: SafariScribe]]. I am asking the administrators of the English Wiki-page to help, because I consider the actions of the [[User: SafariScribe]] to be biased and inadequate and to harm the project. [[Special:Contributions/94.45.142.2\|94.45.142.2]] 21:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC) User: {{user3\|Ominae}} * Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{t2\|Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of [[:Category:Incomplete deletion requests]]. This problem spurred the creation of that category [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Incomplete_deletion_requests&oldid=4256527 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)], over 17 years ago, and my tracking of it [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jeff_G./Top_Links&diff=512622471&oldid=511644567 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)], over three years ago. As a precedent, {{noping\|ColorfulSmoke}} [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)] by {{u\|Mdaniels5757}} with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke]], and {{noping\|Alex Neman}} [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AAlex+Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)] by {{noping\|Yann}} with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman]]. Ominae made [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:DFAC_vans&diff=next&oldid=753951311 this edit] 06:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC): omitting subpage, transclusion, notice to the page creator, year, month, and day. I reminded them of their mistake and warned them in [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ominae&diff=prev&oldid=753994985 this edit 05:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)] after two previous archived reminders and followed on six minutes later. They neglected to respond per [[User talk:Ominae/Archive 3#Warning]], and made such an edit again in [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APatch_C.jpg&diff=892002531&oldid=637381342 these edits 12:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)]: again omitting subpage, transclusion, notice to the page creator, year, month, and day. Please block them.   — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.\|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping\|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk\|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 14:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC) :You're in the wrong place, this is Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia. ::{{not done}} I believe I've said this before when you've brought other users here for the same reason, but I don't see how this kind of thing raises to the level of warranting a block. This is clearly a user trying to G7 their own upload and not knowing the proper template. Commons can be very obtuse, is most users' second project, and is a multi-language project with a huge amount of documentation only in English or English and a few European languages. I'm more than happy to extend grace to people for not using the correct template when they're genuinely trying to contribute to the project, as seems to be the case here. [[User:The Squirrel Conspiracy\|The Squirrel Conspiracy]] ([[User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC) :Click the {{tq\|If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk}} in the box at the top of your Wikipedia draft article, if you want to talk to other users about a review that you feel was inadequate. [[User:Belbury\|Belbury]] ([[User talk:Belbury\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC) :::@[[User:The Squirrel Conspiracy\|The Squirrel Conspiracy]]: Yann and Mdaniels5757 appear to have different opinions. Also, the user uploaded the file in 2022, what gives them the right to G7 a redirect to it?   — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.\|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping\|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk\|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 02:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC) :@[[User:Brandner\|Brandner]]: Hi, and welcome. In addition to the above, please stay logged in.   — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.\|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping\|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk\|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 09:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) ::::I have deleted the redirect as it was both unused and there is no harm in deleting it at all. Yes, the user should be requesting deletion as the procedure is, but although badly formed, intention was clear and it was easier to just replace with a {{tl\|speedy\|G7}} tag and warning them once again. They could have possibly just forgotten your previous message, which was over a year ago. [[User:Bedivere\|Bedivere]] ([[User talk:Bedivere\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC) :::::@[[User:Bedivere\|Bedivere]]: Ok, I warned them again. Please don't forget that you yourself [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:AxelHH blocked AxelHH 05:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)] for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page". My previous instructions (also not responded to) were archived at [[User talk:Ominae/Archive 3#Category:Toophan MRAP]] and [[User talk:Ominae/Archive 3#Reminder]].   — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.\|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping\|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk\|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 03:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC) == ~~Ыфь77~~WikiFreestyler == *{{user5\|~~Ыфь77~~WikiFreestyler}} Another duck as [[#Townpadne]]. [[User:Jonteemil\|Jonteemil]] ([[User talk:Jonteemil\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) User responded to [[User:Jeff G.]]'s perfectly reasonable request not to make malformed deletion requests with an accusation "Я обвиняю Jeff G. в преследовании по политическим мотивам. Прошу оградить меня от его нападок", which according to Google Translate means "I accuse Jeff G. of political persecution. Please protect me from his attacks." The accusation is entirely off-base. I cannot imagine how this could be "political persecution": it is a simple matter of telling the user to follow Commons' processes correctly, in a matter where Ыфь77's behavior can really only be considered either ignorant, negligent, incompetent, or (less likely) malicious. :{{done}} blocked and deleted. [[User:GPSLeo\|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure what I want to see happen here, but at the very least if [[User:Ыфь77]] won't withdraw their charge of political persecution they should be blocked for a personal attack. - [[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel\|talk]] 19:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC) == Mykola.lemyk == :{{Done}} blocked one day. If they continue doing these accusations, groundless in my opinion, should the future blocks be longer. [[User:Bedivere\|Bedivere]] ([[User talk:Bedivere\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC) ::@[[User:Jmabel\|Jmabel]] and @[[User:Bedivere\|Bedivere]]: Thanks. I am not persecuting anyone except Vladimir Putin, who appears to be using the Russian military to aggressively wage war on the people of Ukraine without good reason. My signature and user page reflect my opinion of Mr. Putin. This has nothing to do with Commons users.   — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.\|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping\|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk\|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 02:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC) {{user5\|Mykola.lemyk}} :::Not that I am supporting disruptive edits but I can see why [[User:Jeff G.]]'s signature could be disconcerting to a Russian user. [[User:Commander Keane\|Commander Keane]] ([[User talk:Commander Keane\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Many uploads with bogus license, some might be in the public domain. Help needed for checking. [[User:Yann\|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC) == Sockpuppet use by Sthubertliege == Per [[Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sthubertliege]], {{user4\|Sthubertliege}} is using the sockpuppet {{user4\|LeHardi45}}. Please block the sockpuppet account. [[User:Cryptic-waveform\|Cryptic-waveform]] ([[User talk:Cryptic-waveform\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC) :{{d}} Blocked. [[User:Yann\|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC) == Likely sockpuppets of Masry684 == {{userlinks\|Sarooky}} Sarooky looks like another sockpuppet of [[User:Masry684\|Masry684]]. Like the sockmaster, they have uploaded tons of low-quality images related to Egypt that have been deleted for copyvios or missing licenses. This recent upload, [[:File:Nadia Lutfi-Salah Zulfikar.jpg]], looks very likely to be a re-upload of a previously deleted file, [[:File:Nadialutfi&Salahzulfikar.jpg]], uploaded by Sweety1090, a blocked sock of Masry684. (Though I can't view the deleted file to confirm.) Moreover, I'm confident that [[Special:Contributions/Crimsonalfred2022\|Crimsonalfred2022]], recently blocked for the exact same type of behaviour (copyvio uploads of Egypt-related images), is related as well. In recent uploads like [[:File:Shoukry Sarhan 1.jpg\|this]] and [[:File:Nadia Lutfi-Salah Zulfikar.jpg\|this]], Sarooky provides the exact same dubious licensing information that I reported from Crimsonalfred2022 (see report [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 114#Crimsonalfred2022 (talk · contribs) again\|here]], examples like [[:File:Hamada Emam (1965).jpg\|this]], [[:File:Gamal Abdel Hamid 1984.jpg\|this]], etc), namely: "Pinterest" as source, "unknown" author, but tagged as PD with no evidence (or indeed with contradictory evidence given the year provided and the US copyright laws outlined in the template). Crimsonalfred2022 is also blocked for sockpuppet behaviour on Wikipedia (see [[:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Crimsonalfred2022/Archive\|here]]), for that matter. [[User:R Prazeres\|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC) :Actually, I don't know how I missed this while writing: Crimsonalfred2022 is ''already ''confirmed as a sockpuppet of Masry684 via the SPI that linked above ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Crimsonalfred2022/Archive]). [[User:R Prazeres\|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)