Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Note

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

User:Laurel Lodged

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"[1][2]. 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"[3]. 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 Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 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"[4], but he ignored my message and continues mass edit warring reverting the wrong and not actual name of the city back and removing the redirects to "Khankendi"[5][6][7][8][9]. So, please stop this user from posting false information into Commons and help to revert his edits on these categories. Interfase (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, we have redirect from "Swaziland" to "Eswatini"[10] 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. Interfase (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Interfase (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia (and 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.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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"? Interfase (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many images have been uploaded since 2023 compared to before that? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 100. Interfase (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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". Interfase (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I could really go either way with it myself then. Although it's probably better not to create two different categories anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 categories for discussion method in order to attempt to gain a consensus. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Interfase (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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". Interfase (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 opened a discussion regarding whether or not to move the category. I feel like we can close this with no action. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process closer by admin after threat on my talk page

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No admin action needed here. As I said below, there is no evidence for the DRs started by Adamant1. Yann (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maîtresse-vitre de la cathédrale de Dol-de-Bretagne. A few hours later a user, @GO69: , threatened to contact French administrators over it. The DR was then closed out of process and for no reason a few minutes later by @VIGNERON: . Clearly because they contacted by @GO69: about it. The whole thing is clearly a conflict of interest, goes against the Universal Code of Conduct, and as well as being an abuse of the administrator privileges. Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did close this DR thanks to GO69 warning as there is obviously no reason for deletion (per Commons:Snowball clause). If we talk about abuse, @Adamant1: would be the one abusing the Commons:Deletion requests process (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ancien siège d'Ouest-France is also in the same case). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What snowball clause? There was one delete vote and it had only been open for a couple of hours. There wasn't enough comments or time for there to be a snowball. You clearly closed it before the 7 days was over for no reason because a another user from France asked you to. Which is clearly an abuse of the administrator tools and goes against the Universal Code of Conduct. You can say my justification for the DR was wrong, but that's not a valid excuse to close it early and before there was any discussion just because another French user randomly threatened to contact you about it on my talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did came to the DR because of GO69 (who made no threats just factual explanations) but I closed it because as a 13th century work it's very clearly in the public domain. « If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. » Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what GO69 said on my talk page "I point out your ludicrous conception of copyright to administrators such as User:VIGNERON (A), User:Pymouss (A), User:Jean-Frédéric (IA/A)." That's not just factual explanations of anything and it's clearly a threat to contact administrators from France to deal with the DRs. Which is exactly what you did. Regardless, "the snowball test", which you cited, is pretty clear that something has to be ran through the process resulting in a unanimous decision for it to qualify as a snowball. There was no process or unanimous decision here though because you closed the DR after a few hours without there being any discussion. It doesn't really matter though because there's a clear consensus on Commons that DRs should be open for at least 7 days anyway. 2 hours is certainly to early to close a deletion request. Especially if it's being done as a personal favor for another user. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full message of GO69 in French is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&oldid=888477761

One need to run through the whole process in order to « no need to run it through the entire process » ? That's kind of defeating the purpose.

DR don't have to always to stay open 7 days (see Commons:Deletion_requests#Closing_discussions), it's quite common to close them before. It's more common for close when the result is delete (cf. the page for today Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/06/26 with a few DR already closed) but it's not that uncommon when the result is keep.

Me closing the DR was clearly not a « personal favor », Adamant1 is clearly not assuming good faith and I take it as a personal attack.

I never thought that keeping a 13th windows would cause so much problem. I'll let my admins colleague decide what to do...

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DR don't have to always to stay open 7 days "In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days. Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier." The guideline literally says they can be closed after seven days unless it's an obvious copyright violation. Which it clearly wasn't. Nowhere does the guideline say it's OK to close a DR after two hours because someone pings you about it as a way to threaten and intimidate another user.

Me closing the DR was clearly not a « personal favor » GO69 contacted you on my talk page specifically for the sole purpose of having you deal with it, which you then did seconds later. On top you didn't even bother contacting me about it before hand and I've never interacted with you before this, the last time you dealt with DRs was 2 months ago, and you clearly didn't just stumble on this one randomly because you were already working in the area. So I don't know what else to call it besides a personal favor. If it walks like a duck. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the DR closure by Vigneron is adequate. Restoring an old stained glass window doesn't create a new copyright. The purpose of restoration of such old works is that they appear as faithful as possible as they were at the time of creation. It usually include replacing some broken glasses and straightening the structure, not creating anything new. Yann (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what kind of restoration work was done and how much personal creative liberty the artist takes while they are doing it. Some restorations are 100% recreations of the original and some aren't. Like in a similar DR the "restoration" involved the artist replacing like 30% of the window with their own artwork. So it really depends on the situation, which is the whole point DRs to begin with. You can't really find a consensus about an edge case or something that isn't clear if a DR is closed 2 hours after it's opened and before people can comment on it. It really just defeats the whole purpose of the thing if administrators can come along and close DRs after a few hours due to a personal opinion that they are invalid or because someone asked them to. The way VIGNERON went about it was clearly wrong to regardless of the merits of the deletion request. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In France, you can't change whatever you want when you restore a piece of art, in particular when it is enlisted as an heritage building. Trust me, I have experience regarding this topic. :)

Okay, there are cases where a change is done. It was actually a topic today at the national French radio France Inter, about Notre-Dame-de-Paris. For Paris, it is clearly for political reasons and the guests where like "that shouldn't be done unless we have nothing to save".

But trust me (again), it is not the case for Dol-de-Bretagne, at all: we are lucky to have proper 13th century stained-glass windows that have been preserved and restored using similar techniques (what Yann described).

Trizek ^{from FR} 17:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trizek: This has nothing to do with buildings and the example I brought up to Yann were the artist doing the restoration added their own artwork to a window was in France. It's a separate issue then VIGNERON's behavior anyway. Maybe familiarize yourself with the actual issue before commenting next time. Otherwise it just risks sounding like an off-topic handwaving lecture. Someone's personal experience in a particular usually don't matter if it has nothing to do with the actual problem or what's being talked about. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, you're playing hopscotch on the line between acceptable disagreement and personal attack. There was no need to respond to Trizek like that. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1, regarding familiarizing with a topic, you can apply your (rudely written) advice to yourself. If you knew a bit about restoration and heritage, this unpleasant thread would have never existed. VIGNERON did the right thing, as he knows about this topic. Also, your uncivil comments towards me or others, and the tone you use, is not what should be the norm on wikis: you have the right to disagree, but not the way you convey your message.

Thank you @The Squirrel Conspiracy. You very well summarized how I feel after Adamant's comments. Trizek ^{from FR} 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trizek: No offense intended, but I'm just not a fan of people commenting on a topic that they don't know anything about and like I said, this has nothing to do with buildings. Nor for that matter "restoration and heritage." It's purely about VIGNERON's unacceptable way of handling things. I get told all the time this isn't the place for content disputes, which I mostly agree with. This is the place to discuss user behavior. That's it and your attempt to make this about the particulars of "restoration and heritage" or "buildings" when that's not what the complaint is about just came off like bad faithed derailing. There just isn't any consistency with this though. I can be repeatedly told not to make ANU complaints about content disputes and no one ever takes issue with that. But then apparently it's a rude personal for me to tell you that this has nothing to do with buildings or heritage. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Let me ask you this since you seem like a semi-reasonable person. If someone nominated some of my images for deletion and I lived in the same town as Jmabel (which is also were the images are of), would it be OK for me to ping him on the users talk page and ask him to "deal with the DR because it's ludicrous"? And as a follow up to that, would it then be OK for him to immediately close the DR after I asked him to without any discussion or other processes involved in the action? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Георгий Долгопский

Георгий Долгопский (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Uploading dozens of derivatives, violating COM:FOP Russia, every year since 2013, despite a good deal of warnings and blocks. Quick1984 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfA standards?

What, if any, standards are in place for RfA here on Commons? Are admin hopefuls tested at all about their understanding of the five pillars or other rules and policies they will be enforcing? After a recent experience, I am genuinely concerned about an admin's future use of the tools after they have shown they do not fully understand the assorted policies they are supposed to be enforcing. I have asked two involved admins for mediation on my talk page, which appears to have gone unanswered, so I am asking for help here. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like there are any outside of the intuitions of whomever votes in the RfA at the time. Which is unfortunate but also understandable. It does seem to present a problem though where admins are usually above reproach and unsactionable for their actions once they are given the previlage. See my recent ANU complaint about VIGNERON as an example. The only thing you can usually do is either open an ANU complaint which risks blow back and bandwagoning by other admins (again, see my ANU complaint above for an example) or file a full request for rights removel. The last one has almost zero chance of going anywhere though. So at the end of the day all you can really do is take the L and deal with being a tool of someone elses power trip. Or just be an ever increasing passive agressive asshole until you get blocked because no one on here really actually gives a shit about civility and just plays favorites. That's my go to strategy for open source, "community" based projects like this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I do not agree that admins are some kind of superior class of users. It should not be. What Adolphus79 has forgotten to mention, though, is that this seemingly innocent thread they've started has a name within. I have given all kinds of explanations regarding their blocking and they do not accept them. Fair enough. I don't get though why they are restoring obvious personal attacks by some IP users on their talk page, even reverting me. I'll take Jameslwoodward's advice to keep away from this user, so (despite I have already said at least three times) this will be my last comment on them. Making a personal vendetta-stic campagin even after I apologized for my mistake is not fun. Bedivere (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: were the attacks on them (in which case I think it is their prerogative to decide they would rather keep them visible) or on others (in which case what you are describing would certainly be a problem, tantamount to making the attack themself)? - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to these "non-vandalism IP edits for context" (Adolphus' words) they restored, which included: "what a pathetic use of adimnship". Bedivere (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Bedivere's statement is not quite accurate, and they are once again showing that they do not understand the policies involved. The "personal attack" they are referring to is the IP's comment "what a pathetic use of adinmship, as an unrelated user, you should've kept quiet", clearly not a personal attack. Also, I did not restore that comment after Bedivere removed it (from my talk page, mind you), I only restored the later edit from the IP after being blocked as a sockpuppet, saying they are not me, and asking Bedivere to do a checkuser. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: That's certainly the attitude a lot of them have and they constantly back each other in disputes no matter who's actually right. I've been pretty active on here for a long time now and can't think of a single instance where an administrator was either blocked, otherwise sanctioned, or threated with a sanction for their behavior. Not to say it's never happened but it's certainly extremely rare and the whole thing has a chilling effect that needs to be accounted for here.

Most of their actions are done in far flung areas where users aren't going to report them because of fear of retaliation or just because it has no chance of going anywhere if they do. That was certainly my experience when Yann unfairly blocked a couple of years ago as part of a personal dispute. Realistically who's going to report an administrator for their actions after an unfair block, threat of one on their talk page, or other bullying behavior by an admin in an obscure area that has a low turnout to begin with? It's just obfuscation all the way down anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then Bedivere decided to try it with an 18-year veteran of enwiki who clearly knows the rules and policies better than they do. Administrators are held accountable for their actions on enwiki, and there is Oversight and Arbitration. I expect the administrators here to be held to at least some standard, not just swinging that hammer wildly making decisions based purely on their own opinion or rules. I worry how many others Bedivere has done this to in the last 4 months since becoming an admin, that didn't know the policies well enough to stand up and say "wait a minute!". I worry about future new users this admin might come in contact if they are allowed to continue like this unchecked. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the technicalities of this particular case since you haven't provided any background information, but I've generally found Bedivere to pretty fair and knowledgeable in the short time they have been an admin. Plus they are still getting use to the role. So there's inevitably going to be some mistakes until their fully acquainted with it. I think it's reasonable to assume good faith and give them the benefit of the doubt here. Especially considering the lack of evidence. I do think there's a larger issue with admin behavior in general though that should be dealt with, but this probably isn't the right forum for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to assume good faith, when I was finally unblocked, I made a very clear and precise request on my talk page, you can then see that Bedivere refused to respond with any discussion on policy, only saying "the whole point for the block still stands". Every new comment after that, they changed the reason for the block, personal attacks, "attempting to start an edit war" (with one edit), incivility, copyvio, each disproven by the policy itself. Never once did Bedivere want to discuss policy, never once did they quote any policy as a reason for the block. They even blocked me from my talk page without discussion or warning, so I couldn't try to discuss this with them or post an unblock request (I couldn't even email them, had to email another admin for help). My final edit before coming here summarizes it quite well, "That means.... when you blocked me... all you really had me for was one single edit of openly admitted vandalism, uploading this free piece of artwork over the other image (which you deleted instead of reverting the change)... one single use of the word "bullshit" on AN (which you also revdel'd for some reason instead of just reverting)... and me calling your actions "bullshit" on my talk page (for which my talk page rights were removed)? I wanna talk to your manager... right now...". - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's two things here that I think you need to reflect on. 1. You committed vandalism of your own admittance. 2. You swore at an admin multiple times. Full stop that's a blocker offense no matter what other circumstances exist at the time. You don't go into a court room and curse out the judge. And I say that as someone who has an issue in that area myself. I'm constantly having to edit swearing out of my comments. Right or wrong you lose any ability to make an argument for your position after that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say pretty much what Adamant1 just said. Going by your own description here, if someone came to COM:AN/U, described what you just described, and I saw that it was accurate, then a 3-day block is about what I would have done, too. - Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I believe your original response is most accurate, and at least the business I originally came for has been handled. Thank you Commons, it has been an experience that I have learned a lot from and will take with me to share with others... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 I have made my best efforts at doing the right thing. I have made mistakes, for sure. I have apologized. I tried my best at explaining Adolphus what was wrong with their edits and what led to their original three-day block. I don't really know what do they really want. I just really want to move on and would expect them to move on too. Bedivere (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rare behavior

Hi. I've noticed this edition of 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. Ganímedes (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yubrajhn redirects to UserːLahsim Niasoh - so it looks like he is changing authorship manually Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Lahsim Niasoh (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. @Ganímedes @Gbawden Lahsim Niasoh (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganímedes: Doesn't seem any problematic edit given a valid account rename: Special:Diff/889314587. Regards, _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 16:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Enhancing999

Enough. The only likely admin action here is if someone won't let this drop they will be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User is continuing editwarring in the Category:Zeichen 244, StVO 1992. --A.Savin 13:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:A.Savin

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(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should it be, kind of a Tit for tat? Childish --A.Savin 13:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. GPSLeo (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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). Enhancing999 (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is the categorization matter resolved? Do you have a special "final say" right, or why aren't you willing to discuss? --A.Savin 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of AN/U isn't to discuss categorization, but to evaluate your conduct. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. GPSLeo (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we block A.Savin indefinitely until he withdraws the above qualification and presents an acceptable excuse for their conduct. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. GPSLeo (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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? Enhancing999 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my report has nothing to do with a content dispute, it's a matter of user conduct by the administrator. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, perfect counduct, I fully agree. Continuing editwarring with the explanation as much as "there is no consensus for your edit", and then demanding indefblock of a user who doesn't happen to agree with you. --A.Savin 14:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Minor content dispute, no action needed against Alex. --SHB2000 (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 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. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 --A.Savin 06:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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? --A.Savin 08:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sequence

Enough. The only likely admin action here is if someone won't let this drop they will be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enhancing999's temperament

Enough. The only likely admin action here is if someone won't let this drop they will be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

@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. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add 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. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we open a separate thread or new section on A.Savin behavior not discussed above? Enhancing999 (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Susudela

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

User keeps edit warring unnecessary categories into their files. Dronebogus (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Jmabel ! talk 19:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:LustfulWyvern

Inappropriate username; only uploads are dick pics Dronebogus (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done for the latter. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus What's the problem with the name? Is "lustful" offensive to you? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In context yes because the user is an exhibitionist Dronebogus (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nonickillo

Nonickillo (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) The user reuploaded the pictures that were deleted. Would it be possible to delete the pictures again, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I re-uploaded the images because I have full permissions to share them, permissions that specifically include their use in the document I'm working on. These images are crucial to illustrating my work, so: Could you be so kind as to explain to me why you are so interested in removing them? What should I do to upload them so that you no longer disturb my work? Kind regards. Nonickillo (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonickillo: Please read the warnings on your talk page. You need a formal written permission from the copyright holder before uploading works not created by you. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Do not reupload these files until a VRT Agent and an Admin have completed the formalities. Yann (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC) (bold addition by — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

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. Nonickillo (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonickillo:

Assume they are still copyrighted.
Assume they are still copyrighted until 120 years have passed, then use {{PD-old-assumed}}.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nonickillo (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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 for more info. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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. - Jmabel ! talk 01:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User: Zeus2107

Zeus2107 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user 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. Antan O 13:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for 3 months. Please check their uploads. Yann (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 and deletion discussions

Closing with a two weeks block, see rational below. --Kritzolina (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:

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. Dronebogus (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a topic ban is excessive at this time, but @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. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 (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:

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[11]
I was just trying to be accommodating to your reading comprehension level since it seemed like it's short. No insult intended though [12].

I raised this to Adamant1, asking to refrain from claims that another Commons user has deficient intellectual capabilities. However, they reacted badly, rejecting the request to stop such ad hominem attacks and justifying them as minor pushback to the above mentioned criticism of misrepresenting the relevant policy and (separately) to criticism of a separate mistaken legal claim Adamant1 had made in favor of possibly 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, HaeB (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dronebogus (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, to add regarding factually wrong claims, another very recent example: As detailed here, Adamant1 straight up 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, HaeB (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. @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.

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 @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 @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. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you justify comments like [13] and [14]? 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. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. JPxG (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How long have you been here now? We might excuse 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. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You didn't start these DRs with a question, "Should INUSE be suspended for AI? Here are some items affected." Yeah, I didn't because I don't think it should be suspended for for AI artwork. There's plenty of places where it's totally legitimate and there's some where it isn't. That's it. This has never had anything to do with AI artwork more generally and nowhere have I ever said it does. I don't even disagree with the rest of your musing about it. That's why I invited the people I got in the dispute with to discuss it on the village pump. Repeatedly treating me like I have opinions or position that I don't really isn't helpful though. I'm not advocating for, nor have I ever advocated for, a policy shift. I'm applying the policies as they currently apply. While saying I think it's worth getting some parts of it clarified to in order to help resolve a dispute. You know that and what a strawman argument is. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: You just nominated 14 in-use files in one deletion request alone! How is that “rarely, if ever”? Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I gave multiple reasons for the DR. Ones that your free to disagree with, but its not like I didn't provide any. Anyway do you any other examples of doing that before? Because I can't think of any and your the one claiming its a pattern. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Dronebogus (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abraham Lincoln using a smartphone (anachronism).jpg Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cosmopolitan Artificial Intelligence cover.png Dronebogus (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Possible depiction of LHS 1140 b landscape with black grass and red starlight.jpg Dronebogus (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Police arresting Donald Trump (Midjourney) Dronebogus (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let’s shift the attention onto me. Because that’s a good debate strategy. Dronebogus (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, HaeB (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above comment I was referring to, and the more detailed examination of your tampered quote here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

This user has a problematic behavior, repeatedly going for personal attacks ([15], [16]) when actions are contested, notably creating a large number of disruptive deletion requests about FOP in Belgium. I am not the only one thinking that this is a problem. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_112#Adamant1)
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'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_112#Adamant1)
excessively hostile and condescending. (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_107#Adamant1)
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'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_99#User:Adamant1)

This list of examples is non-exhaustive. It seems evident that many previous requests to Adamant1 to change their problematic behavior, and two past short-term blocks for related issues, have not resulted in sustained improvements.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, lack of policy understanding and continual misuse/overuse of the DR system. Dronebogus (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Show of hands. Does anywhere here seriously think there is or should be a complete ban on nominating "in use" files for deletion? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. JPxG (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, HaeB (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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.

@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. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted the misleading move of the above comment that Adamant1 conducted as part of 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 statement 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, HaeB (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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".

This diff is an example of what I'm talking about: 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.

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. JPxG (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 siteblocked for the exact same type of incivility paired with refusal to accept that their edits violate both guidelines and consensus, culminating in an 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 warranted a block. I think that a topic ban on deletion here may be warranted. JPxG (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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"? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dronebogus (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.)

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 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. Belbury (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've said in a few places that COM:INUSE "isn't clear" to you. Belbury (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Kritzolina (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. Kritzolina (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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.

I would also appreciate it if you read the last discussion on my talk page "Do not rearrange talk pages in a misleading way." @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.

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 answer in a DR to their Plenty of files that are "in use" get deleted pretty routinely argument. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestumblindi: In use files do get deleted pretty routinely. Especially if the files are of AI-artwork. I'm 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. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's three off the top of my head. The last two are specifically for AI-generated images and funny enough, but @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 @Dronebogus: voted delete on. He must just not understand how COM:INUSE works) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. @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. --Kritzolina (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Repeated insults, threats and personal comments in DRs by Dronebogus

No admin action required. Yann (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just to quote a few of the many insults and personal comments from @Dronebogus: out there.

"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."

Again, those are just the couple of comments I could find. There's plenty more out there though. Just to add to that, @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. Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 insults and personal comments? They all seem to refer to specific actions and statements of yours. I.e. they are comment[ing] on content or behaviour, not on the contributor in the sense of COM:NPA.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. JPxG (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What chronic problem? Warned when and where? I have my own crap, yeah, but none of it’s relevant here or involves you. Dronebogus (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a while ago. This is now, and I wouldn’t say anyone is currently on your side right now. Dronebogus (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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). JPxG (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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.

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dronebogus (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“No you” isn’t a great counterargument. Dronebogus (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I don't think repeatedly making the same "personal" (again as in being purely about the nominator, not the nomination per se) in multiple DRs as nothing more then a bad faithed derailing and/or drama farming technique is really was an appropriate way to handle it though. 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.. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any sanctions since these aren't personal attacks. However, to everyone else, please COM:AGF – unless anyone has crystal clear evidence that this was a "retaliation attempt", let's not go that way. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's rather Adamant1 who is currently doing drama and disruption, sorry. --A.Savin 08:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I 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. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "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. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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?--Trade (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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 Trade (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dronebogus (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Knowledgebyme (talk · contribs)

User keeps adding {{PD-US}} to images that are very clearly not from 1929 Trade (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He have never participated in any deletion request nor have he ever responded on his talk page regarding the copyright issues Trade (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crimsonalfred2022 (talk · contribs) again

User has previously been blocked for copyvio in December ([17]), was reported again in January ([18]), they have plenty of warnings and notices on their talk page going back to 2022 ([19]), and they were indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia on 22 June for repeated copyvios there ([20]). 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 here.)

In the recent uploads, the source is labeled "pinterest" (without a link), author is claimed to be "unknown", and license is tagged as 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 PD-Egypt is that they are still too recent to be in PD in the United States and thus do not belong on Commons.

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 user has 200+ uploads, so I don't have the capacity to investigate, tag, and/or nominate for deletion all their problematic uploads, but this looks like a pattern of long-term ignorance of Commons:Licensing. R Prazeres (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some problematic uploads, but the information provided is better than many other users. Yann (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joanmonito65

All of Joanmonito65's uploads are copyright violations and give no indication of free licensing [21]. They uploaded two files (1, 2) to supersede the free-use version on enwiki, then reverted me three times on enwiki after I tried to remove it. [22]. They reverted me after I tried to speedy delete the two files on commons. They have provided no edit summaries and blanked my talk page notice on enwiki. They were also previously warned here for their copyright vios. Thanks, PerfectSoundWhatever (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted all their uploads and left them a final warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. However, the file has been re-uploaded (file) PerfectSoundWhatever (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a month by The Squirrel Conspiracy. Yann (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended to indef per evidence on en.wiki that it's a VoA. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now also globally locked. I deleted the user page. Yann (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Contents

User:Laurel Lodged

Out of process closer by admin after threat on my talk page

User:Георгий Долгопский

RfA standards?

Rare behavior

User:Enhancing999

User:A.Savin

Sequence

Enhancing999's temperament

Susudela

User:LustfulWyvern

User:Nonickillo

User: Zeus2107

Adamant1 and deletion discussions

Repeated insults, threats and personal comments in DRs by Dronebogus

Knowledgebyme (talk · contribs)

Crimsonalfred2022 (talk · contribs) again

User:Joanmonito65

Navigation menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

User:Laurel Lodged

Out of process closer by admin after threat on my talk page

User:Георгий Долгопский

RfA standards?

Rare behavior

User:Enhancing999

User:A.Savin

Sequence

Enhancing999's temperament

Susudela

User:LustfulWyvern

User:Nonickillo

User: Zeus2107

Adamant1 and deletion discussions

Repeated insults, threats and personal comments in DRs by Dronebogus

Knowledgebyme (talk · contribs)

Crimsonalfred2022 (talk · contribs) again

User:Joanmonito65

Navigation menu

Search