Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Note

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

A1Cafel and hostile behaviour towards Flickr original sources

[edit]

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

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

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

A1Cafel has often explained to us that normal social mores do not apply to them and that as they are unable to achieve them, they cannot be expected to comply with them. I was involved in at least the last couple of ANU complaints having to do with A1Cafel's behavior and I don't remember them ever saying that. So do you have diffs of where they have said anything even remotely along those lines or are you just making up stuff? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, User:A1Cafel, if a Flickr user is interested in uploading their content here themself, you should certainly allow them to do so rather than preempt them. -Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is they don’t seem to care going by the discussion on A1Cafel’s talk page. Plus I have seen them upload duplicates of what another contributor was uploading and even uploading photographs containing FoP/copyrighted elements, same type of material they DR others for. Will try and get some diffs when I get home but the lack of archiving will make it time consuming. Bidgee (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bidgee, Did you find some diffs? -- Ooligan (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but uploaded it after 12 hours they changed the license is not preempt them IMO. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I didn't read through the whole conversation on A1Cafel's talk page but it sounds like the original photographer didn't intend to upload the images to Commons but then decided to when they found out A1Cafel was doing it. Then they changed the licenses on some of their photographs in the process. I wouldn't put it on A1Cafel if that's what happened. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that particular issue is about the fact that A1Cafel applied a rule about (alleged) copyright protection on an element in a photograph of my hand that I uploaded, while four minutes after that deletion nomination they decided to upload a range of pictures from that same series, among which was one photograph with an element that would have violated Commons rules. I then informed them about this double standards and them violating the same rule they applied to me. After that they decided to upload a version of my photograph with a blurred element in it just so it would fit within the Commons rules. Let's just put it bluntly. This is about hypocrisy. Somebody who is hunting down violations and does mass nominate photos for violations, while at the same times doesn't apply that rule to themselves. In this particular example, the blurred part is also part of the political message which the photo is about, effectively vandalizing and damaging the whole purpose of the photo.l, hence my appeal to have it deleted altogether. This is not about the permission change but about the fact that the image was firstly uploaded in violation with the rules (hence I was not planning to upload it, while allowing it to be used wherever it would fit in the rules, a CC2 license is not exclusive to Commons. And secondly, it's about altering the image to fit in the rules correcting the violating that the uploader in all their haste at first did not notice, and thereby effectively vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless. Labrang (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your aware that the CC2 license allows for people to modify the image for any purpose right? I don't really see why that wouldn't include someone blurring part of the want to. You can complain its vandalism all day, but your the who released the image under a license that allows for it to be modified. And so what if A1Cafel blurred the file after uploading it? We do that all the time. At least they noticed the problem and fixed it. Which isn't the case with most of the image they nominate for deletion BTW. A lot of uploaders could really care less about following copyright and most of them don't fix offending images after the fact when its brought up to them. So I don't really see what the issue is here. Like only people who have a 100% perfect record can nominate images for deletion. Anyway I'd suggest changing the license on your images if your going to be that offended by someone modifying them. I'm not sure if CC2 can be retracted though. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"At least they noticed the problem and fixed it." - in fact - I was the one pointing it out to them. They uploaded the photo minutes after they nominated a photo from the very same source and Flickr album for deletion for this very same [alleged] violation of rules. Under any normal circumstances we would use the "H" word or "double standards". I understand that is an unacceptable word here as it breaches "assume good faith", although, as a good faith user myself, it feels not like that. So what we have here is someone who systematically nominates files for deletion for (alleged) violations of rules and at the same time mass grabs photos and then in the rush of the moment to upload these photos "because they can" forgets the rules they just applied to others. I have seen others doing more or less the same. Is it a credit based system here? [seriously wonder that, not bad faith question - not every critical assessment is bad faith]. Labrang (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You released this file under Creative Commons, so your fault when we mess with your work [Next time don't do that]" - This attitute from multiple people is very disrespectful towards the actual creators of the high quality content we want & need.
Obviously, the licence allows it. But basic collegiality, which is also expected on Commons dosen't. If a author wants to organize their collection on Commons themselfes, instead of everything being quickly dumped, and requests to do so, then this should be respected. (Those authors don't want something, they provide volunteer work) I don't see why that would even be up for discussion. If a uploader dosen't want their files overwritten, then this should be respected. ~TheImaCow (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify I don't have an issue with Labrang saying they don't want their photographs to be modified if they are uploaded to Commons. That's their prerogative. My problem is purely with them saying blurrying out part of the photograph is "vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless." Since as you say basic collegiality is expected on Commons and photoraphers don't get a special pass from that just because their photographs are high quality or whatever. 100% a photographer can ask someone not to overwrite one of their photographs but they should do it without baselessly screaming vandalism at the drop of a hat. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"disrupting" the message of the subject. I am willing to apologize for too casually using the word "vandalizing", but let's be frank here. In this particular example the said user only did that to bend the photo to fit in the rules, regardless whether it would actually remain valuable. Again, there's no harm in deleting a photo if it doesn't fit in the rules. Labrang (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support indefinite block – they were blocked indefinitely for similar discourse of disruptive behavior a while back, but this discussion gives me little hope they have changed. I'm afraid to say that this is the only course of solution, except that a potential unblock request in the future should also be voted on by the community. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The last time this account was blocked (indefinitely, by the way), I thought they would wait some time before requesting their return to the project, something like 6 months to a year. But they came back a month later... At the time, Mdaniels5757 had pinged me to give my opinion on A1Cafel's return, but I chose to remain silent due to my conflicts with the user. Well, whatever is decided here, I believe that if the block is not permanent, we will eventually face the same problems as before. It's a shame... I was thinking of suggesting that the user request an unblock on the English Wikipedia – I would support that – to "clean" their global history. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I totally agree, and I will refrain from uploading files from Labrang's Flickr stream (Jelger Groeneveld). --A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, and also the user neglected to create or transclude Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erdogan and MBZ.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Washington School for the Deaf, entrance mural, July 2020.jpg. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support indef. block, net negative, as in the last one. Strakhov (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support indefinite block. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support indefinite block without the right to review in order to protect Commons's integrity once and for all as per Strakhov. They had their chance, didn't take advantage of it, and let this serve as a lesson for future trolls who try to subvert the project with their long-term abuse. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Funny Man 1999

[edit]

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

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

User:Vô Danh 69

[edit]

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

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

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

محمد شیرازی سلیمانی

[edit]

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

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

Okukawachi

[edit]

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

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

Grandmaster Huon

[edit]

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

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

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

Kattoor2004

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

@Jmabel: I doubt anything will be done about it anyway but here's a diff from the current Village Pump discussion, forth line down "I doubt you have seen the video I linked and neither replying nor providing any rationale or addressing any points shows how this is about ignorance, not anything thought through and possibly some emotional knee-jerk reaction because voters simply don't like the use of AI tools." --Adamant1 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's a nothingburger. You yourself did worse right in this discussion here. "I'd love to see one fucking conversation having to do with AI where you don't just insult people and bludgeoning the whole thing [etc.]" I'm not at all interested in blocking either of you, but I wish both of you would ratchet it down. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've been involved in at least a couple of discussions where he acted the same way. So your the last person I should have to give diffs to. But there's plenty of other stuff out there. He constantly acts condescending and defensive to people. I just don't feel like wasting the time finding specific examples when it's obvious by reading any discussion that he's ever been involved having to do with AI and he's probably not going to be sanctioned anyway regardless. And there's always cherry picked comment I made that someone can point to try and act like it's my behavior is equivalent. Prototyperspective repeatedly insults people and bludgeons every discussion he's involved in that has to do AI, but apparently it's a wash because I said one thing in an ANU complaint. There's always going to be some dumb cherry picked reason not to sanction someone when I report them but then I'll get blocked if I so much as blink in the wrong direction. Whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of what you've said (and with some of his criticisms of you), but if you want administrative action over behavior that is of concern to you, then you need to build the case rather than say you "don't feel like wasting the time" while asking administrators to spend theirs. - Jmabel ! talk 08:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: That's totally fair. I just don't have the time or energy to provide diffs for every thing he's said in the last year in relation to AI generated artwork. It's a super pain in the ass and takes a lot of time to find diffs for something that chronic. Plus there's already the exiting conversation on the village pump anyway. Cool if that's not enough though. All I can do is report someone on my end with the evidence I'm able to find and provide at the time.
  •  Oppose any sanctioning of Prototyperspective. This is yet another case of Adamant1 escalating a garden-variety argument into an unnecessary conflict about a controversial subject with no intention of trying to back it up. Prototyperspective is not “bludgeoning” here; making 0.01% more comments than some arbitrary number is not “bludgeoning”. Making a few ad hominem attacks or whatever in the heat of the moment is not sufficient to sanction an otherwise productive user. What I see here is clear W:WP:BOOMERANG material, and I don’t use that term casually. Dronebogus (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. @Adamant1: I think you are a productive user; however you have some serious, chronic problems with incivility, intolerance of different opinions and litigiousness. I feel like you’re importing the worst tendencies of Enwiki (where such behaviors are tolerated, particularly among high-ranking users) to Commons (where such behaviors are frowned upon by most regulars). The user problems board, unlike ANI, is not a place to vent in hopes of getting revenge for some perceived slight; it’s a last resort for users who are huge timesinks or have otherwise crossed a very clear line of acceptable behavior. Don’t be one of those users. Dronebogus (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making 0.01% more comments than some arbitrary number is not “bludgeoning”. @Dronebogus: Sure, I'd agree if he had of only made 0.01% more comments than some arbitrary number. He made 12 comments and essentially every other comment is from him. That would certainly be bludgeoning if I was the one doing it. Plus like I said, there's a pattern of him doing the exact same thing in other discussions. The same goes for the ad hominem attacks. Again, it wasn't one comment made in the heat of the moment. He makes the same exact comments and acts the exact same way EVERY TIME there's a proposal having to do with AI generated artwork on here. Either you haven't looked into or your intentionally being disingenuous.
And yeah, I do think a chronic pattern of bad behavior in a specific area over a year warrants a block. Especially considering that he's already been warned and asked to stop doing it. I've certainly been blocked for way less myself. It's not my issue if you aren't willing to see past my screen name though. I have as much right to report a user for chronic bad behavior as anyone else does. It's not like you weren't the first one to report me a few months ago the second I was issues in deletion requests even though you've been reported and blocked almost as much as I have. I'm not out there wagging my finger at you about either. I could give a crap if report someone as long as they deserve it. So spare me the condescension and sanctimony. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No diffs = no evidence = no sanctions. I skimmed the discussion and then re-read it just now, and saw a lot of you two arguing, evidence you should probably both disengage. In any case citing one discussion is not sufficient. Without diffs you’re just casting aspersions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee you'd just make some other excuse about how I'm the one who should be sanctioned even if I did provide diffs. There's no amount of evidence that good enough for axe grinding opportunists like you. So I'm not wasting my time. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I try to give you advice and you insult me? When you’re trying to claim someone else is uncivil? I’ll be blunt: you need diffs, period. Otherwise drop this. If you continue just asserting your rightness with minimal evidence you will lose this case and possibly get sanctioned again. Dronebogus (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that, but where were the diffs and evidence when you got me blocked a few months ago huh? I asked for both repeatedly and no one provided any. You certainly didn't. So it's not even your own standard except when I'm the one reporting someone for some reason. You were more then fine with me being blocked based on essentially nothing though. I could care less, but I'm not going to provide diffs and evidence to you when you clearly wouldn't care about either one I was the one being reported here. That's why I said your an axe grinding opportunists BTW. You Clearly have no standards about this outside of piggy backing on and exploiting whatever benefits you at the time. It's not an insult. It's literally how you act, repeatedly, essentially every time we've interacted with each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion you mentioned I provided 9 examples of your behavior from the get-go and added more later. You have provided 1, and it’s not even a good one. Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually mentioned three. The Insults, bludgeoning, and canvasing. Regardless, in the ANU complaint all you did was link to a couple of discussions and then made some vague assertion about how I don't care about deletion policy. That's not evidence of anything and nowhere did you provide any diffs, which is what we're talking about. It's literally no different then what I'm doing here either. Your just moving the bar and being disingenuous. Thanks for proving my point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning is completely different than showing. I showed you didn’t seem to care about policy by linking to examples of you making DRs that violated said policy, which a bunch of users and an admin agreed showed problematic behavior. You just say provide one link that displays behavior that’s barely over the line, and then baselessly claim this is somehow a chronic problem. Here you have an admin looking at your “evidence” and shrugging. I’m simply agreeing with that admin. If you answer this with yet another “it’s not my fault”/IDHT type answer I will formally propose a boomerang against you. Dronebogus (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: I'll say this and then drop it on my end. There was you, a few people who were lying and axe grinding because I nominated a couple of their images for deletion, and an admin who clearly on a power trip (and I say that because he said as much when subsequently chewed my ass out in private emails for no reason). At the end of the day it's not that hard to get someone blocked by repeatedly lying about them until an admin comes along who gets off on blocking people.
Here's the thing though, the fact is that I work in an extremely wide area of subjects on here and quit of them are either controversial to begin with or the guidelines around them are very unclear. And I get an almost endless amount of insults, threats, and harassment over it. 99% of the time nothing is done about it though and I just have to sit with a big grin on my face while being endless barraged with xenophobic, insulting bullshit since there's essentially zero point in reporting people for it. It what it is. The difference is that I'm not out there lecturing you about how to act or saying you should be blocked when you report people to ANU. Your only doing it me for some reason, and I don't even have anything to do with you or the areas you edit in. So It comes off like weird, stalkerish nonsense. I'm not going to say anything else about it outside of that, except your behavior is bordering on harassment at this point. But I'm done with this on my end. Maybe find someone else to have a weird obsession with. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t know what any of that is supposed to mean, but this is exactly what I warned you not to do. Dronebogus (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W:WP:BOOMERANG for Adamant1?

[edit]

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

Pinging @Jmabel: to get an administrative opinion Dronebogus (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My perspective on this whole situation is that Adamant1 has clear civility issues. How do I know this? Well, this user is prone to becoming angry easily, placing blame on others, forming their own assumptions and fiercely defending them, as well as harboring grudges. I have no idea how you guys put up with this behavior for so long. This user also has a tendency of turning even the simplest arguments into a maze of blatantly rude and pointless comments. The excessive use of curse words (particularly the f bomb) is quite concerning. This individual, as was previously indicated, has a tendency of placing blame on others and fabricating tales of how everyone is against them or is wrong, and how they are always right. To put it mildly, it annoys me much. Based on their behavior in this thread and many others, numerous people, myself included, feel that this user has severe issues with civility and treating others with the decency one would expect from a colleague. Although the boomerang was aimed for Prototyperspective, it seems like the intended target was completely missed. In summary, I observe two people arguing, and the person accusing the other of being uncivil is actually being even more uncivilized, which is hypocritical. As Dronebogus indicated above, it is also problematic that you are constantly on this board. I hope the user's response is helpful, however at this point I might as well support an admin action against Adamant1 if the community approves. That concludes my comment. Wolverine XI 21:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolverine XI: Swearing is Permissible --Adamant1 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: You don't get it, do you? Of course, I am well aware that swearing is permissible, heck, why do you think I would use a curse word here? The thing is that your use of curse words comes across as very rude and aggressive. It's pretty evident to me that you aren't even reading the pages you're linking, because in the first paragraph it literally states that They are rarely encouraged, because while they may not be uncivil, they also seldom foster an environment of civility, but there are many times where their use is not considered objectionable by the community.. Kindly refrain from using such pages as an excuse for your impolite behavior. Wolverine XI 07:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that isn't me showing 100% sycophantic adoration towards the user I'm talking to at the time is aggressive on here. I can't even disagree with someone in the most pointed, moderated way without being accused of being rude and arguing. Just to be clear though, I wasn't using the guideline to as an excuse for my impolite behavior, but your the saying I should be blocked and if your going to do that then it should be based on something that's actually against the rules. Not just patently false claims that I excessively swear when I don't and it's not even against the guidelines to begin with anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Yes, I believe you should be blocked, not only for your inappropriate use of swear words, but also for the concerns I've raised in my original comment. Wolverine XI 14:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish Adamant1 would just lay back a little and take it easier. Yes, he has a combative style. Conversely, he always seems to have the good of the overall project in mind and is less inclined to personal attacks than at least one of the others who has written in this thread, who I also would not like to see blocked.
I oppose block here, but @Adamant1: you make it really hard for your defenders. You really should try to stick for a while to being productive in less controversial ways. Don't take on big overhauls: you've rubbed way too many people the wrong way. Take a break from asking for sanctions against other people: suck it up now and then.I know that is not what you want to hear, but you have not been good at reading the room.
If there is a block here, I hope it allows for appeal after some amount of time, and I hope it comes with an (unusual) condition that it is fine for Adamant1 to continue communicating with those of us who wish to be in touch with him, and that it is OK for users to choose to do things at his suggestion. If people really think he is so disruptive that he cannot be allowed to edit here, fine, but from what I can see his intentions have been entirely good, and this should in no way be punitive. Jmabel ! talk 12:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolverine: I think I've only cussed 4 times in like the last months. I'm totally willing to cut that down to twice a year or something if your that triggered by the F word though. I know everyone has their own little special things they can't handle on here. In this case a simple message on talk page about it probably would have been sufficient, but whatever. I don't personally have a

problem with it and again, its not against the rules But I'm totally fine with curbing it if you want me to. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just in the archives of this board, the above mentioned threads from July 2024 (1, 2) and August 2024 were far from the first time that users have brought up such problems with Adamant1's behavior here. E.g. the following past comments (each from a different user who was not involved in those more recent exchanges AFAICS) seem to also describe the current problems quite well:
  • This user has a problematic behavior, repeatedly going for personal attacks ([1], [2]) when actions are contested, notably creating a large number of disruptive deletion requests about FOP in Belgium. I am not the only one thinking that this is a problem. (April 2024)
  • As usually, Adamant1 doesn't see what the issue is, and is willing to put up walls of text to explain why he's not the problem but everyone else is (April 2024)
  • excessively hostile and condescending. (August 2023)
  • User consistently applies a definition of civility that is at odds with what everybody else understands it to mean, and displays a general attitude of bad faith day after day. (August 2022)
This list of examples is non-exhaustive. It seems evident that many previous requests to Adamant1 to change their problematic behavior (including Kritzolina's extensive administrative communications with them in July), and the three previous blocks for related issues, have not resulted in sustained improvements.
In particular, while I'm not familiar with the detail of the current controversy, I find it especially concerning that once again Adamant1 is resorting to making up false quotes [3] to get their way in conflicts with other users. This was also part of the problems that led of Adamant1's last block in July, as I detailed here and here (regarding cases where Adamant1 was misquoting Commons policy rather than other users' comments). These examples also make it clear that the problems are not confined to mere civility issues in the sense of an unfriendly tone.
Adamant1 has openly stated that their problematic behavior (which they trivialize as being a "bad communicator") is due to a particular mental health condition. While I do think that as a community we should try to accommodate neurodiverse (and culturally diverse) users, that can only go so far, and support for one user with such problems can not come at the expense of so many other users' time and mental health. I would encourage considering a permanent block.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a laundry list of mental health issues and I don’t know what condition has the symptoms of “cannot obey simple policies like refraining from calling everyone a fartknocker for 3 seconds”. Dronebogus (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: Didn't you say you have OCD or something an ANU complaint about your behavior once? Also, I have no clue what your talking about with the fartknocker thing since I don't think I've ever used that term before. Let alone do I call people names every 3 seconds. Or really at all for that matter. I'd ask for diffs since I'm kind of interested in where you came up with it, but you clearly only care about diffs and evidence when I'm the one filing the report. So I'm not going to waste my time. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Fartknocker” was a joke about incivility. I wanted to use something more innocuous than “idiot” or “asshole”. It wasn’t meant to be a literal thing. Yes I do think I mentioned OCD making it hard to disengage, but you having autism doesn’t somehow make it impossible to follow policy like “don’t be rude to people constantly” “don’t nominate in-use files for deletion” or “provide evidence of misbehavior”. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: Cool. Where did I call anyone an “idiot” or “asshole” then? Be my guest and provide some diffs. All I'm asking is you to do is follow your own standard here. And as to the autism thing, I made an off comment about it on my talk page once after I was already blocked. Nowhere have I ever brought it up as an excuse to not follow policy or used it as one. At least not that I'm aware of and it's not against the rules to for someone to simply mention that they have autism. Otherwise, again, provide some diffs where I used it as an excuse for anything. In the meantime, per Universal Code of Conduct "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves: People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves." So it's perfectly within my right to say I have autism if I want to. It's not within yours to verbally abuse, attack, disparage me over it though. So be my guest and provide some diffs where I ever used it as an excuse to not follow policy. Otherwise I think you should drop this and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus:  Support. Neurodiversity is not an excuse for IDHT behavior.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Just an FYI, but one of the reasons I reported Prototyperspective originally was because of how he treated you for not providing a reason for your vote in the Village Pump discussion. I guess that's on me for caring about how other users are treated, or more specifically how you are. Lesson learned I guessed. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t “help” people who didn’t ask for it. If Jeff G didn’t see a problem you didn’t have to get offended for him. Dronebogus (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a real problem trying to control people for some reason. I'll do whatever I want to thanks. You don't get to dictate what I do or who I do things for on here and Jeff G is free to respond to his own replies if he wants to. Thanks though. No offense or insult, but your behavior is borderline psychotic. I think you need to take a step back from this and ask yourself if really worth it or not. I certainly don't see anything that isn't just more of the same unsubstantiated axe grinding nonissue nonsense that people usually report me over. Your free to play the odds here, but I highly doubt an admin will block me just because I made an off hand comment once about being autistic. So I think it would be in everyone's best interest for you to just drop it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus:  Support Since I have not been reading here for very long, I have tried to understand his behavior by reading the past discussions and also to understand the background since the last dispute with the user last month. It seems to me that he misuses factual arguments to cover up his lack of communication skills with arrogant and cynical behavior. You can ignore it for a while, but I think it's reached a point where something administrative should happen now.--Cookroach (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The insults aside, where exactly did I do that? (BTW, this is yet another example of the two faced double standard people like Dronebogus and Jeff G. have. It's totally cool if someone calls me arrogant and cynical, but I should be blocked for making an offhand comment that I'm autistic once. Right). --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No not this: "...an offhand comment that I'm autistic once." is the reason, but the missing reflection on your communication behavior. This led your factual arguments (right or wrong) ad absurdum and makes it appear arrogant. Obviously, I wasn't the only one who felt this way, so can't an insult but a statement. You're scaring with it away long-time users as well as newcomers and making the community look like a quarrelsome bunch.--Cookroach (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just told Wolverine that I'm more then willing to the swearing if they have an issue with it even though its not against the rules to cuss and I think I've only used the F word four times in the last six months. I'm totally to moderate or change specific things about how I communicate if you or anyone else wants to point out actual examples. What I'm not going to do is just here with a big grin on my face and nod in agreement while I'm baselessly being called arrogant or getting attacked for saying I'm autistic though. Sorry. I really don't see how either one of those things encourage newcomers either. Especially people with neurodivergent issues. The standard only ever applies to me and my behavior for some reason. People like you and Dronebogus can sit here and act like condecending, insulting cry bullies all day long and that's cool. But the second I defend myself then I should shut up and take it because I'm turning people off from contributing. I have absolutely no issue what so ever with changing specific things about how I interact with people if you or anyone else wants to give actual examples though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • For clarification I’d like to state I support an indefinite block here. Adamant1 can’t be bothered to provide a minimum of 2 diffs but everyone else provides mountains of evidence and it’s still not (and will never be) enough for them. The closest we get to an acknowledgment is “I will not swear so much” which is a tiny symptom of a huge mess of intractable behavioral problems that have been listed and described ad nauseam. Dronebogus (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear since your apparently didn't get it the first time, I'm more then willing not do anything else that people want to point out. I don't just don't think the specific thing on your end about how I should be blocked because I said I'm autistic has any merit to it. You wrongly seem to be under the impression that just because I think certain criticism are either meritless or to vague for me to do anything about that it means all criticism of my behavior are invalid. That's certainly not the case though. There's certainly been some fair criticism of how I've acted in the past. I just think that someone should be blocked for saying their autistic or that vague handwaving that I'm arrogant are really worth my time though. Let alone is there anything I can change about those things. I mean, I guess I could stop saying I'm autistic if it send you into that much of a rage, but it seems like more a "you" at that point. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, autistic administrator here. Autism is not a "get out of jail free" card. There is a certain standard of behavior that all users are held to, whether it be autistic, allistic, neurotypical or neurodiverse. I've stated in the past my opinion that you tend to be argumentative to your own detriment, and I think you are a valuable contributor, but even with your challenges, you should be able to know at some point when to stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. I really don't like it when people use their autism diagnosis to counter when people are trying to hold them accountable. (I don't know if that's the case here however). Abzeronow (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Which I why never used my autism that way. Nor would I. I simply expressing to admin who left me a message on my talk page that it causes me communication issues sometimes. Nowhere have I said it is an excuse or reason for anything outside of that. Let alone have I ever said complaints about my behavior are invalid because I have autism. Quite the opposite actually. I'm sorry if you or anyone else got that the impression that I using it for as excuse for anything or to dismiss people's opinions though. That certainly wasn't my intention. I think that's the only time I've ever brought it up and certainly have no plan on doing so again regardless if people are just reading to much into it or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why people are fed up. Using the F word 4 times in 7 years is totally disgusting and egregious. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I can understand in retrospect why this and the ANU complaints preceding might come of as tendentious. I actually don't report people to ANU that much, but clearly three ANU complaints within a couple of days of each other is overkill and I am here a lot more then even I'm comfortable with when the amount of reports other people open about me is factored into it. So I'm more then willing to at least take break from it on my end for the foreseeable future. It's an admins call to make if a topic ban or anything else is warranted, but if I am topic banned from ANU though I will just stop contributing completely. I'm sorry if me opening this or anything else involved with it caused needless drama though. That was and never is my intention.
The same goes for the comment about having autism. I didn't bring it to excuse my behavior, but I can see why Dronebogus, Jeff G., or anyone else might have gotten that impression. I'd probably have the same response. So I apologize to them and anyone else who was offended by me bringing it up. I'm 100% reasonable for how I act regardless of having autism or anything else.

I can be defensive and over forceful about my opinion sometimes. Again, that's 100% my issue and I make no excuses for it. I'm much more friendly and willing to change my opinion if or when people message me about my talk page. Anyone who has a problem with me or anything I've done is free to do that. I'm more then willing to change or alter anything about how I do things as long as the criticism is reasonable and actually doable. If anything here or anywhere rises to the level of a block or topic ban though. Fine that's totally on me, and again I'm sorry if anything I've said or done here or anywhere else caused needless drama or upset anyone. I'm going to at least not file ANU complaints that aren't fully backed up by adequate enough evidence going forward since it's clearly a time suck otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A user uploading potentially copyrighted images

[edit]

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

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

Yousef_kazemi is blocked for a week due to uploading copyright files

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

these two Sockpuppetry accounts are blocked indefinitely

upon opening again uploading copyright files like this

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

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

Technological Gyan

[edit]

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

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

Lascorpion

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

PancakeBoah

[edit]

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

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

A user uploading copyrighted photos over several months

[edit]

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

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

User:14.236.170.225

[edit]

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

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

Edit waring by User:Orijentolog

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Functionally resolved by Abzeronow. Nothing further productive is going to come of this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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


Harrassement by User:Dronebogus

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nothing productive is going to come of this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

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


User:Dima2511000

[edit]

As can be seen from the contributions history on commons, e.g.[4] and wikipedia, e.g.[5][6], Dima2511000 (talk · contribs) is a sock master operating Ernst August Prinz von Hannover (talk · contribs) and Príncipe Ernesto (talk · contribs) in an attempt to upload the same file repeatedly (File:Ernst August Prinz von Hannover.png, previously uploaded and deleted as File:Ernesto Augusto Príncipe de Hannover.jpg). Celia Homeford (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Celia Homeford: They are now globally locked and IP globally blocked.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=929548304"