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
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
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
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 (index)

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.

The War of Edits User:Laurel Lodged[edit]

Extended content

Прошу заблокировать участника Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) за неконсенсусную категоризацию и развязанную из-за этого войну правок. Online translation: I ask you to block the participant Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) for non-consensual categorization and the war of edits unleashed because of this. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose By "non-consensual", he means, "Things I don't agree with". I have tried, respectfully, to explain my point on his talk page. He replies fail to address the core points and are often disrespectful, lacking in civility and do not assume good faith. See this diff which he has erased from his talk page. See also this diff which he has also deleted. In it, he grudgingly admits that I was correct ("Catholicism = Catholic Church + Old Catholic"). I think that his main grievance is contained in this diff (which he has also deleted). Basically, it boils down to the necessity to differentiate in category names between bricks-and-mortar church buildings versus churches as institutions or denominations. Relying on a single word - churches - elides this semantic difference and is a hinderance to user navigation. Because he refused to truly engage with this semantic difference and went on mis-categorisation, I was obliged to intervene. And yes, that did result in edit wars. For this I apologise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Есть консенсусное название категории "Christian denominations in <State>" (см. Category:Christian denominations by country), Laurel Lodged заменяет на неконсенсусный вариант "Christian denominational families in <State>". Online translation: There is a consensus name for the category "Christian denominations in <State>" (see Category:Christian denominations by country), Laurel Lodging replaces with a non-consensual version "Christian denominational families in <State>". Ыфь77 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is a denominational family? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Category:Christian denominations by denominational family and
    illustration on right. The two are not the same. For example, Category:Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland is a denomination; Category:Presbyterianism is a denominational family. There are many hundreds of denominations within Presbyterianism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Где на этой схеме "Jehovah's Witnesses" и "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", которые входят в деноминации, но не входят в семейство деноминаций? Online translation: Where in this diagram are "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", which are included in denominations but not in the denominational family? Ыфь77 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started to create Category:Nontrinitarian denominations to hold these religious groups. Many would not regard them as mainstream Christianity; others regard them as a branch of reformed Protestantism. While not explicitly called out in the diagram (which admittedly is a simplification of a complex structure), is that the annotated Council of Ephesus may be taken as the theological dividing point between Trinitarian and Nontrinitarian branches of Christianity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Здесь Вы не правы, потому что учёные-религоведы не могут однозначно классифицировать эти деноминации, поэтому самое правильное их положение - сразу в христианских деноминациях. Online translation: You are wrong here, because religious scholars cannot categorize these denominations unambiguously, so their most correct position is immediately in Christian denominations. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have you been discussing this? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Я не собираюсь обсуждать с тем, кто правит без консенсуса. Все прошлые попытки договориться в формате "1 на 1" не привели к результату. Online translation: I'm not going to discuss with someone who rules without consensus. All previous attempts to reach an agreement in the "1 on 1" format did not lead to a result. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So let's get this straight, you are demanding that someone stop doing something and you are not willing to discuss it, but you claim they are acting against consensus. And you've gone straight to ANU to ask to have him blocked? I think you need to reconsider your position. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Laurel is on point here. Everything he has said so far checks out. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Где на этой схеме распростанённая категория "Eastern Christianity", которая входит в деноминации, но не входит в семейства деноминаций? Online translation: Where in this diagram is the widespread category of "Eastern Christianity", which is included in denominations, but not included in the denominational family? Ыфь77 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you fail to notice the reference to Great Schism in the diagram? That is generally taken as the dividing line between Eastern and Western Christianity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ещё раз для тех, кто плохо знает лексику: "Eastern Christianity" входит в деноминации, но не входит в семейства деноминаций, поэтому будет создавать ненужное дублирование категорий при принятии варианта "denominational family". Online translation: Once again, for those who do not know the vocabulary well: "Eastern Christianity" is included in denominations, but is not included in the denominational family, therefore it will create unnecessary duplication of categories when adopting the "denominational family" option. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eastern / Western is not a binary classification of Christianity. It is just a layer of categorisation that may be adduced to add colour to a question. There are Trinitarian/Nontrinitarian traditions in both the East and the West. There are Chalcedonians / Nonchalcedonian traditions in both the East and the West. If it was truly binary, where would you put the Church of the East in the scheme? They would not belong to either I think.Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Вот именно, строгое выделение именно семейств деноминаций чрезмерно усложняет категоризацию, порождая бесконечные споры как поделить христианские деноминации на семейства. Online translation: That's right, the strict allocation of families of denominations overly complicates categorization, giving rise to endless disputes on how to divide Christian denominations into families. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused: are you congratuating me for omitting Eastern/Western as denominational families or criticising me for omitting them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Second. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Где на этой схеме восточнокатолические церкви? Вы предлагаете их выделять из Категории:Католицизм? Online translation: Where are the Eastern Catholic churches in this diagram? Do you propose to separate them from the category:Catholicism? Ыфь77 (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've already had this discussion. Do you remember admitting that "Catholicism = Catholic Church + Old Catholic". I have been implementing this solution consistently. All "Catholic" categories that I have created or amended include both Roman and Eastern particular sui iurus churches. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Если строго выделять именно семейства деноминаций, то единая католическая церковь должна быть разделена на 5 категорий: Римско-католическая церковь, грекокатолические церкви, ортодоксальные католические церкви, восточнокатолические церкви, отделившиеся от Ассирийской церкви Востока + католические структуры, отделившиеся от англиканства (на время подписи 3 единицы). Online translation: If we strictly single out the denominational family, then the united Catholic Church should be divided into 5 categories: the Roman Catholic Church, Greek Catholic Churches, Oriental Catholic Churches, Eastern Catholic churches that separated from the Assyrian Church of the East + Catholic structures that separated from Anglicanism (at the time of signature 3 units). Ыфь77 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may prefer to use this
    diagram which makes the Eastern Catholic / Roman Catholic reunion explicit. Again, I have chosen to use current realities to describe the branches or denominational families. I have not gone down the rabbit holes of past splits / reunions / splits / reunions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Вы сами предоставили доказательства, что выделение denominational family слишком усложняет категоризацию, но продолжаете настаивать на своём варианте. И кто из нас двоих занимается деструктивной категоризацией? Online translation: You yourself have provided evidence that highlighting denominational family makes categorization too difficult, but you continue to insist on your own version. And which of the two of us is engaged in destructive categorization? Ыфь77 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that difficult. Just stick to the current end nodes of the illustrations and omit everything else. Interim stages with splits and reunions are only of interest to history students; they need not distract us here in categorical space. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Мы обязаны категоризировать согласно названию категории, поэтому в случае "denominational family" обязаны выделить до 5 подкатегорий вместо 1 Католической церкви, а в случае "denomination" оставляем одну категорию. Online translation: We are obliged to categorize according to the category name, so in the case of "denominational family" we are obliged to allocate up to 5 subcategories instead of 1 Catholic Church, and in the case of "denomination" we leave one category. Ыфь77 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ыфь77: I can see absolutely nothing here that calls for blocking User:Laurel Lodged. This seems like a reasonable controversy over how best to organize a category tree, certainly not something to be solved by blocking someone for having the temerity to disagree with you. But perhaps I am mistaken. Either you need to present a concrete case (with diffs) as to why Laurel Lodged has done something that merits a block, or (at least in terms of the Administrators' noticeboard) we should end this discussion right here. Please also be aware that if your case consists of "the two of us has been edit warring back and forth" I would then say that if either of you should be blocked for that, then both of you should be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Lodged вернул 3 неконсенсусных названия категорий и добавил ещё 7, хотя знал, что я ранее унифицировал Category:Christian denominations by country. Это злонамеренное развязывание войны правок. Я вижу 2 варианта развития конфликта: 1) заблокировать ему или нам обоим основное пространство и пространство Категория до установления консенсуса по выше указанной проблеме, 2) административно либо ещё как установить консенсус по этой проблеме и обязать Laurel Lodged ему следовать. Со своей стороны обещаю, что буду следовать установленному консенсусу либо вообще покину этот проект. Online translation: Laurel Lodging returned 3 non-consensual category names and added 7 more, although I knew that I had previously unified the Category:Christian denominations by country. This is a malicious outbreak of a war of edits. I see 2 options for the development of the conflict: 1) block him or both of us from the main space and the Category space until a consensus is established on the above-mentioned problem, 2) administratively or otherwise how to establish a consensus on this problem and oblige Laurel Lodging to follow it. For my part, I promise that I will follow the established consensus or leave this project altogether. Ыфь77 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Меня устраивает вариант установления консенсуса в названии категорий третьим лицом достаточной квалификации, но я не настолько владею английский языком, чтобы знать, на какой странице это можно сделать. Online translation: I am satisfied with the option of establishing consensus in the name of categories by a third party with sufficient qualifications, but I do not speak English enough to know on which page this can be done. Ыфь77 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Только надо обязать Laurel Lodged не продолжать неконсенсусные правки. Online translation: P.S. We just need to oblige Laurel Lodging not to continue non-consensual edits. Ыфь77 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Staying out of the specifics of the edit waring because I don't have time to look into it right now or really care. But this whole idea of "denominational families" seems questionable at best. The only thing that seems to come up for it on Google is an unsourced Wikipedia article and this rather questionable diagram from a random website. I've certainly never heard of the concept and have a background that's heavy in religious studies. So @Laurel Lodged: not to say your POV editing or whatever, but what exactly is the whole thing based on aside from your personal opinion? Like are there any actual sources talking about the concept of "denominational families? I'd also be interested in how you think a "family" is somehow different from a "denomination" because at least from what I know there can be denominations within other ones. And again, I have a background in religious studies. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the request to block Laurel Lodged is now addressed - we won't be doing this. ANU is not the forum to discuss category changes. Perhaps take it to VP? Unless there is a better forum for discussion, of course. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or conversely start a CfD, but I think it's relevant to the discuss as far as there's other remedies to resolving a dispute or sanctioning someone besides a block and at least some those depend on of if this is something Laurel Lodged's essentially created out thin air based on their own personal opinion of dominations.
It's one thing to edit war someone over a disagreement about which concept should represent a particular set of images. It's another to edit war over something that doesn't even exist to begin with though. Not that I necessarily think Laurel Lodged needs sanctioning either, but then there's also no point in taking it to VP or doing a CfD if there's no reason to because "family denominations" aren't an academically sound idea to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are references to denomination families by Pew Research [1] Academic papers reference denominational families [2][3]. It’s a synonym for denominational movements. The U.S. Census Bureau categorized denominations into families [4] So it would not be accurate to say that Laurel Lodged made this up. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it would not be accurate to say that Laurel Lodged made this up Good thing I never claimed they did then ;) Although I still think it's something that is probably worth discussing in the proper venue. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I took the bit where you wrote “It's one thing to edit war someone over a disagreement about which concept should represent a particular set of images. It's another to edit war over something that doesn't even exist to begin with though.” to mean that Laurel Lodged made up the term. I apologise for my misunderstanding! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: No worries :) --Adamant1 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Законна или незаконна концепция "family denominations" - дело десятое. Я думаю, что сумел выше доказать, что она для Викисклада неудобна. Online translation: Whether the concept of "family denominations" is legal or illegal is the tenth matter. I think I have managed to prove above that it is inconvenient for Wikimedia Commons. Ыфь77 (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, you came here to have Laurel Lodged blocked for making a change you claim doesn’t meet consensus, but you can’t show us where this was debated. That’s really the point here - I see no attempt by you to gather consensus by the wider community, instead you immediately came to ANU in an attempt to sanction another editor you were engaged in a disagreement. If anything, that is an example of tendentious behaviour where you asked admins to silence someone you disagree with.
You have not demonstrated that Laurel Lodge’s changes are invalid. It’s possible the wider community may yet find this to be the case, but I see no attempt by you to discuss this outside of this request on ANU. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Я уже писал выше, что были попытки договориться с Laurel Lodged в формате "1 на 1" ни к чему не привели, поэтому я выбрал жесткий вариант, потому что не знаю до сих пор, как правильно действовать в таких случаях. Напомню, что блокировка - это не наказание, а способ предотвратить будущие нарушения. 10 эпизодов нарушения откровенно говорят, что действовать надо было немедленно. 2) Администратор попросил не развивать дальше этот раздел, давайте присоединимся к его просьбе. Online translation: I already wrote above that attempts to negotiate with Laurel Lodging in the "1 on 1" format did not lead to anything, so I chose the hard option, because I still do not know how to act correctly in such cases. Let me remind you that blocking is not a punishment, but a way to prevent future violations. 10 episodes of violation frankly say that it was necessary to act immediately. 2) The administrator asked not to develop this section further, let's join his request. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: Thank you for your opinion. Ыфь77 (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to provide it, although I’m unclear why I need to do so on ANU. You have not given me the chance to provide it on a more appropriate forum like CFD, which is the point I’m trying to make. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: This is Adamant1's answer. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly no admin action called for at this time. Several people have made good points or asked good questions on the substantive issue here (as against the conduct issue), but this is not the place to discuss categorization.
Suggestions:
  • User:Laurel Lodged and User:Ыфь77 should both take at least the next 7 days off from changing categories in this area, and probably until something at least approaching a consensus is reached.
  • Someone (@Adamant1? @Chris.sherlock2? Ideally not one of the two warring parties, but that would still be better than nothing) should set up an appropriate place to discuss the categorization issues at hand (probably a CfD), and link it here and maybe from the Village pump and/or some relevant category pages.
Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I'll probably open a CfD at some point if no one else does. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve got evidence of its usage so if you do let me know so I can contribute to the discussion. It is actually a bone fide term. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: У меня просьба: я не нашёл в русской справочной системе Викисклада доступной ссылки на то место, где можно разрешить подобные конфликты, в чём вижу ущемление прав не англоязычных участников. Можно здесь дать ссылку, куда могут обратиться 2 добросовестных участника, если они не могут договориться в формате "1 на 1"? Online translation: I have a request: I did not find an accessible link in the Russian Wikimedia Commons help system to a place where such conflicts can be resolved, which I see as infringing on the rights of non-English-speaking participants. Can I give a link here where 2 bona fide participants can contact if they cannot agree in a 1-on-1 format? Ыфь77 (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. У меня с Laurel Lodged этот конфликт - не единственный и нам явно нужен посредник для категоризации в сфере религии. Online translation: P. S. This conflict with Laurel Lodging is not the only one, and the two of us clearly need an intermediary for categorization in the field of religion. Ыфь77 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like Ыфь77 is not satisfied with what I proposed as a way to discuss this. If someone else (including Ыфь77) can propose a better way to proceed than I did, please do. But in any case, let us please not continue the substantive discussion about categorization here on this page. - Jmabel ! talk 13:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Меня полностью устраивает Ваше решение. Online translation: I am completely satisfied with your decision. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Но я хочу от Вас увидеть ссылку на страницу, куда мне и другим участникам можно обратиться в других подобных случаях. Извините, если онлайн-перевод исказил смысл моих слов. Online translation: But I want you to see a link to a page where I and other participants can contact in other similar cases. I'm sorry if the online translation distorted the meaning of my words. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: . Ыфь77 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ыфь77: This page is to discuss problems with individual users' problematic behavior. I am trying here to put to rest an inappropriate request you made to have another user blocked. This is not the place to discuss a categorization issue, or how to set up multilingual forums, or really anything other than individual users' problematic behavior. We have let the conversation range wider than that. I believe someone (probably Adamant1) will open up a CfD to discuss the category issue. You (or anyone) are welcome to go to Commons:Village pump or Commons:Village pump/Proposals or for that matter Commons:Форум or some other appropriate venue I may not be thinking of to propose how we would better handle multilingual conversations. But not here. It is not a user conduct issue. - Jmabel ! talk 14:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: Thanks for the clarification. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to abide by a 7 day ban o editing in the whole of religion. Looking forward to the Cfd when it's opened. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that is necessary. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I still think the thing is spurious at best. Including some of the subcategories in Category:Christian denominations by denominational family. Unfortunately I'm to busy with other things right now to do anything about it though. But I will point that the couple of sources you provided as evidence that "denominational families" are a thing don't even mention or have anything to do with them. The article with the poll by Pew Research does, but then it also has this line "The family that shows the most significant growth is the nondenominational family." So really at least going by that "family" is just a fancier term for cohorts or groups of people that share the same believe, which is literally what "denomination" means. Ergo, "denominational family" can be translated to "domination domination" or to put it another way, "denominational families" are essentially just denominations with a redundant word added to the end. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - but again - ANU is for admins to make admin decisions. This is a discussion about the categories. I only noted the things I found because I was pointing out that there appears to be some evidence of the term being used. If this was being discussed at the appropriate forum, then I'm happy to be found wrong. But this is not the forum to do this.
Can we please have an admin shut this whole thread down? There have been plenty of chances for all parties to move this to CFD or other forums and now we seem to be discussing the category itself on here. This needs to stop as no admin action is required and, as I say, this is not the place to discuss categories themselves!! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really not an administrative matter. I hope someone will set up a place to discuss the category hierarchy for Christian denominations, and if someone does so, then feel free to link that here. Otherwise, as far as this page is concerned, this discussion is closed. - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jmabel: This account Laurel Lodged is categorized as "Wikipedia users banned by the Arbitration Committee". The ban on Wikipedia is for essentially the same behavior. See "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute". Krok6kola (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares? I am permanently banned. enwiki is not commons. Not to mention, the case you refer to - LL was not banned for category issues in any way. Leave your enwiki drama on enwiki. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't totally unrelated -- it was a conflict that began around category issues -- but yes, the en-wiki ban (indef, but appealable soon) was for things said in disputes with other users, and I haven't seen similar behavior here. Krok6kola, as I said elsewhere, if you see the same issue on Commons, provide diffs. - Jmabel ! talk 07:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It was an extraordinary situation around one of the most toxic editors Wikipedia has ever seen. Someone who chased off hundreds of editors, and who was indefinitely banned themselves. Bringing up LL’s ban when in no way was LL’s behaviour anywhere even close to the Wikipedia issue is very wrong. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening because User:Ыфь77 continues to edit in this area without consensus[edit]

I believe this edit by User:Ыфь77 (the original complainant here!) is dead wrong, and in any case certainly does not amount to engaging in discussion, and laying off of editing in this area for at least a week. - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Стоп! Просьба различать "Christian denominations" и протестантизм. По первому случаю я жду нового раздела. По второму случаю никаких споров не было, правки являются консенсусными. Online translation: Stop! Please distinguish between "Christian denominations" and Protestantism. On the first occasion, I'm waiting for a new section. In the second case there was no dispute, the edits are consensual. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an unhelpful edit. The churches are indeed rightful members of Category:Protestant churches in the United States by denomination. Why would you remove the category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Потому что щёлкнул мышкой не в том месте. Уже отменил. Online translation: Because I clicked the mouse in the wrong place. I've already cancelled it. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Проблемы были у подкатегории Category:Congregationalist churches in the United States by state - входила 2 раза в надкатегорию, а в проблемной правке перепутал окна. Ошибиться уже нельзя? Online translation: The subcategory had problems Category:Congregationalist churches in the United States by state - entered the super-category 2 times, and mixed up the windows in the problematic edit. Is it already impossible to make a mistake? Ыфь77 (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can make a mistake, though it is hard for me to understand why you were editing in this area at all, rather than working toward finding a consensus about it.
Also: (1) You've just been involved in a dispute which you yourself tried to raise to the level of an administrative matter. When you come into the room with guns blazing, it's a bad time to make a mistake. (2) Even your own initial remark here isn't to the effect of "oops, sorry, didn't mean to make that edit." Instead it appears to be a defense of the edit. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0) Я не занимался редактированием в области, где должен будет происходить поиск консенсуса. И повторюсь, я слишком плохо знаю английский язык, чтобы искать площадку для переговоров в формате не "1 на 1". 2) Это должно выглядеть не как защита правки, а как защита места правки. Мне вообще нельзя править категории христианства? Online translation: 0) I have not done any editing in the area where the consensus search will have to take place. And I repeat, I know English too poorly to look for a platform for negotiations in a non-"1 on 1" format. 2) This should not look like a protection of the edit, but as a protection of the place of the edit. Am I not allowed to rule the categories of Christianity at all? Ыфь77 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protestant churches are clearly delineated by denomination. At this point, you are being disruptive. I understood your concerns around denominational families, but this is absurd. As per below, I propose we enact restriction to prevent Ыфь77 from making channges to any categories related to Christian denominations.
I quite agree with Jmabel. You came here to sanction another editor, then discovered you needed to duscuss the matter, now you yourself are under scrutiny. That’s going to happen if you go about things in the way you have. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Вы не правы. Я пришёл сюда, чтобы прекратить правки моего оппонента и у меня не было желания именно наказать. Я до сих пор не знаю другого способа его остановить, потому что диалог с ним к результату не привёл. Online translation: You are wrong. I came here to stop my opponent's edits and I had no desire to punish him. I still don't know any other way to stop him, because the dialogue with him did not lead to a result. Ыфь77 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What dialog? There was no dialog. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Диалог был, но ранее. К результату не привёл. Зачем второй раз говорить без результата? Online translation: There was a dialogue, but earlier. It did not lead to a result. Why speak a second time without result? Ыфь77 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of consensus is… lacking. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m afraid there needs to be restrictions placed on Ыфь77 from
making changes to categories related to Christian denominations. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remind all concerned, but especially Ыфь77 and Laurel Lodged that this page is not the place to discuss the substance of categorization issues, just the meta-issue of how people are behaving. Neither of you should be editing in this area until there is some sort of consensus. @Adamant1: you were going to set up a place for the discussion. Did you, and if so where? (I'm still in Berlin and too busy to look into this further for several more days.) - Jmabel ! talk 07:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry. I've been pretty busy with other stuff. I haven't had time to look into the latest stuff either. Probably both of them should just avoid editing in the area altogether at this point regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:D430987[edit]

Obvious recreation of blocked account User:N333902 who is a recreation of globally-locked user Derzelis (CentralAuth). Uploading exact same content. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding User:CE933726. Uploading same photo, same username pattern. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding User:WAR555552. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Already globally locked. Yann (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giaan2023[edit]

Giaan2023 (talk · contribs) Uploading spam files. メイド理世 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done This was already reported elsewhere. Yann (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A1Cafel[edit]

BLOCKED INDEFINITELY:

A1Cafel has displayed various problems in his time on Commons. A common thread, on all of them (except socking), is a lack of adaquate communication. Time and time again, people come to A1Cafel with concerns about his edits. And time and time again, A1Cafel does not respond (either at all, or meaningfully). This is a collaborative project; communication is required.

And although communication is required, communication alone is not sufficent. Sometimes A1Cafel does say the right things in response to concerns. All too often, however, he then continues doing what led to the concerns in the first place. This, too, is not acceptable.

I do not believe that any topic ban, or combination of topic bans, would be effective at this time. I have therefore decided to block A1Cafel. I have done so indefinitely.

Why indefinitely? Because I am not convinced that any time-based block could lead to a change in behavior once the block expires in, e.g., a year. A1Cafel has been blocked many times, and has therefore had the opportunity to use that time to reflect on what he would like to change in his behavior. But such a change has not happened, as far as I can tell.

Indefinite, of course, does not mean infinite: an acknowledgment of what led to the block, and a credible commitment to discontinue it, will lead to a successful unblock request. Before submitting one, however, A1Cafel should do some introspection to figure out what needs to change, and how he will change it. Reviewing administrators may also wish to consider whether additional topic bans should be imposed as an unblock condition.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 April 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.

A1Cafel (talk · contribs) Long-term mass uploading junk/poor-quality/out of scope/duplicate files often without correct titles, descriptions and categories after multiple warnings and requests from other users (see talk page). Persistent toxic behaviour, refusal to talk with others (User_talk:A1Cafel#Request: Please, name files with good file names, before you upload. User_talk:A1Cafel#Your_White_House_upload_has_only_hidden_categories.). Strange behaviour: adding bad "criticism" category Category:Files from Flickr with bad file names white itself continuing to upload files with problematic titles from Flickr, and even adding the category to own upload (!) (Special:Diff/863845500). The user is also known for long-term "FoP-trolling" and deletionism, with nominating files for deletion due to FoP-and-derivative work-related problems (often without understanding of licensing and COM:DM), user hiding behind an article in the law but itself A1Cafel often mass-upload of DW and FoP-violating files (only recent cases) (User_talk:A1Cafel#Notification_about_possible_deletion_2, File:ESPR 0459 (53657780323).jpg, File:ESPR 0461 (53658023290).jpg, File:ESPR 0462 (53657780393).jpg, File:ESPR 0464 (53657779868).jpg, File:ESPR 0465 (53657557041).jpg, File:ESPR 0469 (53657557096).jpg, File:ESPR 0470 (53657780438).jpg, File:ESPR 0472 (53656683937).jpg, File:ESPR 0473 (53658023990).jpg, File:ESPR 0471 (53657557081).jpg). Previous ANU topics:

Five blocks in 1.5 years did not help. Regards, 84.126.228.207 18:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@84.126.228.207: Do you have a specific complaint that has not been addressed in previous discussions? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least, there is an issue with A1Cafel uploading derivative works of non free content (which I deleted), while being a zealot creator of nominations for copyright violations. Also removing this thread twice is not OK. Yann (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Any action. Although I agree that A1Cafel could probably name files better, but there's no guideline about how to name files. Let alone is someone creating bad file names grounds for banning them. Especially on it's own and the rest of this really just comes off as a rehash of issues that have (mostly) already been dealt with. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose actions against A1Cafel. However, I'd like to note that the removals of this thread A1Cafel attempted should not have taken place. An anonymous editor is not less than a registered user, and the thread is not a personal attack or abuse, so it should stay. --Bedivere (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support per SHB2000 essentially. Bedivere (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my vote and will now  Support a 2-week block after the evidence provided by Andy Dingley. I should stress that I am not supporting based on the IP's arguments, but rather A1Cafel attempting to remove this discussion twice. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks won’t cut it for this behaviour. I’m proposing a year long block. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned 2 weeks since I think that is enough down time for A1 to reflect on their behaviour, but I wouldn't oppose a longer block if that's what the community believes works best. According to Bedivere, the last block was 2 weeks, meaning the next would be 1 month, and I'm happy with that if that's what we think works best. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that an indefinite block is not the right call, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Block, just for their vandalism here: [5] [6] of AN/U.
Yes, vandalism. Maybe 'misguided', but that's the whole problem with A1Cafel. Per AGF we assume that they 'mean well', but is their judgement up to CIR? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose the evidence presented is not sufficient to block someone. Maybe A1Cafel should be blocked for “refusing to get the point” but you can’t use bad file names and a single (debatable) “vandalism” incident as a gateway to double jeopardy someone. Dronebogus (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a pattern. If you look at their talk page, they have consistently uploaded Flickr files that are completely problematic in more ways than just file naming conventions. One of the worst issues is a disregard for copyright policies. The problem is that this causes a. a lot of work for others to fix, b. leaves us potentially liable for copyright enforcement actions, and c. completely goes against the goals and ethos of the project, which are to provide truly freely available images for the general public and to society at large. A1Cafel has been around for a long time. They routinely submit images for deletion for valid reasons like copyright infringement, so it’s not like they don’t understand the concept.
A message needs to be sent and the project needs to be protected. They have been apparently blocked five times in the last year and a half. Shorter blocks won’t work - give them a severe block - one year. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Andy and SHB2000.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support the sheer quantity of files they have uploaded that have been deleted, the vandalism of ANU, the hypocritical “policing” of others images, the lack of responses to fair questions on his user page, and the inability to name files correctly despite many, many people imploring him to muse sensible file names indicates to me this was see needs a long term block. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - abuses Flickr2Commons on a regular basis without following simple commons policies on what should and should not be uploaded here by mass uploading just to up his edit count and then ignores people who report his uploads to his talk page. Has previously proven he doesn't understand simple common policies and refuses to acknowledge his mistakes or fix them, i prefer an indef block but thats not gonna happen with this 'protected' user.. Stemoc 02:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support an indefinite block. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think an indef/perma block would solve anything. I would expect 1) A1Cafel gets a block (1 month since last block was two weeks?) 2) A1Cafel makes a compromise not to disrupt the project and take comments positively and constructively. Bedivere (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I promise I respect every users (including IP users) and not to disrupt the project, and I apologize for my pre-mature behaviour. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is you have made promises in the past and have not kept up to those promises. What about the mass-up loads from Flickr, in some cases duplicates and in others that have FOP/TOO issues. Bidgee (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question of a block aside, you might at least just avoid using Flickr2Commons altogether at this point since it seems like your incapable of not getting into trouble with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who was quite badly treated on enwiki, I don’t support an indefinite block. A long block in this case is needed, but given I’ve seen users act here in immature and silly ways, but are still valuable contributors, I think the harshness and unfeeling attitudes towards those who mess up are frankly pretty pathetic. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bedivere, administrator Mdaniels5757 stated, in A1Cafel's third to last block, that the next one would "be longer, or perhaps be indefinite". In the meantime, the "next block" has already occurred, and it wasn't indefinite. The next of the "next block" has also occured. Will the upcoming one be indefinite or not? Will it ever end? RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to give A1Cafel one last chance, I think they are contributing positively in a genuine way. However, I agree with your concerns too. I don't think an indefinite block is needed at this point but, since there is near unanimous consensus to block, a block is to be issued for sure. Everybody has made their points quite clear and A1Cafel should take note of every comment and avoid these areas that are becoming troublesome: Flickr2Commons, for example. If they are found once again, after this final block, to be making disruptive edits like those that have been pointed out, they should be indefinitely blocked undoubtedly, and there is consensus for that. Anyway, indefinite blocks are not meant in every case to be a forever-lasting one. Bedivere (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can absolutely give them a chance, but bad behaviour of the nature of A1Cafel comes with consequences. A year long block is a severe but proportionate response to their actions. It prevents their disruption abandoned protects the project, and gives them a chance to return afresh. If they return and exhibit the same behaviours, another year long block could be reimposed. One only has so many years of their life. This would give them a chance to reform, but not give them much chance to continue disrupting commons. The block would be a proportionate and still compassionate response to their behaviour. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Undefined block. ----Benoît (d) 11:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: One of the most taunting, cynical, and destructive users Commons has seen in a long while. Apart from having, for instance, attempted to speedy delete photographs of a deceased volunteer, the destruction left by A1Cafel on the project is hard to measure for one simple reason: because, precisely, it's been deleted. To give you an idea, I once stumbled upon an image deleted by them: File:Lula and Castro9851.jpeg. Digging a bit deeper, I found out they had nominated for speedy deletion over 300 images uploaded by a volunteer inactive for about a decade, despite having uploaded images from the same source just a few days prior. Needless to say, this simply wreaked havoc on countless articles, as a large portion of these images were COM:INUSE. Alongside DarwIn, I was trying to gradually restore them, but I was caught off guard by personal issues that I need to address with more urgency than dedicating myself to volunteer work. As Chris.sherlock2 pointed out, a long-term block against this account is warranted. I agree with Stemoc that this block should be indefinite. A1Cafel's harassing behavior must come to an end. Otherwise, the mentioned threads wouldn't have been opened by Edelseider, Benoît Prieur, Ooligan, Wilfredor, etc... RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I support something like a year long block. Not an indefinite block. Being out of the project for an entire year absolutely gives the editor cause for thought. If they come back and start doing the same thing, then give them another year block. People go through life stages, none of us know about A1Cafel’s life circumstances. A year long block at this point does a few things - first, it protects the project. Second, it shows the barest minimum of mercy we should supply for the behaviour exhibited - but it does give a chance to allow A1Cafel to get their life together in the meantime. Alternatively, such a long absence might give them a chance to move on to more productive areas of their life - it could be we are breaking some sort of cycle.
    so, no indef block please. A year block would be sufficient, with a warning that if they return after a year a similar year long block could and likely will be imposed upon them. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris.sherlock2, when I mentioned an indefinite block, I imagined that the user could request unblocking after some time. Judging by the reactions, apparently it's not like that here on Commons. So, a long-term block seems fair enough to me. I'm also indefinitely blocked on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, and I wish it hadn't been like that—I agree absolutely with you that "people go through life stages". Cheers, RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole “begging my betters” to be unblocked doesn’t sit right with me. Indefinite blocking on an admin noticeboard smacks of lynching. I’ve seen it first hand - sometimes ironically those participating in the lynching were indefinitely blocked themselves. It’s not a culture we want to encourage on commons. Outside of Wikimedia projects, those who commit terrible crimes (except for genuine lifers) have fixed periods of punishment. I don’t see why any Wikimedia project thinks disproportionate blocks are a good idea. I can count on one hand the people who deserved to be blocked indefinitely on a Wikimedia Project. Severe punishment is fine, but it has to be proportionate to the behaviours exhibited. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it's time to build up a penal code ;-) Joke aside, I do agree indef-blocking long-term users who have commited grave mistakes is not a good idea if the purpose is to give them a lesson. Bedivere (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lol! god help us.
    It’s a combination of lessons in consequences and protecting the project. It’s pretty clear that a severe sanction needs to be imposed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Commonists! I want to further clarify what problems with A1 we have there to help the community to deside how they may be fixed and possible impacts if will no actions:

1. Out of scope/junk/low-quality uploads. This is the most significant problem with the user. Why? Out of scope/poor-quality-junk uploads severely discreditate Commons as a useful source for media-files. They crowding categories and makes finding of really useful files much difficult. This is only physical side of the problem. Moral side it is just unpleasant to see these files. 2. Toxic behavouir. Also heavy problem. Mass FoP-and-deletionist trolling discourages users and it may cause to a user left the project and at least minimize work here. Uploading duplicates/files with bad names/without basic categories and descriptions, refusal to talk with others, removing the topic twice, calling my actions as trolling represent that AGF cannot applied here. Concerning to recent DRs, I do not understand why this file (and many similar) violate FOP. The murals is severely distorted and not in focus, and fences are too simple to be copyrighted. 3. If a user want to become a fan of FoP-and-DW-related DRs he himself must be impeccable. However the user persistently upload FoP-and-DW-violating files. I do not know whether he is doing so accidentally or deliberately, I assume the first and A1 simply do not check what exastly he want to upload. I have nothing personal against A1.

P.S. @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Please do not ping IPs, they will not see your ping. I did not read previous long discussion fully. I do not known whether all the problems have been discussed or not. Even all of them have been discussed and there is no specific complaints, this request is valid because later ANU topics and blocks did not affect the user's modus operandi. I hope that I answered your question. Regards, 109.205.139.189 10:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Perhaps it's time to build up a penal code It is kind of dumb to block people things that aren't even against the rules to begin with. Although I know A1Cafel has chronic issues, but there was just a proposal for implementing some standards for how to name files that was shot down. So are really going to give someone a year long block for that? Come on. What other behavior is there here that's recent and/or already hasn't been litigated in other ANU complaints though? Because I don't see anything. I'll also point while I'm at it that RodRabelo7 brought up that A1Cafel had File:Lula and Castro9851.jpeg, without mentioning the important detail that he nominated the image for deletion because it a lacked a source, which is anyone's prerogative. I think the main thing here is axe grinding over A1Cafel's DRs of images that violate FOP, as should be evidenced by the IPs editors message saying enough. Otherwise, again and regardless of the consensus, what actually warrants a long-term block here? Claims of "Mass FoP-and-deletionist trolling" shouldn't cut it. As if reporting or blocking people simply for being extremely active in the area of deletion requests doesn't also discourage users or cause them to leave the project. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked at his recent upload history? It’s chock full of files from Flickr that clearly aren’t valid files. Meanwhile I see him nominating images of y others for the same reason. There is a pattern at work here, it’s not just badly named files. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris.sherlock2: Yeah I have. Some of them are low quality, but that's just Flickr for you. Images from there tend to be crap. There's no quality guidelines anyway. So what exactly do you mean by the files not being valid? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are absolutely stacks that violate FoP from the countries the photos were taken. Check the notifications on his talk page. It’s not like he doesn’t know about the rules around FoP. It’s extremely concerning. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mention it, I was looking through them early and I don't really see what the issue is with a lot, if not most, of the images that were nominated for deletion. Like File:Czech pavilion EXPO 2020 © JinJan, WeAreConted(s) 2.jpg is just a bunch of random wires. There's nothing original about that. Same with File:Governador João Doria durante visita à Expo Dubai (51634704902).jpg, which is some block letters. But sure, lets indef block A1Cafel because they uploaded some images of metal wiring. Sounds reasonable lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the ones that were actually deleted. I have never called for him to be indef blocked. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah well, it's kind of hard to judge deleted images, but if they are anything like the ones that were nominated for deletion then.....And I know you didn't. That seems to be the sentiment. Although I have the same opinion about a one year block then I do an indef. Neither one seems justified given the lack of evidence and clearly bad motives involved on the side of the person that opened this. A1Cafel is a pretty important editor when it comes to dealing with FOP violations. I'd hate to lose someone that's a heavy editor in that area, and a badly needed one at that. Lets not turn this into Wikipedia where we run off all the "deletionists" based on essentially nothing but drama farming like they have a tendency to do.
  • Make it a couple of months block with the condition that they won't use Flickr2Commons or mass import anything from their again when they are unblocked since that's where most, if not, all of their problems come from. I'd totally support that. Say like a 3 month block to cool off and think. Then no more mass-imports from Flickr after that? (Just to be clear, I don't see an issue with them using the upload wizard to import a few images from Flickr that they have put the time into reviewing before hand though). Anyway, I think that's more then fair. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Perhaps it's time to build up a penal code" - I clarified that was only meant to be a joke. I have also said that just escalating to a one-month-block, with A1Cafel making a compromise not to repeat the same mistakes again, is a good and safe turnout for this discussion. Bedivere (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s fair. We probably need to a rapidly escalating block though. And yes, I don’t want to see enwiki lynch mobs. It always saddened me when I saw non-editors raining down judgement on long-term editors who had produced (*gasp*) articles - and then you look at the lynch mob participants and all they did was category work or hung out at ANI. Amusingly, some of the most vociferous participants have later been indefinitely blocked themselves. So, yes, let’s not be like that cesspool. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bedivere Fair enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment While I agree with many of the points mentioned, I come to limited defense of A1Cafel on the accusation ""FoP-trolling" and deletionism, with nominating files for deletion due to FoP-and-derivative work-related problems" Quite simply, A1Cafel's deletion discussion listings for FOP/DW problems are very frequently (though not always) correct. (I recall a while back a different user was listed here for frequent arguments to keep on deletion requests that some found a bit obnoxious - and this user also was very frequently (though not always) correct. Copyright law is sometimes convoluted, and some things that might be assumed to be ok by casual observers are actually violations, and some things that might be assumed to be violations by casual observers are actually ok.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:51, 21 April 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:Sara1997Xeneize[edit]

Sara1997Xeneize (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Uploading copyvios after final warning. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done 3-month block. They don't have any meaningful contributions on any projects. An es.wiki admin may want to take a look at their edits there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:AshtonJDE[edit]

User:AshtonJDE repeatedly uploads images out of project scope. GeorgR (de) (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Indefinitely blocked. Files deleted. Bedivere (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dafzzz[edit]

Dafzzz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Consistently uploading copyvios, AI upscaling images (to avoid detection?), removing CSD without resolving the issues, removing corresponding talk page notifications for said copyvios after final copyright warning. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a month for massive YT license washing. Files deleted and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dafzzz‎. Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:OperationSakura6144[edit]

OperationSakura6144 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Created a category Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available which contains a vicious personal attack against MacOS Weed (talk · contribs).

"MacOS Weed is a shameless piece of crap. I thought him to be helpful but turns out he isn't. He didn't understand my worries well. Now, I'm never gonna beg help or even talk with him anymore, he's ungrateful. I hate him."

This is a completely unacceptable way to talk about other editors. 155.133.20.118 10:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but he could have refused my request without using vulgar language. I'm sorry if I personally attacked MacOS Weed. Please grant me a 3-day block for this. I'm just sharing my experience with MacOS Weed. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps start by removing the offensive comments. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the offensive comments. Please tell MacOS Weed to not use vulgar language while talking with users, especially newcomers, and apologize to me for that. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the diff where they did this? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Here's what MacOS Weed replied (found in User talk:MacOS Weed):
MacOS Weed: Hi, I'm not sure to understand, it seems to have already be done haha
Me: Stop joking. Each "original" (PNG/JPG/GIF) file is used by each Wikipedia article. It's too easy to replace them with SVG files. Please do it.
MacOS Weed: Okay, first, don’t ever talk me like that, I was trying to be nice understanding your request because It sounded you asked me to rename the file, your request wasn’t clear.
I'm not your dog, I don't owe you anything and I'm not at your immediate disposal. I don't know who you think you are, but you're not my boss, and I'm not in any way subordinate to you.
I've got enough complicated problems in my life without someone sending me a fucking message that even my boss wouldn't dare write like that.
You just had to be clearer in your messages.
I’m not even the vectorizer for the images you posted. If you want them to be used in Wikipedia, do it yourself.
I'm not the slave here.
If It’s “too easy” to do, then do it and don’t ever bother me again.
Here, MacOS Weed at first didn't understand me and said it's "done already". I clarified it, said that each "original" file (PNG/JPG/GIF file in this case) is used only by each Wikipedia article I can't edit (Sorry for unclear messaging with MacOS Weed), and urged him to replace them with their vector versions, telling it's so easy to do it.
And, then, MacOS Weed became unhinged. He vilified me as if I was enslaving him and condescendingly replied to me. He used dehumanizing words like "dog" and "slave" and swear words like "f*****g" against me as if he's superior to me and suggested me to do the job myself if it's so easy for him to do, which I can't, due to my blocked IP address. (Please don't suggest me VRTS or Wikipedia unblock review. They turned out to be failures for me.)
I was surprised by the way he talked to me. I thought he'd help me and, unexpectedly, he turns out to be opposite. (I'm autistic BTW. I can't tolerate those vulgar messages and unexpected sentimental chaos.)
He could've replied in simple language without even treating me as a villain. I don't know why he could talk like a barbarian (I'm not personally attacking MacOS Weed), just because my tone is bad while talking or I don't have a clear and understanding messaging, which, in turn, can be gently addressing by him without using questionable messaging. I am sorry for the choas happened due to the conversation with MacOS Weed, and I'm responsible for this, and should MacOS Weed.
Anyways, whatever it goes, mistakes are bound to happen. We need to learn from them to improve themselves (I think I've became a philosopher XD.). That's my case when I learned that begging help from WikiComms/Wikipedia users to do my job is never really going to help me at all, and created Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available where WikiComms users can help me and I help them in return.
I've learned my lesson after all, and MacOS Weed needs to learn his one of not using vulgar and condescending language to users. Therefore, I end my statement now. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't claim to have "learned your lesson" if you got blocked for 3 days for how you behave on people's talk pages and then after that block is over go and do that exact same thing, with the exact same language, on someone else's talk page. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record again, I'm never doing this anymore. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, he has also requested and harassed some other users including @ReneeWrites and @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd. Strenatos (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but I got blocked for 3 days for that. Don't you know this? Now, I am not requesting anyone to help me. I created Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available, so that you and many users can help me if you like to. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
have you seen my comment in the category for it? Strenatos (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, you said you removed the category info, saying that I don't need to talk about the history of the category. Also, you also said the vulgar replies I talked about had valid reasons. I agree with it, but they could be gently addressed without the use of swear words and vulgar language, right?
To be correct, you are wrong about the IP matter. My IP was blocked by Materialscientist‬ on 28 October 2023 in the English Wikipedia, that is almost 6 months before I even created my WikiComms account. The Persian and Spanish Wikis would have the similar timelines as of the English Wiki.
Before you disagree with me, please think calm and understand my situation. It's all my fault harassing people in WikiComms just to have my job done. Now, I repented of that tragedy and created the category to have the job completed with no problems.
Also, you replaced File:Aizubange Fukushima chapter.JPG with its vector version. So, I appreciate you for this little thing. You also replaced File:Flag of Narusawa Yamanashi.JPG with its vector version. I appreciate it too.
Now, please tell me what you think me of now. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MacOS Weed told you that he did not want to be treated like a dog and that he is not your slave, this was in response to you acting in a rude and entitled manner on his talk page. He was completely in the right, and nothing about how he worded his reply was vulgar or inappropriate, especially not considering the context these replies were written.
You on the other hand, in response to this, called him a "shameless piece of crap" and then edited that comment to also call him an "ungrateful moron". ReneeWrites (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, User:ReneeWrites. I removed the derogatory comments on MacOS Weed in Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available. Now, I agree that I harassed MacOS Weed and that was wrong after all. I am responsible for the chaos happened. For the record, I'll not request anyone to do my job anymore, and I'll say it again and again, if you don't get me well, because I created Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available, so that I don't need to request anyone to help me.
Now, what do you expect from me? Should I stop harassing everyone and obey the rules or do you want me to leave WikiComms for good? I need an answer. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don’t think the original message was intended to be rude, just really, really poorly communicated. I’m not all that surprised that MacOS Weed responded like they did due to the abruptness, though that was also fairly over the top.
MacOS Weed’s response never denegrated OperationSakura6144, he never called him a dog or swore at him (though swearing was involved). I suspect that both parties have gone off the deep end.
OperationSakura6144 your category page was incredibly uncivil and uncalled for. FWIW, you’ve removed that text now, but you need to figure out a way of regulating your emotions a little better. I’d suggest to you that if you were a little less abrupt in your initial communications this could have all been avoided. Perhaps it’s your autism that caused this? Next time, try to couch the terms more like a request: you could have said “it’s really easy to make SVGs from these, would you be able to create them?” That becomes a polite request, and not a command. Just a thought.
The only actionable issue here is the category page you created. Don’t go off on a diatribe about someone in category space. (Do t do this anywhere, but in particular category space!) can we get assurance you won’t do this again? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, that's what I was waiting. I'll never go out of the line, harrass users, attack anyone, and go crazy and get washed away by my emotions. For the record, I am not gonna request anyone to have a handful of images I got to be replaced with vector files, because I created Category:Flags of municipialities of Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available for this purpose. If anyone is interested to help me, they would go to the category and help me by replacing the images with their vector versions. I hope this problem gets resolved, or is it? OperationSakura6144 (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t make the final decision on this, but it goes to your credit you apologised and removed the offending material. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked Operation for two weeks. Even though they've apologized for their disrupting behaviour, it's the second time they've been reported here for such behaviour, and that short three day block was meant to be a lesson for them. Please take this time to calm down and, when you come back, don't make the same mistakes again, else you'll get an indefinite block. Bedivere (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting resources[edit]

Can someone look into, delete the uploads of and potential even block the user User:Jarrod stanley ? This user has been uploading multi gigabyte, 7 hour videos of blackness and noise. This is extremely wasteful and behavior like this risks that uploads of this size might have to be restricted to a small group of privileged users, if we don't deal with it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jarrod stanley. Yann (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a block is needed at this stage, but would support a temporary block if their behavior continues. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=870524432"