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]
@Adamant1: I don't think failing to address the matter is workable. We do need to reach a consensus in this area and there needs to be a place to discuss that. Laurel Lodged has made a proposal that is neither obviously correct nor obviously wrong, and I think it should be discussed. I don't want this admin board turning yet again into the de facto place for the discussion.
Since Adamant1 is apparently not interested in setting up a place to discuss this, will someone else please take it on? Failing that, I'll do it in a few days; most of the next 36 hours I will be in transit and largely incommunicado. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleAmazon[edit]

ArticleAmazon (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has continued uploading non-free images despite the warning --Ovruni (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Wow! This user should have been blocked a long time ago. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ArticleAmazon‎. Yann (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

202.173.124.102[edit]

202.173.124.102 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) blocked user OperationSakura6144. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. I also blocked OperationSakura6144 for 2 more weeks. Yann (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1[edit]

Adamant1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hi, This user has a problematic behavior, repeatedly going for personal attacks ([5], [6]) 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. Yann (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to point out specific diffs right now, and it's not like Yann has either, but he has a long history of personally attacking me and trying to get me blocked over essentially nothing. This latest thing is just yet another example of that and just seems to be retaliation on Yann's part because I dared to write a message on his user page asking another administrator how I was continuing something that they seem to be the only one's discussing weeks later, which is my propagative. I have a right ask an administrator about something on their talk page or for evidence of behavior that they are clamming I'm doing. So I don't really see what the issue here is. Otherwise Yann should provide diffs of what he's actually talking about instead of just linking to a patently false comment by someone else that has nothing to do with me. I certainly don't see how the two comments he linked to are at all personal attacks or "problematic behavior" like he's claiming. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are being rather aggressive though. Yann can be abrupt at times, but he has always been careful to characterise actions and not the person. For instance, he said one if your DRs was a nonsense, but not that you are a nonsense. You took offence at this, but despite the abruptness of the tone it was an opinion that your DR had no substance. It is quite all right to challenge the actions of another party, personally I would not have ysed thr word “nonsense” as it is a bit inflammatory, but at the end of the day that is a fair opinion and he did explain why he thought this was the case. You reacted emotionally, but instead you could have just explained why you believe Yann to be wrong. I do t think you are doing yourself any favours here. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'd only like to add some more confirmation to that Yann is not the only one thinking that is a problem. Not considering other issues, Adamant1 frequently went for personal attacks always with impunity and I don't have all of them noted but they include this and this (there's a lot more but I don't have them in mind right now). On the other hand, I don't know of a WMC policy against personal attacks and incivility. This is the sort of interaction behavior that keeps people away from contributing to Wikimedia (I don't think it's major reason for why there's few contributors on WMC in specific but it is an issue). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m confused - there are two diffs to what are supposedly personal attacks, but I must be odd if something. How are they personal attacks? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't know for all the RfD's in question, but this one is definitely disruptive. The shown information boards are obviously in public places and Belgum has introduced full commercial FoP some years ago. So yes, if Adamant1 is so upset about different opinion of some admins on these images that he needs to attack these people ad personam, a sanction may be in place. Regards --A.Savin 23:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I wasn't upset that "different opinion of some admins" on the images. I had an issue with Yann closing the DRs out of process and without discussion. But I then dropped it after we discussed it on their talk page. Their the one who then continued to bring it up weeks later. Nowhere have I attacked anyone in relation to it either. Except to ask how I'm continuing something that I haven't even discussed or had anything to do with in weeks. That's not a personal attack though. Otherwise be my guest and provide some actual evidence.
BTW, I'll also point out that in the DR you linked to as supposedly disruptive I spent plenty of time researching it before hand, wrote multiple comments saying why I think they aren't public places based on the evidence, and the closing comment that "the signs are placed in public accessible places" is just patently false. Plus it's not the standard for FOP in Belgium anyway. That's fine, but it's not on me if the closing administrator decided to ignore the evidence. Again though, I dropped it and moved on while they and Yann pettily continued it days and weeks later. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment 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.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about you tell me what the issue is then instead of just going off about how many lines I wrote like there's a limit or you've never written a long message before? I'm more then willing to modify my behavior or do something differently next time if someone points out an actual problem with how I acted. r/explainlikeimfive lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Five year olds are known for yelling or asking why until their parents give in or say "because I said so". If you want to learn, try listening a little, instead of having the most words in any conversation you're a part of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but five year olds ask why out of genuinely curiosity and as part of the normal learning process. Apparently administrators are above reproach for their actions and people don't need to provide evidence of anything in an ANU complaint though. So my bad for asking. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Five year olds also ask "why" because they want to provoke a response, even when they don't care about an answer. They also don't go "So my bad for asking"; that's teenagers, and they're willfully being abrasive then. Teenagers also go lol, not when they're trying to honestly figure out what's happening, but when they don't care what the other person has to say.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This analogy is getting a bit ridiculous and I think you have both stretched it to breaking point. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop using lol; it's rude to laugh at people. Use the preview button; it's hard to have a conversation when every time you hit submit, the person has changed their post and you have to go back and readd your comment. There is a limit; people get annoyed when one person writes long posts after everything that anyone else says. Say what you need to stay and stop posting. Don't make it personal; as I pointed out, you took a response by Yann that was dismissive to your DR as an excuse to attack him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prosfilaes Weren't you the one telling me to assume good faith recently in another discussion? I ask question because I'm genuinely curious. If an administrator who I've had chronic problems with closes a couple of my DRs out of process and with no discussion, I'd like to know why so it can be avoided in the future. That's all. You seem to stuck between criticizing me about how I'm unwilling to accept feedback on the one hand, but being just as critical about me asking people questions so I can improve how I do things in the future on the other though. And to the degree that I've made it personal, that's only because Yann did and then refused to stop when I asked him to. So I thought it was something he'd be cool with. I'm not here to be personally attacked week after week by the same person in a way that they don't treat anyone else while I act like it's nothing about them or our relationship in return. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, for example, [7] from that DR where he wrote "if you had of looked into it before commenting you would have noticed that Natuurpunt is a non-profit environmental organization that maintains private nature reservations and the standard for FOP in Belgium only applies to "locations that are permanently accessible to the public."" None of this information was provided in the DR already, and the proposer of deletion should have noted if they knew about it. But he starts the sentence with the aggressive "if you had of looked into it before commenting" instead of just providing the information.
Or, say, [8] where Yann talks about the DR and Adamant1 responds with a completely personal attack. Yann could have been nicer in his comment, but it was about the DR and not Adamant1.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree that I probably could have wrote a more detailed explanation for the first example. It's always a balance between being brief in DRs versus writing a bunch of extra details that no one will read and easily be found by reading the infobox in the category though. I tend to assume that people will at least do the basic of looking at other images in the category before commenting and the infobox for it clearly says Natuurpunt is an "organization for nature and landscape protection in Flanders." I'll also note that the person I was responded to thought the images were taken in the Netherlands, not Belgium. So they clearly didn't look into it beforehand. And they should have. You'd have to agree that as the nominator I shouldn't have to tell people or otherwise provide obvious, easily findable details like what country we're talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have to agree that you should force people to dig around to find the basic information about a DR, like what the relevant law is. You want us to feed you all the details about this ANU, but heaven forbid you mention relevant details about what nation the photos are in and how the relevant FoP impacts it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes: No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Let alone dig around to find information. I'm certainly not. In this case all the person I was responding to had to do was look at the top of the DR since I added Category:Belgian FOP cases/pending to it before they commented. Apparently expecting someone to simply look at the deletion request before they comment on it is to high of a bar for people like you and forcing them to do something though lol. Regardless, your boxing ghost because the information was included when I added the maintenance category even if I didn't explicitly spell it out for people. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. From what I can see, User:Adamant1 is a generally valuable contributor, but a bit abrasive and rather combative. I certainly would oppose him for adminship, but that is presumably not what we are discussing here.
  2. I seriously doubt there is anything here worth a block, but if someone feels otherwise I'd like to see some specific diffs. Or is there some other specific action that Yann or someone else here is requesting?
Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share similar sentiments. --SHB2000 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1 should at least get a final formal warning that this kind of behavior is not OK on Commons. See messages above by A.Savin and Prosfilaes. Yann (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or conversely you could just lay off the harrassing personal comments and sparious ANU complaints like I've asked you to multiple times now already. Not to that I acted 100% perfectly here, but I can guranteed there wouldn't have been an issue if you had of just dropped it and stopped making things personal after both me and Chris.sherlock2 told you your comments weren't productive. You seem to have the attitude that your beyond reproach and have no role in repeatedlhy instigating things with me for no reason what-so-ever though.
I'm fine being civil, but its a two way street and I'm not here to just be bullied by an adminstrator who can't stand people disagreeing with or questioning them. Sorry. Again, that's not to say I couldn't have acted better, but its been an endless struggle dealing with you and you just seem to have a smug attitude every time I've asked you a question about your actions or asked you to lay off it. So I don't know what you expect. Your the only person I've had any serious chronic issues with on here though, and that's not for nothing. Otherwise I'd probably be fine at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, you could perhaps not characterise his DRs as “nonsense”. I defend your right to do so, but if you want to reduce conflict you could use less inflammatory language. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, As I told Adamant1 on my talk page, this is a language issue. The French translation doesn't seem to have the same tone as the English word. So I apologize for this word. Yann (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this. I think this was part of the reason why the DR got so out of hand. I respect your apology as I cannot speak more than one language :-) hell, I have amazing respect for anyone who can speak more than their native tongue! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like Adamant1 should tone things down a little, they are a valuable contributor, but often too argumentative for their own good. I am in agreement with Jmabel here. Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I also agree with the "often too argumentative for their own good." We tend to do less "tone policing" than some other WMF wikis, but Adamant1, I have to say: when others write to you in the same tone you so often use, you often seem to feel insulted and attacked. Why would you expect them to feel differently when you write that way?
Unless there is either (1) a much more solid case here than I've seen or (2) are possibilities of very mild sanctions that I can't think of, I'd oppose disciplinary action against Adamant1 at this time (in particular, I haven't seen him use this tone with newbies, his style seems to be more right-up-to-the-line than over-the-line, and I'm pretty sure the complaining parties here can handle it), but I'd also appreciate it if Adamant1 tried to be more collegial and less combative. Adamant1: at some point, even if you are not breaking any actual rules and even if you are doing good work, if it gets to where you are repeatedly discouraging other contributors or making their time here unpleasant, you become a net liability to the project. I assume that is not something you wish to be. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but then I can be absolutely dragged and insulted by multiple users for weeks or months on end and the same people complaining here won't even bat an eye about it for some reason. Anyway, I'm not going relitigate every minor disagrement I've had on here, but in this particular instance Yann instigated things by making unasked for personal comments about me in a couple of conversations. Me and another user asked him to lay off and said they weren't productive, but he decided to continue with it. So I left the message on his talk page and the village pump.
Yann is 100% the one who started this, continued it weeks later by not just dropping the attitude when multiple people asked him to, and is cry bullying with this ANU complaint. Its not even that I necessarily feel attacked either. Its just that I don't think endlessly making personal comments about someone and obstructing their edits in order to goad them into a confrontation like Yann has an established history of doing with me is productive. Nor am I go just sit here with a big fat grin on my face while interacting with an admin who refuses to acknowledge their side of an issue or respect my request that they stop trying to make things personal and stir up drama. Sorry. This is only a thing because Yann refuses to lay off it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What personal comments are you referring to? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support whatever is suggested, per Prosfilaes, and anyone who's here to 'make the internet not suck' (as used to be our goal). I pay little attention to Adamant1 as the only way to get through the day, but I almost never see them do anything positive and their overall negative effect is just too large. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the roots of the problem with Adamant1. But I is a very good participant of the Commons:WikiProject Postcards. He is very committed and extremely helpful there. It would be a bitter loss for Commons to scare him away or ban him completely. I get on very well with him and can only report constructive and productive discussions with him. - Perhaps it would be good if everyone took a deep breath and stepped back a little. We all want to make Commons even better together. Let's do this constructively and in partnership. --sk (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What admin action is needed here?[edit]

I’m a little confused. Clearly there is a personality conflict and some legitimate complaints of abrasive behaviour. But as I paraphrase what another contributor said the other day, people don’t necessarily need to be friends with one another here. What specific actions are admins meant to be taking? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As per his responses above, notably [9], clearly Adamant1 doesn't understand the problem, and continues to blame me and others for their behavior. And we don't need people with "abrasive" behavior on Commons. Now I don't want Adamant1 to leave, but I want a change of behavior. If a report on ANU is not sufficient to get this change, something stronger is needed. Yann (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was pretty abrasive to call his DR “nonsense”, though I understand why you said it. Regardless, what particular sanction are you looking for? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that this was a mistranslation issue. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, a final formal warning that this behavior is not acceptable, and that absence of change would lead to a block. Yann (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: I see you apologized for the "nonsense" comment above. I appreciate that. My guess is that a lot of this comes down to a language issue and cultural differences. I certainly meant no harm in how I responded to Romaine on your talk page. I was genuinely carious what behavior they were claiming I was continuing since I hadn't been involved in anything to do with the topic for weeks and I think it's important to back up such accusations with diffs. Especially when they are coming from an administrator. Otherwise we just risk wasting everyone's time later down the line on spurious ANU complaints like this one. In no way did I mean it to be "abrasive" though. I was simply responding to a comment that I found rather odd considering that I had moved on to other things weeks ago.
In no way is that to blame you or anyone else for anything. It's just to say that it wasn't my intent to be abrasive. You seem to have a serious issue with assuming good faith when interacting with me though. I've said several times now that I could have acted better and been clearer about things in the deletion requests. So why not accept it and move on? I'm more then willing to accept the apology and bury the hatchet going forward if your willing to do the same on your end. I've said several times now that I don't think this whole thing with you is productive and that I'd like to see it resolved. Your disingenuous attitude and lack of good faith towards me whenever we interact is keeping it from happening though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what Abzeronow and I both said above: there is a problem here, but it is a minor one, and it doesn't call for sanctions. I'd appreciate if both sides, but especially Adamant1, would just turn down the thermostat. - Jmabel ! talk 14:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I don't think any admin action is needed here for the time being. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that Adamant1 gets quite heated during DRs and VP discussions etc. but I don't think this requires any admin action. The good constructive contributions far outweigh the occasional heated PA. Though if Yann and Adamant1 continue fighting maybe an IBAN will be due (or they can voluntarily impose it on themselves if they want). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation[edit]

varseoon.ir is a normal website. it is not under creative commons license nor file published in this website belong to varseoon.ir / website logo and versoon.ir bottom of files is copyright violation (not a webste own work) please delete all these files and add varesoon.ir in spam links / and using template:PD-Iran is covering this copyright violation [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Iran has a short copyright term (at least compared to many other countries), many of these pictures may be in the public domain due to age. If you find recent images, please nominate them for deletion. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, is right, but {{PD-Iran}} requires publication date for photographic or cinematographic works, which is often missing.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:XXAshton0913Xx[edit]

User:XXAshton0913Xx uploads images out of project scope and is most likely a "reincarnation" of User:AshtonJDE who was recently blocked for the same reason (and basically the same pictures). GeorgR (de) (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate behaviour despite warning[edit]

Hello,

@Cyanmax: was warned by @Jmabel: in November 2023 for, among other reasons, making a nasty remark about Nepal on a completely unrelated page. Now he is back on the same page, this time with a remark about air pollution in the same country. Huñvreüs (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think some sort of action is in order; I'm going to leave it to someone other than me to decide what. - Jmabel ! talk 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User notified. Abzeronow (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning this, gth can apparently mean either good to hear or go to Hell. Well, I learned something today. Huñvreüs (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can also mean "good to hear". That's one way for plausible deniability i guess? Trade (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are u gonna block my account for providing a reliable source and writing GLAD TO HELP? Wow. That's hilarious and hysterical. I didn't know that providing a reliable source and writing GLAD TO HELP is a crime. Anyway, I don't care. Cyanmax (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down and remain cool. I understand your frustration, but getting heated isn't going to resolve things. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the context, my natural instinct is to believe they meant "Go to hell", but also AGF... --SHB2000 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is certainly important and, for example, would lead a benevolent person to believe that GFY means Good for you. The question being where the limit stands between AGF and naivety. Huñvreüs (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question being where the limit stands between rational thinking and paranoia. We all know that false accusations of hysterical and paranoid people led to the Catholic inquisition and political repression in the Soviet Union. There's nothing criminal with saying "Russia is freezing" or "India is the most polluted country". Facts are facts. Trying to block someone's account for providing a source or writing 3 letters is even more hilarious. Cyanmax (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyanmax: this looks like the farthest thing from an apology. There is nothing wrong with saying "Russia is freezing" if it is germane. It is another thing to say it as a dismissive remark responding to praise of Chekhov.
I personally feel like you are trolling: trying to stay just within the lines of what is easily called out as a rules violation without actually stepping over. In general, that is not acceptable behavior here. This is not some sort of game about showing you can still be nasty while precisely following rules. It is a collaborative effort to build a media repository. At some point, behavior like this becomes a problem, worthy of sanctions.
So as an admin here I have two things to say:
  1. If you do accidentally or deliberately step over the line, don't expect even the slightest benefit of the doubt.
  2. Given that you seem to be inclined to use abbreviations that are usually hostile, while claiming to mean other things by them, just stop using them. Again, next time I for one will not give you the benefit of the doubt. - Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nourafakhry90 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Keeps uploading out of scope photos--Trade (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uregapedia[edit]

Uregapedia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads small size photos, mostly politicians, as own work but gives no META. Most likely screen captures of copyrighted websites. Pierre cb (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Files deleted. If they return to uploading these dubious files, they will get a block. Bedivere (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked one month. Bedivere (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio socks[edit]

These two accounts are socks of each other (enwiki CU confirmed, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aviation_fan_guy):

with Aviation fan guy being the older of the two. Here on Commons, both are also engaging in the same behaviors as each other. User:Yann has blocked 737-200fan for a week for copyvio. So I assume Afg be blocked also. Should Afg e blocked for the same length? Or should one be indef'ed (and if so, which one)? Or should both be indef'ed (copyvio and other disruption, as well as the sock problem)? DMacks (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I blocked AFG indef. for socking. The master dates from March 30. Yann (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to this sort of handling, but for the record:
737: registered globally March 29, attached to commons March 29, first edit on commons March 30
Afg: registered globally March 25, attached to commons March 26, first edit on commons April 5
DMacks (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shams948[edit]

Shams948 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues with his disruptive behavior regarding the opening & renaming proper categories, despite friendly advises and warnings. The issue is summarized on his talk page:

  1. In March 2022, I asked him not to change the names of categories. He obeyed only for a few months and then continued as before.
  2. In December 2023, I repeated the request that he not play with categories, elaborated on the individual problems he was doing, and friendly offered my help in further categorization. His response shows that he considers the Commons a battleground as he threatens that the edits must be returned to his desired state, and he even indulges in crazy conspiracy theories about being stalked by the Ministry of Intelligence (Persian text).
  3. A few days ago, the same story again: he opens meaningless categories, changes correct category names to wrong ones, adds unnecessary parent categories, mixes cities, villages and counties, etc. Everything as before.

It is obvious that the user is beyond repair and will continue to do damage regardless of warnings. IMHO, deserves either a penalty or at least an admin warning. --Orijentolog (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orijentolog: Please remember to notify the user in question next time. I've done it for you this specific instance. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
با عرض سلام و ارادت؛ اینجانب فقط در حوزه سرزمینی خود فعالیت می‌نمایم و قصد تخریب یا خرابکاری ندارم. این صفحات حوزه سرزمینی بنده است و مایل به ارتقاء و تقویت آن هستم. اما به نظر می‌رسد از داخل ایران برخی اماکن دولتی مایل به درز اطلاعات به جهان نیستند و در این باره کارشکنی میکنند مانند این مدیر عزیز. Orijentolog
طرف ما در ایران، مدیران ویکی‌ها نیستند. طرف ما نخست جمهوری اسلامی، سپس دولت، و بعد از آنها مدیران فرهنگستان زبان ایران، و بعد وزارت اطلاعات و بعد سپاه پاسداران که همه می‌خواهند از درز اطلاعات واقع به جهان ممانعت به عمل آورند. با سپاس از همه دوستان ضد سانسور. Shams948 (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again w:Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory accusations that I'm "an agent of government" which is allegedly "trying to censor something". --Orijentolog (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Neutral Sysop Mediation[edit]

Hi

@باسم and I have been engaged in a discussion regarding a map translation from French to Arabic. While he changed the original title and description, I requested him kindly that the original text in the derivative file, stated to be in Arabic without modifications, be preserved. He accused me of falsifying history without presenting any concrete evidence and without engaging in a meaningful discussion. This accusation is entirely baseless, then he started an edit war. I simply asked for the translation to be faithful to the original or for him to create his own derivative map.

As a result, an edit war ensued.

Unfortunately, @علاء, who shares a friendship with باسم on arwiki, used their sysop privileges to favor the version of باسم by blocking the edits and removing the tag. علاء was never been involved in the Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons discussions before, he suddenly appeared on the page out of nowhere. Therefore, I am seeking a neutral sysop to mediate between us. I am not necessarily insisting on the tag's removal, but I dislike how users utilize their privileges to impose their views. I am looking for a neutral contributor to help resolve this matter.

Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Please see special:permalink/872117493#Misusing SYPOP privilege --Alaa :)..! 19:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's a lot of assuming bad faith! Please see this comment "intimidation"! --Alaa :)..! 20:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see it as an intimidation from both of you. You both are sysops in arwiki, you suddenly appeared in the conversation out of nowhere. So, the concept of good faith has its limits. We, the three of us, and the administrators here are already aware of how things are going. Kindly refrain from insulting our intelligence. I am seeking mediation, regardless of whether it goes on my side or not. I want this conflict to be resolved in a more conventional manner, outside the current approach. Riad Salih (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Riad Salih, What does it mean that we are both "sysops in arwiki"? There are 23 other sysops? Do you know how many ar-N sysops are on Commons? Also, did you know that I follow what written on Commons in Arabic language via the bot and scripts (for example; knowing that this comment in Arabic, it led me to the discussion)? I hope that when you discuss, you talk with policies and not about personal opinions and conclusions. Regarding that I'm not involved in the discussion, this is normal, because "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party)". And I'm not a party of this discussion and I explained this to you on my talk page. --Alaa :)..! 20:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@علاء but why remove the file/facts disputed template? If it was changing categories, description or overwriting another version, sure reverting to the stable version would be fine but I see nothing wrong with highlighting that there is a dispute with the image. Also you can be involved even if you are not part of the discussion, if you know the person, you are considered to be involved. Bidgee (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bidgee, the editing war is based on the addition of this template, because it contains "The factual accuracy of this description or the file name is disputed."; this is evident from user undo and discussion on the talk page. Also, this editorial dispute moved from arwiki to Commons (Others participated in it). Can you please define what you mean by "if you know the person"? as I know a lot of users! --Alaa :)..! 20:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not requested any false historical claim. If Bassem has specific points to mention, I would be glad to respond to them individually.
However, Alaa cannot explain how they became involved in the discussion since they never participated in the Arabic Wikipedia talk or Commons. Immediately after Bassem's last revert, Alaa jumped in to file to block the talk. I did not initiate an edit war, but Bassem refused to engage in a conversation or provide explanations, instead choosing to revert the changes repeatedly.
Thank you, Alaa, for reminding us about the sysops and bots thing, but I am familiar with how it works. Your presence in this talk is not logical. -- Riad Salih (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Riad Salih, simple correction of what you mentioned "Immediately after Bassem's last revision, Alaa jumped in to block the talk", but Bassem edit at 18:43, then you at 19:20, finally mine at 19:31. Therefore, my attempt to stop the editing war based on adding the template came about ten minutes after your fourth revert. This explanation is for accuracy only.
In general, I welcome the participation of any other colleague, and I may be wrong, and therefore I welcome the correction of any mistake I made, as we all have a common goal. --Alaa :)..! 21:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I wish colleagues Bassem and Riad can complete the discussion in one place, so that we can follow it and help if there was any consensus. The discussion happens here and here. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 21:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My last response to Bassem is here User talk:باسم#Mediation Request
Alaa, I sincerely request that we avoid playing games. Both you and Bassem are closed sysops in Arabic Wikipedia, and we have never interacted on any talk page before.
The situation is clear and straightforward. Using your privileges as a means of intimidation is unnecessary and completely unacceptable. Riad Salih (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Riad Salih I will not answer the personal accusations, but can you explain where the "intimidation" happened? The only time I talked about "block" was on my talk page "If this happened in another project, both users would be blocked for violating the three-revert rule", as both of you made four reverts. In general, in order not to prolong the discussion further, I apologize if I expressed any kind of unintended "intimidation" or any comment that make you feel uncomfortable. --Alaa :)..! 22:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to notify me each time, and I have already expressed my concerns. If you wish to report the R3R violation, you are free to do so and report both me and Bassem. I am willing to accept any resulting block if it is in accordance with the rules. My objection lies in the misuse of your administrative tools, which were provided by the community to support impartial decision-making. There are no personal accusations, as you claim. Facts are facts. Riad Salih (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But even the facts do not always tell the truth", I repeat what I mentioned previously "I welcome the participation of any other colleague, and I may be wrong, and therefore I welcome the correction of any mistake I made, as we all have a common goal". Once again, I will not respond to any personal accusations and conclusions. Also, please be precise in what you said that "we have never interacted on any talk page before", because I remember you writing to me on my talk page on Arabic Wikipedia several months ago, and also other responses that occurred between us on various pages on arwiki. --Alaa :)..! 22:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riad Salih: Just because you believe Alaa protected m:The Wrong Version does not mean that Alaa is biased. You and باسم were edit warring. To stop the edit war, an admin protected the version of the page before the edit war started. Now, you need to discuss why you believe your version is right, on the talk page. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Mdaniels5757 I appreciate your passage here. m:The Wrong Version is a basic rule on all Wikimedia projects.
However, he intentionally selected his friend's version. I don't believe there can be any other explanation. If he wanted to maintain neutrality, he could have at least sent both of us a message or a warning to prevent an edit war.
I kindly request your assistance as a neutral party to mediate between us. Even if the outcome doesn't favor me, it's not a problem. What I dislike is the way they try handling things.(Cf : User talk:باسم#Mediation Request)
_
Alaa, the conversation has already been lengthy, and we don't want to spend another day going back and forth on it. The situation is clear and well-defined, and this will be my final response. We have never had a discussion on Wikimedia Commons, so please avoid turning around and backing up different versions to justify your actions. We are all aware of how things work. Let's save ourselves the time. You wanted to support your friend, that's fine, but it shouldn't involve your sysop tools.
Best regards. Riad Salih (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riad Salih You need to stop assuming bad faith. He did not intentionally select "his friend"s version; he selected the version before the edit war. He is neutral and is not involved in the dispute. He did not need to send you both a message or a warning before stopping the edit war. If he blocked you both (as he could have), I would have expected a warning first, but he did not block any of you. He just stopped the edit war. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Riad Salih, in the future, if you actually want mediation, please bring an issue to COM:AN instead of COM:ANU, describe the situation as neutrally as possible, and link to where discussion is already taking place instead of starting a parallel discussion. "He accused me of falsifying history without presenting any concrete evidence and without engaging in a meaningful discussion. This accusation is entirely baseless, then he started an edit war" does not sound like a neutral statement of a disagreement, it sounds like an accusation. So which is it? Are you saying there is a problem with باسم's conduct or are you saying you want (and will accept) mediation? - Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jmabel and Mdaniels, for your feedback, which I really appreciate.
I took the time to thank Bassem on arwiki for his translation and initiated a discussion. I wanted to be respectful, so I didn't want to overwrite the file directly (COM:CIV).
Bassem instead of engaging in a conversation, he chose to initiate an edit war. It would have been preferable if we could have discussed from the beginning, as he has now started a discussion on his talk page.
I felt the need for mediation because I perceived Alaa (assuming good faith can't be applied in this case) to be biased and favoring his friend's version, his sudden involvement lacked a logical explanation. I felt intimidated by this situation, and it seemed unfair. Sysop tools should be utilized in a neutral manner, and if anyone feels biased, they should refrain from participating in such conflicts. Therefore, I proposed mediation to avoid wasting time for all parties involved.
I am open to mediation. That is the primary purpose of this discussion. Jmabel or Mdaniels5757, I am extremely flexible and ready to engage in mediation, and I am even prepared to accept being blocked or warned if I have violated any rules, but it must be done fairly. Considering that English is not my native language, there may be some disarrangement of ideas or occasional contradictions, as Jmabel pointed out.
Otherwise, I wish you all a good day. Riad Salih (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, stop repeating the personal accusations and assuming bad faith with words like "biased", "favoring his friend's version", "lacked a logical explanation"..etc! Since I'm "biased" according to your opinion and personal imagination, I hope you respond to the comments of Mdaniels5757 and Jmabel -Thank you- for ending this discussion. --Alaa :)..! 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banana jnana[edit]

User is clearly not here to build an image repository. Already blocked on mediawiki, meta and simple for similar reasons. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Globally locked by EPIC. That was a swift response. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Engelberthumperdink[edit]

Engelberthumperdink (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Systematically insults users who nominate their files for deletion [10] [11], removes deletion templates [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] and so on. The user has multiple blocks for copyright violations. Quick1984 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Totally out of line. The other blocks were 7 years ago, so they don't have much bearing, but I'll block for a week as a reminder to the user that this conduct is not acceptable. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quick1984: thank you, by the way, for providing a solid set of diffs. Just "Дебил" in the first one as a way of addressing another user probably is enough for a block. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, "Дебил" is a "moron". Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Engelberthumperdink is now asking on his talk page to have his block lifted. It turns out that (as I did not previously know) he has been in conflict with a user whom I have had past issues with myself so I am probably not the admin to carry this forward. Will someone else please take over reviewing the block, etc., and say here that you are doing so? Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

66.90.190.251[edit]

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

Vandalism [21], [22], [23] 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also 66.90.190.250 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
66.90.190.250 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Both blocked for 1 week. Did I miss a third IP? Ellywa (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too many similar images[edit]

Rasitha nellickal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - Could you look at this users uploads? There are too many similar images. Is it ok to upload such similar images? AntanO 09:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem. There are perhaps too many images of one dog -- no big deal, happens all the time -- but taking a dozen reasonably good pictures of a somewhat unusual plant is welcome (as would be other opinions!).
@AntanO: when you report someone here, you should tell them on their user talk page. I'll do that for you this time. - Jmabel ! talk 14:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=872577781"