Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems
Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
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 | |||
116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
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
| ||
Note
- Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
- Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~is available for this. - It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
- Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
A1Cafel is banned from using Flickr2Commons, to be implemented via Special:AbuseFilter/208. They may continue to use other means to import files created by others, but if that turns out to be problematic, appropriate measures can be taken. No consensus on a site ban at this time. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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 and hostile behaviour towards Flickr original sources
editA1Cafel has often explained to us that normal social mores do not apply to them and that as they are unable to achieve them, they cannot be expected to comply with them. They're also a most persistent uploader of Flickr content, often duplicated or inappropriately licensed (but woe betide anyone else who makes a similar mistake, as A1Cafel's main activity here is to nominate other's content for deletion on the thinnest of grounds!)
Most recently we have this: User_talk:A1Cafel#Request A Flickr source requesting that A1Cafel slow down from uploading their content, so that they may do it themselves. A very reasonable request, and we should always be gracious towards the photographers who create the material we rely on. A1Cafel's reply was 'unhelpful', shall we say. I replied myself here, but they blanked it without comment (as is their perfect right).
Is it time to seek a topic ban on A1Cafel for uploading from Flickr? It's an endless stream of trouble, it's very little benefit; a 'bot could do it better and without the licensing mistakes. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- A1Cafel has often explained to us that normal social mores do not apply to them and that as they are unable to achieve them, they cannot be expected to comply with them. I was involved in at least the last couple of ANU complaints having to do with A1Cafel's behavior and I don't remember them ever saying that. So do you have diffs of where they have said anything even remotely along those lines or are you just making up stuff? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, User:A1Cafel, if a Flickr user is interested in uploading their content here themself, you should certainly allow them to do so rather than preempt them. -Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Problem is they don’t seem to care going by the discussion on A1Cafel’s talk page. Plus I have seen them upload duplicates of what another contributor was uploading and even uploading photographs containing FoP/copyrighted elements, same type of material they DR others for. Will try and get some diffs when I get home but the lack of archiving will make it time consuming. Bidgee (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Bidgee, Did you find some diffs? -- Ooligan (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I understand, but uploaded it after 12 hours they changed the license is not preempt them IMO. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Admittedly I didn't read through the whole conversation on A1Cafel's talk page but it sounds like the original photographer didn't intend to upload the images to Commons but then decided to when they found out A1Cafel was doing it. Then they changed the licenses on some of their photographs in the process. I wouldn't put it on A1Cafel if that's what happened. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, that particular issue is about the fact that A1Cafel applied a rule about (alleged) copyright protection on an element in a photograph of my hand that I uploaded, while four minutes after that deletion nomination they decided to upload a range of pictures from that same series, among which was one photograph with an element that would have violated Commons rules. I then informed them about this double standards and them violating the same rule they applied to me. After that they decided to upload a version of my photograph with a blurred element in it just so it would fit within the Commons rules. Let's just put it bluntly. This is about hypocrisy. Somebody who is hunting down violations and does mass nominate photos for violations, while at the same times doesn't apply that rule to themselves. In this particular example, the blurred part is also part of the political message which the photo is about, effectively vandalizing and damaging the whole purpose of the photo.l, hence my appeal to have it deleted altogether. This is not about the permission change but about the fact that the image was firstly uploaded in violation with the rules (hence I was not planning to upload it, while allowing it to be used wherever it would fit in the rules, a CC2 license is not exclusive to Commons. And secondly, it's about altering the image to fit in the rules correcting the violating that the uploader in all their haste at first did not notice, and thereby effectively vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless. Labrang (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your aware that the CC2 license allows for people to modify the image for any purpose right? I don't really see why that wouldn't include someone blurring part of the want to. You can complain its vandalism all day, but your the who released the image under a license that allows for it to be modified. And so what if A1Cafel blurred the file after uploading it? We do that all the time. At least they noticed the problem and fixed it. Which isn't the case with most of the image they nominate for deletion BTW. A lot of uploaders could really care less about following copyright and most of them don't fix offending images after the fact when its brought up to them. So I don't really see what the issue is here. Like only people who have a 100% perfect record can nominate images for deletion. Anyway I'd suggest changing the license on your images if your going to be that offended by someone modifying them. I'm not sure if CC2 can be retracted though. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- "At least they noticed the problem and fixed it." - in fact - I was the one pointing it out to them. They uploaded the photo minutes after they nominated a photo from the very same source and Flickr album for deletion for this very same [alleged] violation of rules. Under any normal circumstances we would use the "H" word or "double standards". I understand that is an unacceptable word here as it breaches "assume good faith", although, as a good faith user myself, it feels not like that. So what we have here is someone who systematically nominates files for deletion for (alleged) violations of rules and at the same time mass grabs photos and then in the rush of the moment to upload these photos "because they can" forgets the rules they just applied to others. I have seen others doing more or less the same. Is it a credit based system here? [seriously wonder that, not bad faith question - not every critical assessment is bad faith]. Labrang (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your aware that the CC2 license allows for people to modify the image for any purpose right? I don't really see why that wouldn't include someone blurring part of the want to. You can complain its vandalism all day, but your the who released the image under a license that allows for it to be modified. And so what if A1Cafel blurred the file after uploading it? We do that all the time. At least they noticed the problem and fixed it. Which isn't the case with most of the image they nominate for deletion BTW. A lot of uploaders could really care less about following copyright and most of them don't fix offending images after the fact when its brought up to them. So I don't really see what the issue is here. Like only people who have a 100% perfect record can nominate images for deletion. Anyway I'd suggest changing the license on your images if your going to be that offended by someone modifying them. I'm not sure if CC2 can be retracted though. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, that particular issue is about the fact that A1Cafel applied a rule about (alleged) copyright protection on an element in a photograph of my hand that I uploaded, while four minutes after that deletion nomination they decided to upload a range of pictures from that same series, among which was one photograph with an element that would have violated Commons rules. I then informed them about this double standards and them violating the same rule they applied to me. After that they decided to upload a version of my photograph with a blurred element in it just so it would fit within the Commons rules. Let's just put it bluntly. This is about hypocrisy. Somebody who is hunting down violations and does mass nominate photos for violations, while at the same times doesn't apply that rule to themselves. In this particular example, the blurred part is also part of the political message which the photo is about, effectively vandalizing and damaging the whole purpose of the photo.l, hence my appeal to have it deleted altogether. This is not about the permission change but about the fact that the image was firstly uploaded in violation with the rules (hence I was not planning to upload it, while allowing it to be used wherever it would fit in the rules, a CC2 license is not exclusive to Commons. And secondly, it's about altering the image to fit in the rules correcting the violating that the uploader in all their haste at first did not notice, and thereby effectively vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless. Labrang (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Problem is they don’t seem to care going by the discussion on A1Cafel’s talk page. Plus I have seen them upload duplicates of what another contributor was uploading and even uploading photographs containing FoP/copyrighted elements, same type of material they DR others for. Will try and get some diffs when I get home but the lack of archiving will make it time consuming. Bidgee (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, User:A1Cafel, if a Flickr user is interested in uploading their content here themself, you should certainly allow them to do so rather than preempt them. -Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- "You released this file under Creative Commons, so your fault when we mess with your work [Next time don't do that]" - This attitute from multiple people is very disrespectful towards the actual creators of the high quality content we want & need.
Obviously, the licence allows it. But basic collegiality, which is also expected on Commons dosen't. If a author wants to organize their collection on Commons themselfes, instead of everything being quickly dumped, and requests to do so, then this should be respected. (Those authors don't want something, they provide volunteer work) I don't see why that would even be up for discussion. If a uploader dosen't want their files overwritten, then this should be respected. ~TheImaCow (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)- Just to clarify I don't have an issue with Labrang saying they don't want their photographs to be modified if they are uploaded to Commons. That's their prerogative. My problem is purely with them saying blurrying out part of the photograph is "vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless." Since as you say basic collegiality is expected on Commons and photoraphers don't get a special pass from that just because their photographs are high quality or whatever. 100% a photographer can ask someone not to overwrite one of their photographs but they should do it without baselessly screaming vandalism at the drop of a hat. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- "disrupting" the message of the subject. I am willing to apologize for too casually using the word "vandalizing", but let's be frank here. In this particular example the said user only did that to bend the photo to fit in the rules, regardless whether it would actually remain valuable. Again, there's no harm in deleting a photo if it doesn't fit in the rules. Labrang (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify I don't have an issue with Labrang saying they don't want their photographs to be modified if they are uploaded to Commons. That's their prerogative. My problem is purely with them saying blurrying out part of the photograph is "vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless." Since as you say basic collegiality is expected on Commons and photoraphers don't get a special pass from that just because their photographs are high quality or whatever. 100% a photographer can ask someone not to overwrite one of their photographs but they should do it without baselessly screaming vandalism at the drop of a hat. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Support indefinite block – they were blocked indefinitely for similar discourse of disruptive behavior a while back, but this discussion gives me little hope they have changed. I'm afraid to say that this is the only course of solution, except that a potential unblock request in the future should also be voted on by the community. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The last time this account was blocked (indefinitely, by the way), I thought they would wait some time before requesting their return to the project, something like 6 months to a year. But they came back a month later... At the time, Mdaniels5757 had pinged me to give my opinion on A1Cafel's return, but I chose to remain silent due to my conflicts with the user. Well, whatever is decided here, I believe that if the block is not permanent, we will eventually face the same problems as before. It's a shame... I was thinking of suggesting that the user request an unblock on the English Wikipedia – I would support that – to "clean" their global history. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree that the users behaviour can be seen as rude, and I'd say it's hardly acceptable to disregard the photographers request to upload images themselves, so the initial statement here is reasonable. On the other hand, there are DW issues with the photographers' uploads, and their replies to A1Cafel are no less rude, besides they are wrong. I'd suggest A1Cafel should respect request for not uploading images and leave more time for photographers to upload themselves, and if A1Cafel agrees, this issue is resolved without anything further. --Krd 06:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I totally agree, and I will refrain from uploading files from Labrang's Flickr stream (Jelger Groeneveld). --A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- During this most recent unblock request here:User talk:A1Cafel/Archive 13#Unblock request, @Mdaniels5757 wrote "Thank you for your thoughtful unblock request. I'm leaning towards granting it. Before I do, however: there is still a section on your talk page, "Request: Please, name files with good file names, before you upload", that I think deserves a response. Please do so (and I expect you to respond to these sorts of things in the future; this is part of communication)."
- This referenced Talk Page section is here: User talk:A1Cafel/Archive 13#Request: Please, name files with good file names, before you upload., where A1Cafel made this promise: "I will make use of the "Prefix selected names" function to added meaningful filenames before uploaded. Even I missed it, I will submit a file rename request to change it." [exact quote] This Unlock request related written "promise" has not been kept. Complete disregard for their own promise to the unblocking Admin and other Commons volunteers.
- After A1Cafel promised to do this on 22 May 2024, over 500+ photo files have been uploaded that- as of today- still have meaningless file names [3]. Also, no file rename requests have ever been submitted for these as promised.
- This is relevent, because it shows that A1Cafel's most recent promise has not been kept. My review of these uploaded files with meaningless names, since the May 2024 Unblock Request, shows a serial non-compliance with at least one of the terms for granting the unblock request. -- Ooligan (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- During this most recent unblock request here:User talk:A1Cafel/Archive 13#Unblock request, @Mdaniels5757 wrote "Thank you for your thoughtful unblock request. I'm leaning towards granting it. Before I do, however: there is still a section on your talk page, "Request: Please, name files with good file names, before you upload", that I think deserves a response. Please do so (and I expect you to respond to these sorts of things in the future; this is part of communication)."
- I neither support nor oppose any sanctions of A1, but this seems both unacceptably sloppy and relevant to the case. Dronebogus (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am for an undefinite block at all from Commons. Their deletion requests (see absurd, senseless and often groundless deletion requests) and generally maintenance requests are more harmful than useful. -- Blackcat
12:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- How many deletion requests by A1Cafel have you processed or commented on this year? Krd 12:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Blackcat, you wrote "I am for an undefinite block at all from Commons" - to be clear, did you mean "I am for an indefinite block from Commons?" -- Ooligan (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: , to be even clearer, I am for a block with expiration date: never. -- Blackcat
- @Ooligan: , to be even clearer, I am for a block with expiration date: never. -- Blackcat
- I’m getting punitive justice vibes from this, which as you probably know is not the point of blocking. We don’t “make an example” of people, especially a user who just seems to veer more towards the “incompetent” end of the Hanlon scale. Dronebogus (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
It sure seems like a lot of the issues with A1Cafel could be resolved with just a topic ban from transferring images from other sites rather than an indef. — Rhododendrites talk | 12:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree and
Oppose a complete block. IMO quite a lot of their other work regarding deletion requests seems to be good, frequently for images that are deleted for lack of FoP. I have no reason to assume that they systematically or malevolently make excessive deletion requests. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak oppose i always against indef block. but community want indef block i guess.. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Rhododendrites. A topic ban on transferring photos since the issue seems to be the respect of other artists' wishes when it comes to interacting with Commons. I say this as an avowed Flickr and Commons user, I would certainly rather transfer my own images to Commons and release them under a more current license here, as Flickr hasn't moved past cc-by-2.0, something nobody but me can do with my own creations. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 19:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you vote twice for he same block? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I !voted for Blackcat's proposed block, and I !voted for yours (in different months). If I shouldn't have done that, I withdraw the second !vote. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you vote twice for he same block? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Seiichi Miyashita
edit- Seiichi Miyashita (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
This user has no understanding of the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, repeatedly creates categories whose purpose is unclear, and and does not attempt to explain why it is necessary in the discussion. He does not even seem to accept repeated warnings. Also, in that discussion and the category he created, he remarks that “let's upload a photo to commemorate the visits”(Revision #929658148) and seems to mistake Commons for SNS. Bart Buchtfluß (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Bart Buchtfluß: You must inform users when you report them here. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate it. Bart Buchtfluß (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted the category, and warned this user once more. Yann (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- みなさん、ありがとう、つかれるね、よろしく。宮下 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- （ご参考）https://seiichi-miyashita.jimdofree.com/2024/09/28/cross-architecture/ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- 拙稿の英訳も遅れがちなので、説明の原文も、翻訳してから、ブログのページに載せますね。お元気にてお過ごしください。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- アーキテクトとして、わたしの目から見て、コモンズの写真群も、フリーなアップ先に、思えたんですけどね。
- よく撮れているなら、いいんじゃないかな。みなさま、それぞれ、お考えも、あるとは、十分に心得ています。。。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- かさねがさね、せっかくなので、
- Pages in category "Commons users"
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Commons_users
- に、「User:Seiichi Miyashita」というページを、作らせてもらって、
- 適度なレイアウトにて、「十字架と教会」の写真群と説明文も載せる、というのなら、よさそうに感じます。
- そんな方も、いらっしゃるけど、「他の人もやっているから、自分もよいだろう」ということになるのかな？ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- FYI : User:Seiichi Miyashita I want to upload my media to this page. ok? Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- （試しに、作ってみました、ご意見、待っております、説明文、いらないのかな） Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- ＦＹＲ：ガイドライン、スレスレかも。よいのではないかな。説明の英文は、もう物議をかもさないよう、そのうち、ブログのほうに載せますね。いつか、お目にかかれますことを、心より、楽しみにしております。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- （試しに、作ってみました、ご意見、待っております、説明文、いらないのかな） Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- FYI : User:Seiichi Miyashita I want to upload my media to this page. ok? Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- 拙稿の英訳も遅れがちなので、説明の原文も、翻訳してから、ブログのページに載せますね。お元気にてお過ごしください。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- （ご参考）https://seiichi-miyashita.jimdofree.com/2024/09/28/cross-architecture/ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- みなさん、ありがとう、つかれるね、よろしく。宮下 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- （ご指摘を受けとめ、直しました）
- 「Cross & Architecture」
- 『十字架とともに、映るチャペル』
- 〜十字架と建築の織りなすビスタ〜
- いつも、十字架と教会は、互いに、強く、暖かく、慕うように、支えあいます。
- ハーモニーは、美しく、確かに、広がり、我々の心に、深く、永く、響きます。
- 教会を訪れたら、建物の光景と、重厚な風格を、破天荒な輪郭にて、捉えます。
Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- ＊ご了承いただけたのでしょうか、もしそうなら、ありがたいです、これから、翻訳を依頼しますね＊ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bart Buchtfluß: もしよろしければ、ゆっくり、英訳お願いします。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Seiichi Miyashita 今一度こちらのコメントをご確認いただいた上で，コメント内でBart Buchtflußさんが言及されている質問「なぜCategory:Church Apex crossesがすでにあるのにCategory:Cross & Architectureを作るのか」にお答えください．「カテゴリに関するガイドライン」についてはCommons:Categories/jaをお読みください．
- なお，ご存知であれば申し訳ありませんがCategoryという英単語には「分類上の区分」「種類」などという意味があり（参照），ここにおいては写真を種類ごとに分類する機能です．貴殿の「いろいろなトピック」というコメントは少々解釈違いに見えましたので，見直していただけると幸いです．--Tmv (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- それは、コメントにも軽くふれたように、
- 「頂点にある十字架」というワードには、
- コモンズにアップする品格の写真を撮る、
- モチベーションを維持できないと感じた、
- ということも、大きな、動機、理由です。
- 「教会の頂点にある十字架」だけでなく、
- 教会建築との、確かで、豊かな、一体感、
- を捉えた、写真群の、構成を考えました。
- また、ガイドラインを、すべて把握して、
- トライするには、無理もあると思います。
- まずは、気軽な投稿を、勧めてもいます。
- 当初、個人の制作物のコレクションにも、
- 見えるような成果も多いと、感じました。
- ただ、相応に、テーマ、分類、などなど、
- コンセンサスもあるようにも、思います。
- いまは以上です。ありがとうございます。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- 私もウィキ関連の価値をよく学び知るべきだけれど、新しい多くのユーザーを迎える優しさも大切に思う。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- 「井戸端」にても、話題になっているようです。
- なので、気は進まないのですが、付け加えます。
- 自分の利用者ページに、写真群の説明文の英訳、
- さらに、当面において、最後のアップロードに、
- プロテスタントの礼拝堂の正面の壁面の十字架、
- レリーフ、を捉えた、写真を、撮りにゆきます。
- これは、「教会の頂上の十字架」というよりも、
- 「十字架と建築」に、なるのかもしれませんね。
- ただ、すでに、議論の的になった当カテゴリは、
- もうありませんし、作品を置けても、みなさま、
- カテゴリをチェンジされていましたし、わたし、
- 自分にしか撮れない写真群、かもしれないから、
- 自分のページに置けるなら、それがベストだと、
- 思うようになりました。それでよいでしょうか。
- FYR:https://www.satohide.co.jp/works/05/05-11.html Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Seiichi Miyashita 返信ありがとうございます．やっとMiyashitaさんの意図が見えました．確かにCategory:Christian crossesには「建築と共に十字架が写っている写真」のカテゴリはありません．作るにしても，より明確なタイトル（例えばCategory:Crosses with religious architectures）と説明が必要だと思います．ちなみにレリーフについてはCategory:Reliefsがあり，他のものについても大抵は既存のカテゴリに収まるのではないかと私は思います．これ以上は管理者の仲介が必要なさそうなので，（まだ腑に落ちない部分があるのであれば）井戸端に場所を移しましょうか．
- @admins: according to his comment above, he created Category:Cross & Architecture for photos of crosses with religious architectures. He says the existing category is limited to crosses on tops, and there is no category for photos of reliefs — crosses on the front wall of a chapel, etc. I told him about Category:Reliefs, but it may be true that there's no overarching category for crosses with religious architectures. Anyway, we don't seem to need to be here anymore, so we will move to the project chat. Thanks, --Tmv (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Tmv さん、
- ありがとうございます。
- 『Category:Crosses with religious architectures』は、コモンズの創作・撮影・アップのモチベーションを、
- ガイドラインに基づいて、より確かに、伝えてもらえる、とても、素晴らしいネーミングと、感じますし、
- ぜひ、個人的にも、強く、支持したいですし、ぜひとも、カテゴリとして、活用させていただきたいです。
- 自分の利用者のページにおいては、いまのまま、シンプルなイメージにて、わかりやすく、伝わりやすい、
- ナチュラルな「Cross & Architecture」として、写真群のギャラリーを、キープしておけたら、と思います。
- よろしくお願いします。
- 宮下誠一 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- わたくしより、『Category:Crosses with religious architectures』も、ご提案したい、と、願っております。
- コモンズにふさわしい、普遍的かつ客観的な、英文の説明も調えたいので、しばらく、お時間をください！ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @admins:
- 今後とも、お力添え、お願い申しあげます。
- 宮下 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: Thanks.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF?uselang=ja#Cross_&_Architecture Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- ーーーーーーー（説明文案）ーーーーーーー
- みなさまへ
- 『十字架と共に映る宗教建築』創設に際して、
- ウィキメデイアの熟練者の方々の勧めも受け、
- このカテゴリの初版の制作者として提唱する。
- カテゴリ名の英単語の連鎖は、十字架と教会、
- キリスト教の建築と記念碑を、示唆している。
- 両者を、象徴的、両義的、叙情的、芸術的に、
- 捉えた、主題群、画像群、を、示唆している。
- 品格あるメモリアルな光景も、示唆している。
- 特定の、構図に、情報として、抄録したもの、
- 両者の、対峙と、協調へと、昇華しないもの、
- など、趣旨に、沿わない画は、対象としない。
- 明快な、明確な、基準はなく、主観に委ねる。
- 神聖と崇高を、信仰と友愛を、思慕と憧憬を、
- 確かなモチーフに示す、作品のアップロード、
- 多くの方々に、鋭意、推奨したく、念じます。
- 宮下 誠一
- ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- 皆さま、それよりのちに、
- なにも、コメントはなく、
- 文言も、代わらなさそう。
- 英訳を、近く、頼みます。
- ご静観、お願いしますね。
- https://www.ulatus.jp/?utm_term=ユレイタス&utm_campaign=Ulatus_Japan_Translation_Brand_Mar22&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=8722753614&hsa_cam=16574079525&hsa_grp=134922315335&hsa_ad=624613055012&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-337631684070&hsa_kw=ユレイタス&hsa_mt=e&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADggnbjnNSq5eQryxKlswP_ZDGj2H Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- 私もウィキ関連の価値をよく学び知るべきだけれど、新しい多くのユーザーを迎える優しさも大切に思う。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bart Buchtfluß: もしよろしければ、ゆっくり、英訳お願いします。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Elcobbola and out of process deletion.
edit- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The ratio of "fire and brimstone" to "constructive conversation" has gone out of wack, and there is no consensus for any further action, so it's time to close this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Please see this history Creating File:Shellenberger2024.jpg - Wikimedia Commons: and this series of edits on the Undeletion requests. User:Elcobbola reverted my undeletion of this file which I did before his comment, and I commented afterwards, saying it was done.
As far as it goes, this file should remain undeleted and a deletion discussion take place, because of the disagreement. Also, User:Elcobbola needs to be instructed not to revert other admin actions without discussion first. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also, he threatened to block me on my userpage. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say by me. There's that critical reading again. Эlcobbola talk 20:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide the policy where out-of-process admin actions cannot be reverted. That an admin believes "Creative Commons - free for reuse" is an acceptable license is so blatantly wrong as to be embarrassing. Эlcobbola talk 20:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your delete of my undeletion was out-of-process. I undeleted it before your comment and was getting ready to close the discussion when we had an edit conflict. The fact that we had a disagreement mean that this should have been taken to deletion discussions. "Creative Commons - free for reuse" is certainly an expression of intent, and should be good enough until we can have proof of source, since the individual did not apparently know about the impending deletion until there was time. You have the worst case of never assuming good faith. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is, of course, a lie. My comment was entered at 19:57, 4 October 2024, the same exact time as the out-of-process restoration (19:57, 4 October 2024). It also took time to research the source and write the comment; it was "in process" well before the out-of-process restoration. There has been discussion, after discussion, after discussion resulting in consensus that UDRs are to be left open a reasonable amount of time to allow for feedback. You gave it a mere four minutes. Where have I made any reference to your intentions? Have you not read COM:AGF either? Эlcobbola talk 20:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about my intentions. There's your critical reading skills problem. Again. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also, point me to the policy that explains how long UDRs are to be left open before acting on them, since I've been away for some time. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- COM:AGF refers to intent. I didn't reference a policy. Critical reading, indeed. Эlcobbola talk 20:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking you about assuming good faith of me. Reading skills. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- COM:AGF refers to intent. I didn't reference a policy. Critical reading, indeed. Эlcobbola talk 20:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is, of course, a lie. My comment was entered at 19:57, 4 October 2024, the same exact time as the out-of-process restoration (19:57, 4 October 2024). It also took time to research the source and write the comment; it was "in process" well before the out-of-process restoration. There has been discussion, after discussion, after discussion resulting in consensus that UDRs are to be left open a reasonable amount of time to allow for feedback. You gave it a mere four minutes. Where have I made any reference to your intentions? Have you not read COM:AGF either? Эlcobbola talk 20:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your delete of my undeletion was out-of-process. I undeleted it before your comment and was getting ready to close the discussion when we had an edit conflict. The fact that we had a disagreement mean that this should have been taken to deletion discussions. "Creative Commons - free for reuse" is certainly an expression of intent, and should be good enough until we can have proof of source, since the individual did not apparently know about the impending deletion until there was time. You have the worst case of never assuming good faith. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's not the end of the world if we retain the picture for a deletion discussion and it's not the end of the world that it stays deleted until the user gets their ducks in a row. Truce? Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please tell me why this isn't en:WP:wheel-warring, which is just about the worst thing that you can do on a WMF project? So ban everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would’ve thought the worst thing you could do was pretending to be an an admin and gaining the trust and respect of the entire Wikimedia community only to turn around and reveal you were a deep-cover troll the whole time. But apparently the real mortal sin is the sysop version of edit warring. Dronebogus (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- the more worse thing would be doing it together. think about it, majority of wikimedia team(VMF, admins, burec.) is troll and they destroy whole operation in just one day collectively. i would be crazy if that happen lol. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 12:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would’ve thought the worst thing you could do was pretending to be an an admin and gaining the trust and respect of the entire Wikimedia community only to turn around and reveal you were a deep-cover troll the whole time. But apparently the real mortal sin is the sysop version of edit warring. Dronebogus (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola and Bastique: both of you, be ashamed of your actions. Log off, go outside, have some sleep. Come back tomorrow. Tomorrow you'll see you both made mistakes. Multichill (talk)— Preceding undated comment was added at 21:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- what was elcobbola's mistake? modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 13:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Elcobbola's primary mistake was not communicating with me after I restored it, and instead immediately deleted it again--we could have come to an agreement without usurping each other's actions and getting into wheel warring. But the fact is that I restored it at the exact time that he told the user we wouldn't restore it, so we were already contradicting one another from the very start without having actually seen the other's actions.Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 22:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- what was elcobbola's mistake? modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 13:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- At Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Shellenberger2024.jpg, the undeletor wrote: "conditional Keep for a limited time until the user can get the origin license straightened out either by VRT or by getting the license fixed in the source.".
- To me, the undeletor is publishing a file on this website being well aware that it currently doesn't meet our requirements.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)- This is the correct process if it is very likely that we get the confirmation of the permission to upload under the license the file was uploaded under. The file should be marked with {{PP}} and if we get the free license confirmed it can be kept and if not it will be deleted after 30 days. GPSLeo (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you read {{PP}} it requires "Place the following code on image pages after sending an email to VRT". So your understanding of the correct process might be mistaken.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)- Uploading the photos after sending the mail is problematic as the mail should link to the photo on Commons. As I understood this thread the request to the author to confirm the license is already sent. GPSLeo (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- The text of the template doesn't support that. {{Npd}} is for requesting the author to send an email to confirm. If it doesn't happen, we don't "undelete".
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)- The Uploader gets the message to ask the author to confirm the license. If the Uploader does this they have to replace the missing permission with permission pending template. During that process files should not be deleted. If the Uploader does not act within 7 days the file gets deleted and it is correct to not to undelete the file. If the Uploader acts the file should not be deleted within the 30 days. GPSLeo (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- AFAWK the uploader didn't act. So deletion happened as it should.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- AFAWK the uploader didn't act. So deletion happened as it should.
- The Uploader gets the message to ask the author to confirm the license. If the Uploader does this they have to replace the missing permission with permission pending template. During that process files should not be deleted. If the Uploader does not act within 7 days the file gets deleted and it is correct to not to undelete the file. If the Uploader acts the file should not be deleted within the 30 days. GPSLeo (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- The text of the template doesn't support that. {{Npd}} is for requesting the author to send an email to confirm. If it doesn't happen, we don't "undelete".
- Uploading the photos after sending the mail is problematic as the mail should link to the photo on Commons. As I understood this thread the request to the author to confirm the license is already sent. GPSLeo (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you read {{PP}} it requires "Place the following code on image pages after sending an email to VRT". So your understanding of the correct process might be mistaken.
- Free for use without condition is Free for use without condition. We could upload it as CC-0 and they would have no legal recourse. The only reason I said "conditional keep" is, in fact, based on the license it was uploaded under it's evident that they do want at least attribution in the image. I think without hearing from the individual who owns the copyright, the kind thing to do is delete it, because although they've effectively released it for free, it's almost certain that isn't quite what they wanted to do. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 22:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder if you shouldn't consider resigning your adminship, Clearly, you haven't had much recent practice and second guessing admins who make decision based on our current processes isn't the way to go. Rather than understanding that this is problematic, you persist here.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)- Actually, I do understand the processes, and I know a lot about copyright, and I know a lot about why more people aren't involved here in Commons and why we have such trouble communicating to the public. There are reasons the uploader didn't act on the notice, and people don't think to look for those. As far as resigning my adminship? "Second guessing admins who make decisions based on our current processes" is a gross simplification of what happened and a complete misrepresentation of my position and actions. What happened with elcobbola isn't going to happen again, but I will disagree with other administrators here from time to time, especially when their process disagrees with my interpretation of copyright. I'll just not undo anyone's actions and start with discussion first. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- People on the project need to learn to be a little more self-critical. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming your good faith, I don't think your actions illustrate an understanding of the undeletion process nor "permission missing" process.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)- If you read the whole thread, you'll see that I've already stated that I need to navigate it better, but if it wasn't clear, it was an admission that I don't fully understand the current processes around undeletion and was doing it as I would have done it in 2010, with the assumption that the uploader was acting in good faith, didn't themselves understand the process and give them a second chance to straighten it out. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you could summarize what you gathered around the undeletion process and the permission missing process so we can assess if you should keep your adminship or not.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)- It doesn't appear you have any understanding of the adminship and de-adminship process Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't understand what is expected of admins for undeletions and missing permissions, I think a deadminship process should be initiated. Your adminship was reinstated mainly because people thought you knew what you are meant to do.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)- I understand what is expected of admins. I don't have to "summarize" it for you. In fact, you're being rather hostile about it. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- So it's clear to you now that undeletion wasn't correct, that you haven't followed the undeletion process of Wikimedia Commons, and that the uploader should have emailed a permission instead of you undeleting the file until some remedy was found? Further more that reporting the correct deletion of the file by an admin isn't a "user issue" to report as an "out of process deletion"?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)- This is bordering on sea-lioning Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 00:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- "Elcobbola and out of process deletion", then "Elcobbola's primary mistake", then "People on the project need to learn to be a little more self-critical", now "sea-lioning".
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)- So you’re one of those people who compiles evidence on people you don’t like. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 00:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- It just summarizes what you wrote here .. at least you seem to understand that there is a problem.
- I finally agree with Elcobbola about your block. Personal attacks are not ok. I suggest 1 month given that you are an admin.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- So you’re one of those people who compiles evidence on people you don’t like. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 00:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- "Elcobbola and out of process deletion", then "Elcobbola's primary mistake", then "People on the project need to learn to be a little more self-critical", now "sea-lioning".
- This is bordering on sea-lioning Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 00:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- So it's clear to you now that undeletion wasn't correct, that you haven't followed the undeletion process of Wikimedia Commons, and that the uploader should have emailed a permission instead of you undeleting the file until some remedy was found? Further more that reporting the correct deletion of the file by an admin isn't a "user issue" to report as an "out of process deletion"?
- I understand what is expected of admins. I don't have to "summarize" it for you. In fact, you're being rather hostile about it. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't understand what is expected of admins for undeletions and missing permissions, I think a deadminship process should be initiated. Your adminship was reinstated mainly because people thought you knew what you are meant to do.
- It doesn't appear you have any understanding of the adminship and de-adminship process Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you could summarize what you gathered around the undeletion process and the permission missing process so we can assess if you should keep your adminship or not.
- If you read the whole thread, you'll see that I've already stated that I need to navigate it better, but if it wasn't clear, it was an admission that I don't fully understand the current processes around undeletion and was doing it as I would have done it in 2010, with the assumption that the uploader was acting in good faith, didn't themselves understand the process and give them a second chance to straighten it out. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming your good faith, I don't think your actions illustrate an understanding of the undeletion process nor "permission missing" process.
- People on the project need to learn to be a little more self-critical. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I do understand the processes, and I know a lot about copyright, and I know a lot about why more people aren't involved here in Commons and why we have such trouble communicating to the public. There are reasons the uploader didn't act on the notice, and people don't think to look for those. As far as resigning my adminship? "Second guessing admins who make decisions based on our current processes" is a gross simplification of what happened and a complete misrepresentation of my position and actions. What happened with elcobbola isn't going to happen again, but I will disagree with other administrators here from time to time, especially when their process disagrees with my interpretation of copyright. I'll just not undo anyone's actions and start with discussion first. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder if you shouldn't consider resigning your adminship, Clearly, you haven't had much recent practice and second guessing admins who make decision based on our current processes isn't the way to go. Rather than understanding that this is problematic, you persist here.
- This is the correct process if it is very likely that we get the confirmation of the permission to upload under the license the file was uploaded under. The file should be marked with {{PP}} and if we get the free license confirmed it can be kept and if not it will be deleted after 30 days. GPSLeo (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please just put the stick down and walk away, this is nonsense the source site clearly states CC license without restrictions, ok its fine to seek clarity on which version and attribution but that isnt even on the site. Its freely licensed within scope no need to delete just to clarify the exact license, we've taken photos from flickr for years with similar licensing statement, we accept PD without any clarification. Gnangarra 02:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
ArionStar
editArionStar is blocked for a year, and indefinitely banned from Featured pictures candidates. They may appeal the ban after they have demonstrated that their behavior has changed. Yann (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Hi, For the record, I blocked ArionStar for 3 days following this disruptive nomination, and edit warring after I told them to stop. Hopefully, they got the message. Yann (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- The message has not reached its target after the first block, and I doubt a user currently writing "I will restart my male nudity agenda after the block" is much promising as part of the expected behavior.
- For the record also, it is far from an isolated incident. ArionStar has been often nominating three candidates instead of two, for years. Warned several times. All warnings ignored. The "three active nominations proposal" made by this user has been explicitly rejected by clear consensus a few months ago. Still the user continues to nominate three candidates frequently. Incredibly, the participants who do maintenance are sometimes reverted once or twice when they add the legitimate {{FPD}} template. Again and again, so we are tired and finally tolerate an inadmissible behavior. Frequently also, we miss the third / fourth nomination because it goes too fast (nominating + withdrawing the same day or the day after) and because maintenance workers are not numerous enough. Sadly, ArionStar often chooses the disrupting option to create problems. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- While I don't disagree with what you've said (in fact I'm just as frustrated as you are), I think the first link (Special:Diff/365419659; the "F*ck you, Wikimedia Commons" edit) can get a bit of rope since it was around 5 years ago. Point 2 I strongly agree with you and I hope they use the time of a more extended block to self-reflect. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. Five years ago yes, but same person, and according to yesterday's reaction, nothing has / will change(d). This is just a parallel to suggest caution regarding Yann's optimism. A reminder for "careful, maybe the message will not be listened as expected". Point 2, yes, look at this withdrawal at 14:04 for example. It occurs only after this nomination is still open and Zzzs's warning at 14:02 on the new nomination. If nobody notices, then there are three nominations instead of two. And it's so often like that! Even worse when the FPD template is removed without withdrawal. Check the archives. When ArionStar removes the FPD template (meaning "stop") at 20:26 to allow a wrong third nomination, it is clearly before this one finishes at 21:18:52 and while this one is still open until the day after. Mad! And that's the second time ArionStar reverts the template! What?! This is like telling us "I don't care the rules, I rule my way and you must accept 3 nominations from my person". -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, you are right that the perspective that ArionStar accepts and respects such a ban without a block is slim. So what do you propose? Full block? Block of the Commons namespace? Yann (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Or, as suggested by Cmao20, a "topic ban" (FPC section) that will be carefully monitored by all of us. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you happen to do a partial block on Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list indefinitely, it in practice will stop ArionStar from being able to make any nomination. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Great! Please give us normal work, not unnecessary concerns. There are newbies that legitimately need standard supervision from regulars. That's fair and enough maintenance. We don't need extra tasks for the whims of seasoned users like ArionStar. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you happen to do a partial block on Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list indefinitely, it in practice will stop ArionStar from being able to make any nomination. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Or, as suggested by Cmao20, a "topic ban" (FPC section) that will be carefully monitored by all of us. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, you are right that the perspective that ArionStar accepts and respects such a ban without a block is slim. So what do you propose? Full block? Block of the Commons namespace? Yann (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. Five years ago yes, but same person, and according to yesterday's reaction, nothing has / will change(d). This is just a parallel to suggest caution regarding Yann's optimism. A reminder for "careful, maybe the message will not be listened as expected". Point 2, yes, look at this withdrawal at 14:04 for example. It occurs only after this nomination is still open and Zzzs's warning at 14:02 on the new nomination. If nobody notices, then there are three nominations instead of two. And it's so often like that! Even worse when the FPD template is removed without withdrawal. Check the archives. When ArionStar removes the FPD template (meaning "stop") at 20:26 to allow a wrong third nomination, it is clearly before this one finishes at 21:18:52 and while this one is still open until the day after. Mad! And that's the second time ArionStar reverts the template! What?! This is like telling us "I don't care the rules, I rule my way and you must accept 3 nominations from my person". -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I see that I'm quoted in several of the links in this discussion, trying to make ArionStar behave according to Commons standard. As an old maintainer at FPC, I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to help, give advice, correct and support them, all to get them to better behave at FPC. Finally gave up and instead resorted to admonishing, telling, begging and warning. All to no avail. ArionStar has set out to live by their own "rules" on Commons, be it on FPC or other Commons projects, and usually creating a mess that other have to deal with. They do sometimes find good images that get promoted to FP, but it's a numbers game made on the efforts of other users, and it sets a bad example for all the new users who are trying out FPC. ArionStar's net contribution to Commons is something we can do without, and I would strongly recommend an extended site block with a minimum of one year. --Cart (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- If we don't go with an indefinite partial block, I'm with Cart for a 12-month-long site-wide block. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify what I meant by "on the efforts of other users". ArionStar don't make many FPC photos themselves, but usually nominate photos by other users. However, they can't edit them enough for FPC so they go around asking other users to do this for them. Some examples: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Not sure all the FPC users knows about this behavior. And then there is of course other cleanups that don't get noticed on the FPC page. --Cart (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Big mess. Without forgetting that the number of requests directly filed on the FPC pages is even higher. Often also, many reviewers make efforts to review a nomination, some improvements are requested, diverse participants waste time and energy to offer a better version, like Radomianin here for example, and then ArionStar just withdraws without qualms. As if the ratio of 5-1 was nothing, and as if the reviewers and helpers were totally devoted to this unsuccessful business. -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Another "highlight" from Arion (made a few months ago) that illustrates why they after ten years on Commons, and much of it on FPC, still don't understand the basics of photography outside using a phone camera: What's "shutter speed"? This unwillingness to learn is what creates much of the extra work of having them around on a project that's supposed to select the best photos on Commons. I have no problem with teaching young participants here, it is often fun and rewarding, and this mindset was one of the reasons I initially helped Arion and tried to set good examples for them. Unfortunately, Arion is only here to play. --Cart (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Cart and Basile have given excellent and very typical examples here. I am happy to help other people, also by trying to improve photos taken by other photographers, but it’s really frustrating if altruistic aid is carelessly despised, like Radomianin’s help in Basile’s example. Arion arbitrarily jumps in and out of nominations. This is a big contrast to the behaviour of other experienced nominators like Cmao20, Ikan Kekek, Tomer T and others. If they nominate a picture, they nominate it because they regard it as an excellent image and have good reasons for that, therefore they withdraw a nomination only if somebody points out serious problems which are not fixable. This shows that they are really interested in the pictures and in identifying the best images on Commons. But when somebody often quits running nominations just because they have found yet another darling, this suggests that they may be interested only in getting as many FP stars as possible as easily as possible. That’s not the purpose of Commons Featured pictures. – Aristeas (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah. I mean I can't pretend I don't like getting lots of FP stars. It's fun. But I do it because I genuinely like and appreciate good photography. I can happily spend an hour looking through old FPs by authors like Basile Morin or Poco a poco or Charlesjsharp. And because of that I try my best to put some real effort into nominations, to add categories, make improvements if necessary, and I think my roughly 80% historical success rate shows that while I don't always get it right, I do my best. Likewise Ikan and Tomer T both of whom have an excellent eye for photography. ArionStar on the other hand just dumps pictures on the page in a scattergun nominate/withdraw, nominate/withdraw pattern until he finds one that passes. I sometimes doubt if he even looks at pictures apart from in the thumbnail. And this creates a lot of work for others in reviewing substandard photos, dealing with the frequent mistakes in his nominations, and trying to offer advice that tends to fall on deaf ears. It isn't a pleasure for any of us to review bad photographs or to shoot something down in flames. One that annoyed me recently was this nomination in which ArionStar created it, admitted it was not FP in its current form, and then tagged another user in the hope that he would fix it. This attitude of creating work for others and then taking the credit appears in his Picture of the Year 'lobbying' too. Arion claims that it is his 'lobbying' that got POTY off the ground but he didn't do a single thing to actually help, that was the users who rewrote the scripts to make the contest possible. Arion's contribution was vandalising his own pictures and harassing Jimmy Wales on his talk page. Cmao20 (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Dear colleagues, I find it a great pity that it had to come to this with ArionStar, because many of his nominations were an enrichment to the FP archive. But I agree with Aristeas and Basile that ArionStar seems to be inconsistent in his intentions, based on the available data. Building a diverse FP media library should be the primary aim, not feeding the ego. Perhaps there is still a way to talk to ArionStar to make him understand this. Personally, I am sorry and wish there could be an alternative to such a long planned ban. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Addendum: But I also have to agree with Cmao20; making it too easy for yourself by leaving the evaluation of technical quality to others is not okay and counterproductive. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Aristeas and Cmao20 depict well the way it happens. The investment bet on others is too great, so much so that these participants saturate, get fed up, or even flee out of weariness. Example, the renomination that failed in November was made just one month after Ikan Kekek asked ArionStar to (really) stop. So it's a real deep problem, not just some trifles of behavior to correct. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah. I mean I can't pretend I don't like getting lots of FP stars. It's fun. But I do it because I genuinely like and appreciate good photography. I can happily spend an hour looking through old FPs by authors like Basile Morin or Poco a poco or Charlesjsharp. And because of that I try my best to put some real effort into nominations, to add categories, make improvements if necessary, and I think my roughly 80% historical success rate shows that while I don't always get it right, I do my best. Likewise Ikan and Tomer T both of whom have an excellent eye for photography. ArionStar on the other hand just dumps pictures on the page in a scattergun nominate/withdraw, nominate/withdraw pattern until he finds one that passes. I sometimes doubt if he even looks at pictures apart from in the thumbnail. And this creates a lot of work for others in reviewing substandard photos, dealing with the frequent mistakes in his nominations, and trying to offer advice that tends to fall on deaf ears. It isn't a pleasure for any of us to review bad photographs or to shoot something down in flames. One that annoyed me recently was this nomination in which ArionStar created it, admitted it was not FP in its current form, and then tagged another user in the hope that he would fix it. This attitude of creating work for others and then taking the credit appears in his Picture of the Year 'lobbying' too. Arion claims that it is his 'lobbying' that got POTY off the ground but he didn't do a single thing to actually help, that was the users who rewrote the scripts to make the contest possible. Arion's contribution was vandalising his own pictures and harassing Jimmy Wales on his talk page. Cmao20 (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Cart and Basile have given excellent and very typical examples here. I am happy to help other people, also by trying to improve photos taken by other photographers, but it’s really frustrating if altruistic aid is carelessly despised, like Radomianin’s help in Basile’s example. Arion arbitrarily jumps in and out of nominations. This is a big contrast to the behaviour of other experienced nominators like Cmao20, Ikan Kekek, Tomer T and others. If they nominate a picture, they nominate it because they regard it as an excellent image and have good reasons for that, therefore they withdraw a nomination only if somebody points out serious problems which are not fixable. This shows that they are really interested in the pictures and in identifying the best images on Commons. But when somebody often quits running nominations just because they have found yet another darling, this suggests that they may be interested only in getting as many FP stars as possible as easily as possible. That’s not the purpose of Commons Featured pictures. – Aristeas (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Another "highlight" from Arion (made a few months ago) that illustrates why they after ten years on Commons, and much of it on FPC, still don't understand the basics of photography outside using a phone camera: What's "shutter speed"? This unwillingness to learn is what creates much of the extra work of having them around on a project that's supposed to select the best photos on Commons. I have no problem with teaching young participants here, it is often fun and rewarding, and this mindset was one of the reasons I initially helped Arion and tried to set good examples for them. Unfortunately, Arion is only here to play. --Cart (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- A year goes by quickly. And then it will start again. There is no reason for things to change, since the previous 2 blocks of 3 days, then 3 months have proven to be sterile. Or maybe it should be 3 years? Let's say indefinite. When someone is warned not to do something, and still continues as if nothing was said / learnt, it means the sanctions are not effective. The reason of the last block was "Excessive Featured Pictures nominations by ArionEstar of low quality photos". Look at the current archives, every month, they are just full of similar low quality nominations. An example: 7 nominations by ArionStar on the same candidate list! 1) KatyPerry, 2) a poor picture of an ordinary bridge, 3) a house interior obviously withdrawn too early (see the post-withdrawal votes), 4) a truck, 5) a parrot, 6) a painting of a horse 7) a singer, with this nomination that caused a lot of work afterwards, due to a bad DR by the same user. How is it possible? The maximum is supposed to be 2 (excellent) pictures per nominator. Sometimes if you withdraw, you can have 3 nominations on the same page, or if really not lucky 2 active nominations + 2 withdrawals = 4. Seven, that's because ArionStar has been continuing to nominate poor candidates all the time. Extremely irritating. BUT, very patiently (and politely) the user is warned on the last nominations with the dedicated FPD template. Results? ArionStar deletes the comment as if we could talk to someone else, or do something else than checking the quotas. How to bear this? Next year again?... Never, thank you. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that impressive example, Basile – yes, 7 running nominations by Arion at the same time, a mixed bag of candidates of very different quality, but also a load of problems. Oh yes, that deletion request was a real mess; it took me hours (a) to understand exactly who did what when and why; (b) to find a clean solution; (c) to explain the issue and the solution to the involved persons. And Basile’s example is not an exception, and that weird deletion request was quite typical for the behaviour of the user in question. Therefore, while I am normally very hesitant about user bans, I must endorse completely the consequences proposed by Basile, Cart, etc. – Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Big mess. Without forgetting that the number of requests directly filed on the FPC pages is even higher. Often also, many reviewers make efforts to review a nomination, some improvements are requested, diverse participants waste time and energy to offer a better version, like Radomianin here for example, and then ArionStar just withdraws without qualms. As if the ratio of 5-1 was nothing, and as if the reviewers and helpers were totally devoted to this unsuccessful business. -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Ban ArionStar = ArionEstar (= "★") from FPC, proposal due to recurrent / unsolvable disruption
editArionStar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- ArionStar has been nominating three candidates (instead of maximum two) for years, and has been warned many times in the past. The proposal to increase the number of nominations has been refused by the vast majority of us. Despite this clear message, the user is regularly breaking our rules so as to place more candidates than possible (see Yann's block above).
- The user also employs disruption so as to rule FPC in a crazy manner, going until disrupting Wikipedia. It has gone so far that several of us decided to accept the disruption and not to revert anymore! Thus, a few days pass after the disruption is located / identified / ready to be reverted.
- There is always a quick "excuse" that helps people to to let it go in the instant. But the truth is that it happens again and again, with redundant schemes and exhausting actions.
- Re-nominating the same unsuccessful pictures many times, and encouraging others to do the same until we are so tired to let it go / abstain from voting / do something more productive.
- ArionStar was warned by Jimmy Wales himself (yes, Wikipedia creator) last July not to disrupt Wikimedia in this second paragraph: "So, that'd be extremely immature, premature, and unproductive.", but ArionStar did not listen and rushed headlong in August to give us unnecessary extra work like vandals do. Except in this case it is 100% deliberate.
- The user has already been blocked three months for disruption at FPC, warned several times here at COM:ANU, and warned many many times after at COM:FPC. Now a ban is the last solution for us to find peace. This idea comes from another user, Cmao20 and I think this is a clever suggestion that admins should consider. All the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- A ban from FPC without a block would need acceptance from ArionStar. I agree that it would be a good solution if they agrees. Yann (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay also with a full block if preferred. Because that's true there's a risk some content is changed in some candidates at POTY for example, or elsewhere. See for example this revert at 02:45, 6 August 2024 to insist with disruption after the clear warning was sent by another participant. At this stage, everybody was aware of what was happening, however no one had the courage to fight with such narrow-minded behavior. Thus the picture was pure disruption on Commons and Wikipedia during three extra days, until another user fixed the issue on the 9th of August. There have been other pictures like that, all of them constituting potential playground. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- One question: may I ask other users for help? May I ask them to nominate photos? Or not? ★ 00:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Help for disruption? That's a joke. Just read what is written above. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Help was offered many many times, by too many of us. Then, reverting help is not helpful. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your answer (which did not answer my genuine question) says it all about your intentions against me. Your (persistent) mocking tone with me is already out. I want me to suffer the ultimate consequences. From now, bye. ★ 01:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Bye bye. But really read what is written above. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Help was offered many many times, by too many of us. Then, reverting help is not helpful. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay also with a full block if preferred. Because that's true there's a risk some content is changed in some candidates at POTY for example, or elsewhere. See for example this revert at 02:45, 6 August 2024 to insist with disruption after the clear warning was sent by another participant. At this stage, everybody was aware of what was happening, however no one had the courage to fight with such narrow-minded behavior. Thus the picture was pure disruption on Commons and Wikipedia during three extra days, until another user fixed the issue on the 9th of August. There have been other pictures like that, all of them constituting potential playground. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Completely agree with the idea of a topic ban - thank you Basile Morin for compiling these links above that help make the problem clear. I'll also add that ArionStar continues to double down on defending his behaviour on his talk page, and that his attitude seems to be one of other people are fine with me, therefore I won't get blocked, so I win, you lose, together with a passive-aggressive emoji. Struggle to believe that this user is going to learn from his actions after the years of warnings followed by apologies and then swift returns to previous behaviour. Cmao20 (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- An indef topic ban from FPC would be a good start, but I fear that it's not enough and they will only find other ways of making a mess of things if they are allowed on other parts of Commons. (See comment about "Thanks to my lobby for the POTY contest") ArionStar is far too happy to cajole other users to do things for them. Therefore I would prefer a site block. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- As another maintainer at FPC and as current maintainer of related stuff like the FP gallery pages, I can only second Basile’s, Cmao20’s, and especially Cart’s statements. – Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with the above. I am convinced that a partial block would not be enough to stop the user's disruptive behaviour. I would support a site block or a site ban, leaning towards the latter. Zzzs (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- As another maintainer at FPC and as current maintainer of related stuff like the FP gallery pages, I can only second Basile’s, Cmao20’s, and especially Cart’s statements. – Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- An indef topic ban from FPC would be a good start, but I fear that it's not enough and they will only find other ways of making a mess of things if they are allowed on other parts of Commons. (See comment about "Thanks to my lobby for the POTY contest") ArionStar is far too happy to cajole other users to do things for them. Therefore I would prefer a site block. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Site ban
As there is currently a consensus for a site ban, and given the elements showing disruption outside of COM:FPC, I also support this simple option. It will be an improvement for Commons, and a time saver for many participants. It is so obvious that the user disrupts after multiple clear warnings, and still with enthusiasm. Like "This is a disruptive nomination", or "I am more radical on the issue: I propose a total blackout on Commons images" (and don't care about Jimmy Wales's message or anyone else's) "I'm overwriting my FPs", implied "and voluntarily violate Commons:Overwriting existing files#DO NOT overwrite Files that have been awarded a special status like Commons Featured Picture", pollute the FP galleries and Wikipedia (see for example the article Papaye in French where the picture is used). Well, and for how long like that? Are we idiots? Perhaps yes, we are the naïves who ignore that Arion has "never been and will never be banned from there"? But I don't believe this fact. A prerequisite, in my opinion, to participate, should be: being able to listen and understand the recommendations expressed. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, with all the stuff that ArionStar has done to the point when the co-founder of Wikipedia stepped in? And continuing their disruptive behaviour after? Definitely deserves an indefinite site ban with a site block for good measure if you ask me. I'd also support the regular conditions except, if possible, the FAC participants be notified when the user appeals. Zzzs (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm all for an indef, appealable in 6–12 months time. SHB2000 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can cooperate in not using more
I withdraw my nomination in my nominations.
- I really like the FPC proposal, but I can't spend my time trying to understand all the nuances and definitions of photography. I still want to collaborate in the way I can and I commit to make no more than two active nominations. This will no longer be a reason for any discussion and won't happen anymore. ★ 23:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is only one part of the trouble you are causing, as you can see from the links above. And I'm not trusting your word one bit. We've heard it all before. The part where you say: "I can't spend my time trying to understand all the nuances and definitions of photography" says it all about you. You are on a photography site and can't be bothered to learn about photography. After ten years. --Cart (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is all I've learned in these 10 years; almost nothing. It might take me another 10 years to become reasonably acceptable. If my little knowledge as an enthusiast is not enough to continue existing as a user here, sorry. I'm only 24 (almost 25) years old and I have other things off to do. You don't have to trust me, just wait and request my ban if it happens again. Save my statement.
- By the way, how old are each of you? ★ 23:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why do our ages matter? --SHB2000 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you have other things to do, then please go and do them instead of making extra work for the rest of us. You are treating this site as a social media playground, not the media repository it is. Age doesn't matter here, only the number of years on the site. --Cart (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter, I just want to know if I'm the youngest here. I started nominate images when I was 14/15 years old. I'm absolutely sure that if I started today I would not have any blocking problems in 2019. I'm committing to being a little better. I had a big accomplishment this year: I got my first star (and this was one of the reasons why I changed my signature to ★). Someday I will buy a camera that was recommended to me by some users and I will be less worse off than I am today. Someday I will have a star taken from a still camera. As I said, trust the process. No disruptions from today. ★ 00:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you are about 25 now, you've spent all the years when your learning abilities were at the highest here. And as you say, learned nothing. From now on it will only get harder for you to learn new things. That "I'm just a kid" line you are trying doesn't work. You are an adult now and should act like it. --Cart (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I spent my time learning lessons at school. ★ 01:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Cart, you have always given me good advice and I have always enjoyed our interactions. Thanks for another one, I know that you, unlike the user below, are trying to help me (thanks to you I learned about ICM and I just loved the effect). ★ 01:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I spent my time learning lessons at school. ★ 01:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you are about 25 now, you've spent all the years when your learning abilities were at the highest here. And as you say, learned nothing. From now on it will only get harder for you to learn new things. That "I'm just a kid" line you are trying doesn't work. You are an adult now and should act like it. --Cart (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter, I just want to know if I'm the youngest here. I started nominate images when I was 14/15 years old. I'm absolutely sure that if I started today I would not have any blocking problems in 2019. I'm committing to being a little better. I had a big accomplishment this year: I got my first star (and this was one of the reasons why I changed my signature to ★). Someday I will buy a camera that was recommended to me by some users and I will be less worse off than I am today. Someday I will have a star taken from a still camera. As I said, trust the process. No disruptions from today. ★ 00:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea why all this dialogue about ages matters except ArionStar trying to make excuses for behaving disruptively, but for what it's worth, he is not the youngest here, if he is 24/25 then I'm slightly younger than he is. Cmao20 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not trusting either. Moreover, abstaining from withdrawing is not useful at all. A bad picture should be withdrawn. Otherwise the page gets cluttered. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Basile, I also don't trust someone who accused me of something nonsensical. I ask you kindly, treat me like you do with Wilfredo. ★ 01:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I made my promises and I imagine that for now you (Cart, Cmao20, etc) can keep an eye on me on these issues. Part of the issues. ★ 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- None of us here want to "keep an eye on you" and waste time babysitting a grown up user. You may not like Basile's tone, but he is right in his assessment of this situation. --Cart (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- The question is not whether he is right or wrong, but that he always puts me in the mud even though it's not my fault. This issue is a pretext for him to get me banned, this is what he wants. He doesn't like Wilfredo and he knows we're friends, so he doesn't like me. ★ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- None of us here want to "keep an eye on you" and waste time babysitting a grown up user. You may not like Basile's tone, but he is right in his assessment of this situation. --Cart (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ever if ArionStar's disruptive behavior, I believe that blocking him won't address the root problem. The FPC section has become a toxic environment, leading several significant contributors to withdraw. There is an obsession with obtaining more featured pictures, which results in harmful behavior among users. I agree that Arion needs a break, and I would prefer if he took it voluntarily. I, myself, needed time away due to the pressure I feel in FPC and have stopped nominating photos. Additionally, there is a concerningly low representation of underdeveloped non-European countries. BTW, victimization through arguments like "I’m very young," "I’m black," "I’m homosexual," "I’m Jewish," "I’m Brazilian," and "you all hate me" does not help resolve conflicts. I believe that an open and honest dialogue is more effective for addressing misunderstandings. I recommend that the user withdraw from FPC for a set period to learn to manage emotions and not take things personally. I also acknowledge that Basile's behavior has been particularly toxic, just like mine in the past with the infamous fake FPC and my misuse of ChatGPT, which led to Cart's distrust when she claimed that my eclipse nomination was purposefully false. I could mention other examples; some users have stopped casting negative votes—which are the ones that help us grow as photographers the most—to avoid unnecessary drama and conflicts. In this situation, I personally don’t care if Arion is blocked or if I am blocked in the future. However, I believe something is not working well in FPC; even Colin pointed this out at some point. It’s essential to discuss these issues collectively to improve the environment in FPC and foster a healthier community, rather than simply resorting to accusations. Wilfredor (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for the disruptive moment. 😔 ★ 02:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- "MomentS". -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your mocking tone deserves my silence. ★ 02:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your original uploads will only be restored if/when round 1 starts. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Round 1 has already started. Stay updated. ★ 03:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your original uploads will only be restored if/when round 1 starts. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your mocking tone deserves my silence. ★ 02:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- "MomentS". -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's a very, very subjective opinion, Wilfredor. I remember you refrained from participating until you "receive an apology". That doesn't mean the apology was due, nor that the others were wrong. And contrary to you, I think that the "open and honest" dialogues "more effective for addressing misunderstandings" already occurred a sufficient number of times to shorten the latter and not spend ages on it. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your dialogues are always mocking. You want me to fail. You want an opportunity to (Redacted) me. You don't deny it because you know it's true. Period. ★ 02:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Period, bye bye. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Deny it. I'm waiting for… [mocking mode] ★ 02:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Memba'bout the IBAN? Do u wanna? ★ 03:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- ⛔️ -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
IBAN requested. ★ 03:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Site BAN requested. (No mockery intended, sincerely a honest request).-- Basile Morin (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Deny it. I'm waiting for… [mocking mode] ★ 02:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Period, bye bye. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your dialogues are always mocking. You want me to fail. You want an opportunity to (Redacted) me. You don't deny it because you know it's true. Period. ★ 02:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for the disruptive moment. 😔 ★ 02:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I made my promises and I imagine that for now you (Cart, Cmao20, etc) can keep an eye on me on these issues. Part of the issues. ★ 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Basile, I also don't trust someone who accused me of something nonsensical. I ask you kindly, treat me like you do with Wilfredo. ★ 01:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is only one part of the trouble you are causing, as you can see from the links above. And I'm not trusting your word one bit. We've heard it all before. The part where you say: "I can't spend my time trying to understand all the nuances and definitions of photography" says it all about you. You are on a photography site and can't be bothered to learn about photography. After ten years. --Cart (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can cooperate in not using more
- Once again, this request has been initiated by a very respectable user here. The truth is that I did not even participate before reading it (like everyday) at COM:FPC.
- Deliberate "disruptive nomination" according to the nominator (ArionStar). Obvisouly, many of us, visitors included, prefer to scroll the page with "no disruptive" nominations. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think ArionStar's continued use of an aggressive and confrontational tone together with further excuses for bad behaviour and use of mocking emojis makes the situation clear. I would like to say that I have always found Basile Morin a polite and considerate user who tries to offer advice to newbies and has helped out in my own nominations, and if he has been mocking towards ArionStar it is because of ArionStar's continual refusal to be considerate towards others and the needless work he creates for others in this project. Also, re. "I can't spend my time trying to understand all the nuances and definitions of photography", no one is asking ArionStar to learn every nuance about photography, only to comply with the rules of FPC, not create extra work for others, not be rude, and try to learn the basics of what makes a high quality photograph. I believe in second chances, but this is more like the fifth or sixth chance now. Cmao20 (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cmao20. Moreover, the "ArionStar" section was opened here by an admin, Yann, the previous day, and certainly several of us discovered the thread naturally at the moment to report it / check the report. This case has absolutely nothing to do with me. Cmao20, W.Carter, and Aristeas confirmed with relevant diffs, while Zzzs and SHB2000 shared similar opinions. Everybody know that it's time consuming. But I think the current and various efforts are made in the motivating perspective of a tangible progress. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think you're being far too gracious with the "fifth or sixth chance", to be frank. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think ArionStar's continued use of an aggressive and confrontational tone together with further excuses for bad behaviour and use of mocking emojis makes the situation clear. I would like to say that I have always found Basile Morin a polite and considerate user who tries to offer advice to newbies and has helped out in my own nominations, and if he has been mocking towards ArionStar it is because of ArionStar's continual refusal to be considerate towards others and the needless work he creates for others in this project. Also, re. "I can't spend my time trying to understand all the nuances and definitions of photography", no one is asking ArionStar to learn every nuance about photography, only to comply with the rules of FPC, not create extra work for others, not be rude, and try to learn the basics of what makes a high quality photograph. I believe in second chances, but this is more like the fifth or sixth chance now. Cmao20 (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm all for an indef, appealable in 6–12 months time. SHB2000 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
XamAlili
edit- XamAlili (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
This user is keeps uploading copyrighted files. I warned him on the local wiki. Gadir (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Not done. No activity after warnings. Uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Darrenissodogwater
editDarrenissodogwater (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) has uploaded multiple screenshots from Roblox. A warning is likely in order. I dream of horses (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Uploader keeps removing my tags. An impartial set of eyes would be appreciated Gbawden (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Yann Gbawden (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Two requests
editI have just been threatened with ban for mistaking a procedure of deletion for a category I had created myself with a wrong grammar (Category:280s BC in Syracuse in place of Category:Syracuse in the 280s BC), because I did not correctly complete the deletion request, which prevented to start a debate, because: "Warning: such edits are not tolerated and have led to account blocks, as "We cannot work here with people who are not willing to follow our procedures, in particular for deletion requests". This all for a patently wrong category, which goes against the grammar of all the other decades in the mother Category:Syracuse_by_decade.
Now, I have been a wikipedian for almost 20 years and I made almost half a million edits, but this is the first time I meet someone who threatens me with a ban for merely mistaking a procedure. I have therefore two requests to make. First, someone could suggest kindly User:Jeff G. to use a more appropriate language when communicating, sticking to the principle of "always assuming good faith". Being dealt with as a vandal for a mistake could scare away some new contributors, who could mistake the excess of attitude by one adm for the general attitude on Wikimedia.
Second, the procedure for deletion is insanely complicated. In this time of Artificial Intelligence there is no reason to rely on Natural Stupidity, with a complicate procedure that seems the product of a drunken Prussian bureaucrat from the 19th century. I can't code, so I cannot volunteer to write the procedure myself, but is it really that difficult to create a form that opens when you ask for a deletion, just to be filled in? Otherwise, a procedure could be implemented that someone could delete an empty category they created themselves by mistake, thus relieving the burden poor Jeef G has to endure, suffering from users who "do not follow his procedures". That would spare a bit of needless attrition. Thank you for considering my request. User:G.dallorto (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- @G.dallorto:
- The procedure to nominate a file for deletion is to go to the file page, click "Nominate for deletion" and give your rationale for deletion.
- The procedure to nominate a category for deletion is to click "Nominate category for discussion" (differently named because there are a wider variety of ways to resolve issues about a problem category than a problem file).
- This hardly seems to me to merit the remarks about "insanely complicated" and "a drunken Prussian bureaucrat." What, exactly, do you find difficult about the way it currently works? - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Evidently, they found creating subpage Commons:Deletion requests/Category:280s BC in Syracuse and transcluding it to Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/08 to be difficult. Is the AjaxQuickDelete gadget enabled by default? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: assuming that is the same thing as "nominate for deletion" in the left nav, I see it even when I am not logged in. - Jmabel ! talk 07:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Evidently, they found creating subpage Commons:Deletion requests/Category:280s BC in Syracuse and transcluding it to Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/08 to be difficult. Is the AjaxQuickDelete gadget enabled by default? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @G.dallorto: I did not originate the procedure for deletion, I found it here over 17 years ago when I joined. I did not threaten you with a ban, I warned you that you could be blocked (and not by me). Users are expected to preview their posts, which can point out problems with manual use of {{Delete}}. It is also required to notify users you report here on their user talk pages. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Competence issues— see this deletion request. There is no logical reason whatsoever to nominate it for deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry?
edit- Zhangzong (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- Zongzhang19463587 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Given the very similar username and the uploading of the same files by the two accounts I suspect sockpuppetry. Master have been indefed, hence the need to create a sock. Jonteemil (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- 對，兩個帳號都是我!可以讓我把這些照片放在維基共享資源嗎?如果不能放上這些很重要的照片，我真的會很想死耶.......
- 維基有沒有給個人專用的相簿? Zongzhang19463587 (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- 對!兩個帳號都是我 Zongzhang19463587 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Confirmed sockpuppetry by user themself above. Nuke all files and indef sock. Jonteemil (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Yann: Zongzhang19463587 has not been blocked yet. Or do you think the block is unnecessary? Thanks. SCP-2000 11:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes,
- Ah yes,
- @Yann: Zongzhang19463587 has not been blocked yet. Or do you think the block is unnecessary? Thanks. SCP-2000 11:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
re-loading deleted file
editPosterrr (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Downloads many files that have been deleted. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
User:ChristianPC1998
editChristianPC1998 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. Possible sock puppet account of Walter4123 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) and Summerry2024 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) (both blocked globally). The images that are usually uploaded are screenshots and clippings of copyrighted videos from the internet. --Ovruni (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Yann: I have nominated similar files for deletion from user Sonia197881 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) (also blocked globally) and created a request for check user. --Ovruni (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ovruni: Sonia197881 is not part of your RFCU. Is that intentional? Yann (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Yann: I just added the Sonia197881 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) account (although it is an older account than the others) and the Augustinsson (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) account that was previously blocked in commons for multiple account abuse (but I don't know any further details about which accounts the administrator found a relationship with). --Ovruni (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ovruni: Sonia197881 is not part of your RFCU. Is that intentional? Yann (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Andrew Pater
editAndrew Pater (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) uploads photos and logos of likely copyrighted source but declaring as his own. Furthermore, some of his uploads are reuploads of deleted items according to the names used. Pierre cb (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Misaka Eikoto
editMisaka Eikoto (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Sockpuppet of 反共抗獨光復民國 (talk · contribs). Account was registered on the same day he got permabanned, phrasing is identical and so is the nature of his requests. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Fiorinaio05
edit- Fiorinaio05 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Continues to upload the same deleted file after having one prior block for it. Jonteemil (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Taivo A week again? Shouldn't a second block be longer? Jonteemil (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, that's second block. I reblocked the user for a month. Taivo (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Taivo A week again? Shouldn't a second block be longer? Jonteemil (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding User:Yaboisohan, I have reviewed of their several uploaded photos, and all are copyright violations. I suspect the ones I haven't checked are copyright violations too. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Metalworker14, unrelenting copyright violation and possible undisclosed paid editing
editDespite the numerous warnings the user has received for copyright issues and a specific warning for uploading Symphony of Heaven's images from Facebook, they've again uploaded an image off the band's website as their own. here. This was actually sized down version of the file that was on the band's official website of Symphony of Heaven. All these numerous warnings in the past didn't deter them from doing this. Their prolific article creation pattern at en.wiki seems to suggest they maybe editing on behalf of a promotion company which would explain why they're getting so many copyright take downs. Graywalls (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Taivo: , I said they've been previously warned, because of these talk messages found on their page. I thought these, particularly the reminder about the exact copy from Facebook counted as a warning.
- Special:Diff/287529111 - Was advised to get OTRS verification. Was ignored.
- Special:Diff/346100528 - Was told about about uploading something as their own is a possible copyright issue.
- Special:Diff/358485206 - another ignored request to do OTRS verification.
- Graywalls (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Taivo: , I said they've been previously warned, because of these talk messages found on their page. I thought these, particularly the reminder about the exact copy from Facebook counted as a warning.
No admin action necessary. Yann (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
The user readds speedy deletion tags to regular category discussions [16] after the speedy deletion was converted to a category discussion. I suggest they be restricted from editing category namespace.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please let the responsible admin of the relevant category decide. As far as I am informed, it is not desirable to create an empty category today for all possible topics that might even contain a file in the future. This is bad work. Then you could create the corresponding categories up to 2050. Great, nothing gained. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the user seems to force changes rather than seeking consensus, deliberately undoing redirects when they are aware that the question isn't agreed upon: [17]
- It seeems there was a similar issue already in the past: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_39#h-L._Beck-20240725051600 (edit warring with User:ŠJů]),
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC) - Given the personal attacks [18][19][20], I suggest a block.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)- I feel once again confirmed that you have a lousy character. Again, you start a discussion and before we can clarify an issue there, you pass people on to this place. Yes, I find your behavior impossible (and not for the first time). This should not be taken as an insult, but as a well-founded and honest opinion! Lukas Beck (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you were reported here because you replaced the discussion with speedy tags rather than participating there.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)- Not repleased!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- You are just doing it wrongly.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)- Okay, and you couldn't clarify that on my discussion page? You had to involve tons of other people to do that? That's exactly what I mean when I say you have a bad character. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- And to be honest, I think I'm here because we've already clashed several times, as you've often noticed yourself constantly revising changes without discussion and instead of discussing things, you report people directly here. And the fact that you are vandalizing and trolling is not a form of insult. There are many other things that would come to mind that I won't say, as they quite rightly have no place in this project. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- All edits being examined are yours. I guess it's easy to just start with personal attacks if you don't have any arguments.
- Now pretending you ignore that the speedy deletion tag shouldn't be readded after it was convert to a category discussion suggests that you might not even read the deletion tags you added all over. I guess it's a competency issue I'm not sure how to address.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)- No matter how many times you want to repeat it; Terms like vandalism or trolling are not personal attacks.
- Competency problems, to use this word, even if they existed, would probably not be the right place to discuss them here. I highly recommend getting involved in discussions on the user pages and not writing everything you can't handle on this page. This has something to do with social skills. ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you are obviously free to think of yourself in these terms.
- I asked you to open a discussion if you want to implement a change, but apparently, you are not interested in that.
- Even when it's done for your (by me), you add speedy deletion tags to category pages and then force the conclusion of the discussion by implementing the controversial change you want to propose while it's open.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)- You seem to have misunderstood something fundamental. I'm not going to start a discussion about it before every change I make. If you disagree with my changes for whatever reason, it is your responsibility to open a discussion. Or you can simply revert my changes without much explanation and ask me to justify my changes. The latter is not necessarily the best way. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Which explains why you got into a revert war with SJU before.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)- Which brings me back to your lousy character. If I may clarify this to you, this process has long since been completed with the result that no further measures against me are necessary. So what do you want from me now? Maybe you should concentrate on the current situation and heed what I just wrote to you. Otherwise, this might not be our last argument. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to assume that it's normal that you keep getting reverted.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)- don't get that argument, sorry Lukas Beck (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to assume that it's normal that you keep getting reverted.
- Which brings me back to your lousy character. If I may clarify this to you, this process has long since been completed with the result that no further measures against me are necessary. So what do you want from me now? Maybe you should concentrate on the current situation and heed what I just wrote to you. Otherwise, this might not be our last argument. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Which explains why you got into a revert war with SJU before.
- You seem to have misunderstood something fundamental. I'm not going to start a discussion about it before every change I make. If you disagree with my changes for whatever reason, it is your responsibility to open a discussion. Or you can simply revert my changes without much explanation and ask me to justify my changes. The latter is not necessarily the best way. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- You are just doing it wrongly.
- Not repleased!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you were reported here because you replaced the discussion with speedy tags rather than participating there.
- I feel once again confirmed that you have a lousy character. Again, you start a discussion and before we can clarify an issue there, you pass people on to this place. Yes, I find your behavior impossible (and not for the first time). This should not be taken as an insult, but as a well-founded and honest opinion! Lukas Beck (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: We don't keep empty categories. They can be recreated as soon as they are not empty any more. Yann (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- We are free to create them, especially when part of series.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)- For what reason? How sure can you be that some of the categories won't remain empty forever? And permanently empty categories are not needed here. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to participate in the discussion.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)- the discussion is already closed ;-). Lukas Beck (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to participate in the discussion.
- For what reason? How sure can you be that some of the categories won't remain empty forever? And permanently empty categories are not needed here. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- We are free to create them, especially when part of series.
- There are (rare) times when an empty category should be kept:
- One of very few empty categories in a mostly populated series, especially if the series has a prev/next navigation
- Certain maintenance categories that we hope to keep empty, but where we want them to be there if the issue in question arises again
- A category we expect to have content very soon (e.g. a category for the third day of a conference that is now on its first day).
- If someone turns a speedy deletion into a normal discussion, it is almost always correct to let it run its course. Simply reverting them without discussion is only the right thing to do if you are dealing with a vandal, and in this respect no user who is genuinely active in the project should be considered a vandal: we're talking about things like a brand new user or an IP coming along and turning a speedy into a DR with no rationale, or with a transparently absurd rationale.
- "you have a bad character" (from Lukas Beck) at least borders on calling for a week's block, and their general tone on this thread does nothing to make me think otherwise.
- Jmabel ! talk 06:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Someone like Enhancing999, who is vERY often seeking conflicts on this page and elsewhere, should be able to take such comments on their behaviour easy. --A.Savin 06:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like a personal attack from user not even involved in the above discussion, but present when Lukas B. runs into conflicts.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- Now it is not the first time that this user always interprets criticism against himself, no matter how factual it may be, as a personal attack, then reports his colleagues here instead of first discussing it on the corresponding discussion page and then presents himself as the big victim . And his tone is no less unfriendly towards his colleagues. I still think it's highly problematic. That's why I stick with the factual and reasoned statement that he has a bad character. Our policy of not insulting our colleagues should not prevent us from objectively criticizing our colleagues. And this should certainly not be seen as an excuse to block users. Otherwise it will definitely be the end of a healthy debate culture here on Commons. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like a personal attack from user not even involved in the above discussion, but present when Lukas B. runs into conflicts.
- I didn't reset the discussion. I haven't removed the reference to the discussion either. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Someone like Enhancing999, who is vERY often seeking conflicts on this page and elsewhere, should be able to take such comments on their behaviour easy. --A.Savin 06:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- An additional problem that was found on Commons:Undeletion_requests is that that L. Beck systematically ignores COM:SPEEDY and requests speedy deletion of categories don't meet its criteria (Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Category). Accordingly, they should be required to go through CfD for all future deletion requests. You would think given their activities in categorization, they would frequently do that, but apparently they systematically don't do that (no request in the last two years).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- Well, there haven't been any problems so far and there shouldn't be any now either, after all it's regulated that unnecessary categories can be deleted quickly. Otherwise feel free to correct me. ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Raghav 1048
editRaghav 1048 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) has uploaded enough copyright violations that it probably warrants a warning. I dream of horses (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @I dream of horses There is nothing stopping you warning them yourself Gbawden (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Gbawden Wait, really? I'm an experienced Wikipedian but I'm new around here. It seems that admins do the warnings here. I dream of horses (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, anyone can warn. Admins block when its warranted. Take a look at COM:BP - anyone can add a warning template (or use a tool to do it) and if the behaviour persists you bring it here and admins take the appropriate action Gbawden (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Gbawden Where are the warnings? I dream of horses (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Block warning templates. Or just writing something more specific and less formal: a warning doesn't have to be templated. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Gbawden Where are the warnings? I dream of horses (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Mortezarahimi3rd
editUploaded many files and claimed them to be own work, asked the user to change that to instead link to the source (for OWID files) but the user didn't do so and didn't respond. Don't know what should be done now: the files are useful but other users shouldn't be expected to fix this issue for Mortezarahimi3rd. This same problem may also exist for non-OWID uploads by Mortezarahimi3rd. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Enhancing999
editHi, I think we have a problem with Enhancing999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- First edit-warring with Lukas Beck over deletion of Category:1922 in rail transport in Switzerland (see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10/Category:1877 in rail transport in Switzerland, now recreated, and User talk:L. Beck#Vandalism accusations for changes you seek to implement).
- Then reporting Lukas Beck on ANU: [21].
- Then this discussion, of which Jim said that it was completely out of place.
- Also bothering me on my talk page here.
- Finally this discussion on the VP.
- And last, but not least, removing other people comments when they don't like it.
Could someone please explain to Enhancing999 that we don't keep empty categories, eventually with stronger terms? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: Your behavior in this matter is utterly unacceptable. Cut it out immediately. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Block request 193.210.166.91
editRepeated disruptive and threatening behaviour. Here he writes "you may find your Wikipedia head on your bedroom floor". Nitraus (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)