Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Note

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

The War of Edits User:Laurel Lodged[edit]

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Стоп! Просьба различать "Christian denominations" и протестантизм. По первому случаю я жду нового раздела. По второму случаю никаких споров не было, правки являются консенсусными. Online translation: Stop! Please distinguish between "Christian denominations" and Protestantism. On the first occasion, I'm waiting for a new section. In the second case there was no dispute, the edits are consensual. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an unhelpful edit. The churches are indeed rightful members of Category:Protestant churches in the United States by denomination. Why would you remove the category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Потому что щёлкнул мышкой не в том месте. Уже отменил. Online translation: Because I clicked the mouse in the wrong place. I've already cancelled it. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Проблемы были у подкатегории Category:Congregationalist churches in the United States by state - входила 2 раза в надкатегорию, а в проблемной правке перепутал окна. Ошибиться уже нельзя? Online translation: The subcategory had problems Category:Congregationalist churches in the United States by state - entered the super-category 2 times, and mixed up the windows in the problematic edit. Is it already impossible to make a mistake? Ыфь77 (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can make a mistake, though it is hard for me to understand why you were editing in this area at all, rather than working toward finding a consensus about it.
Also: (1) You've just been involved in a dispute which you yourself tried to raise to the level of an administrative matter. When you come into the room with guns blazing, it's a bad time to make a mistake. (2) Even your own initial remark here isn't to the effect of "oops, sorry, didn't mean to make that edit." Instead it appears to be a defense of the edit. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0) Я не занимался редактированием в области, где должен будет происходить поиск консенсуса. И повторюсь, я слишком плохо знаю английский язык, чтобы искать площадку для переговоров в формате не "1 на 1". 2) Это должно выглядеть не как защита правки, а как защита места правки. Мне вообще нельзя править категории христианства? Online translation: 0) I have not done any editing in the area where the consensus search will have to take place. And I repeat, I know English too poorly to look for a platform for negotiations in a non-"1 on 1" format. 2) This should not look like a protection of the edit, but as a protection of the place of the edit. Am I not allowed to rule the categories of Christianity at all? Ыфь77 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User engaged in edit war, does not seem to understand category's purpose[edit]

Evrik (talk · contribs) Keeps on inserting an inaccurate category at File:X, 1980.jpg. On my own talk page, he said this is an edit war and I said "In that case, it needs to be restored to what it was prior to the dispute" and then he stopped editing. His misleading edit summary just now implies that he is restoring it to what it was previously, but it's just his preferred version. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To put a finer point on it: he is removing Category:X (musical group from the United States) and replacing it with Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States). If you look at any other "members of band" category, the "members of" category is for 1.) subcategories about said members (e.g. Category:Michael Stipe under Category:Members of R.E.M.) or 2.) images of individual members. They are not intended for photos of the entire band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the same issue at File:X1979LA.jpg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where your interpretation is documented as being the correct way. Please. Evrik (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected the file for a period of one week because of this counterproductive edit-warring. @Koavf. You guys shouldn't be reverting and reverting and reverting each other. @Evrik, whether anything is correct way or not, edit-warring is of course not right. Talk-pages are the places that should be used as earliest as the first revert. Please. ─ Aafī (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi: , I said this, "Your reversions of the two X files is not productive. I simply sorted all the files where they should be. If you disagree, please start a discussion someplace. Otherwise, you're not being helpful." I'm always willing to discuss things, when the other person is as well. Evrik (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You came to change things, so the impetus is on you to start this conversation. You can't just go about changing everything and tell everyone else, "Got a problem with it? Talk about it. Bye." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's necessarily wrong what Evrik is doing. Usually the name of a category should be taken literally when it comes to question what files to sort into. That means, if the category is named "Members of X (musical group from the United States)", then yes it's appropriate to add it to all files that depict members of X (musical group from the United States), be it one member, two, or all in one picture. Of course the ideal solution is to have separate categories for every member, which is not yet the case here, but please feel encouraged to create the missing categories. If that is done, then definitely pictures showing members should be in the relevant member's categories while the Category:X (musical group from the United States) should serve merely as parental category and, if available, for files related to the band but not showing its members. For example, File:X on 2016-11-28.jpg should be in Category:Concerts of X (musical group from the United States) (which it already is), and in the four categories for the persons depicted (which is still lacking). --A.Savin 21:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if we're taking these categories literally, then that means that the photo should be in Category:X (musical group from the United States) as well, since it depicts X, correct? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, see COM:OVERCAT. --A.Savin 21:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf I have to agree with A.Savin. But this is not the place to discuss this. Take it to CFD or the image talk page. Regardless, no admin intervention is necessary. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion at File talk:X, 1980.jpg. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael w[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to see that diff. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: As it has been deleted, only Admins can see it now (sorry). It was a bare {{Delete}} tag, placed without preview or followup.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ähem Jeff; the user created Category:Supercharger Herrieden and within 16 minutes tagged it for deletion, which is his right and an established speedy-rationale (G7). His only fault was using a delete-template with the wrong syntax instead of a speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio: I told him to stop doing that two years ago. He is still doing that. "We cannot work here with people who are not willing to follow our procedures, in particular for deletion requests" per AFBorchert.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Jeff G.: Thing is that many contributors are not regularly active in meta area and overtime some may forget the proper syntax even if they once knew. Sure, it would have been better to simply ask another user. Anyway, I've explained to him your (assumed) rationale. --Túrelio (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm boldly marking this as  Not done at the least per this, where it appears that @Michael w has taken my feedback. Making a few malformed DRs aren't the only contributions from them nor their major contribution, and as @Túrelio has noted above. ─ Aafī (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I nominate User:Tulsi for removal of adminship?[edit]

Consensus is that even if Tulsi engaged in paid editing, it does not warrant the removal of adminship (per COM:PAID). Further evidence of the abuse of admin permissions is required to warrant de-adminship. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 11:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now there are both en.wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard and Meta RFC, shown somewhat a panorama that Tulsi is probably supporting cross-wiki paid editing, and looked like not all are disclosed (which already result their two global permissions: Global sysop and Global rollbacker, removed 4 years ago). When peoples (include other Commons administrators) ask for clarification, they either simply ignored and archived, or replied by "I don't know" or likely clauses/its (Nepalese?) translations. If concerns from both sides are also true for Commons, then... Just wondering, are there "paid uploading" shown regarding the topic user? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally please do not bring problems from other projects into Commons. Especially after 4 years. Do you have evidence, that he has involved in undeclared paid editing in Commons? Taivo (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Unless I'm reading the edit histories wrong or something it looks like he at least let some files through VRT that are blantent advertising. For instance, File:Sunny Leone snapped at Mehboob Studio.jpg is clearly meant to advertise the Indian website bollywoodhungama.com. Really the file should have just been deleted on site as blatant promo. Although I'm not claiming they paid Tulsi to give the file a pass either, but it is questionable considering that they are now blocked on Wikipedia for paid editing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BollywoodHungama is a major source of free images from a professional media outlet (just like Mehr News, VOA, etc.). All he did was a LicenseReview, which is a very normal thing for an admin to do and does not imply an endorsement of the suitability of the content for Commons, only that it is freely licensed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: Good for them. The image is still blatant advertising with the way it's watermarked. I get the feeling you didn't even look at the image before deciding to try and educate me about what kind of source they are though. Like I wasn't aware of it already, but that doesn't negate the fact that the image is blatant advertising that shouldn't have passed VRT. I don't think their approval not being an endorsement of the content is a good excuse either. As it becomes much harder, if not impossible, to delete an image once it has VRT permission. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Adamant1, the image specifically was not passed at VRT by any agent, and the tag comes from {{BollywoodHungama}}, which itself has a history of fourteen years or more. I have myself raised queries related to BollywoodHungama but that's a different debate, which doesn't contribute to this discussion anyway. ─ Aafī (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi: Fair enough. Thanks for the added context. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
enwiki's bullshit drama should never leak onto commons or we'd end up blocking half the contributors here, paid editing has nothing to do with commons, we provide images only I have dealt with bollywood hungama thing for years, thats not paid-editing lol. Since his activity on commons is limited, its quite possible he isn't abusing his rights here. The "paid-editing" part of wikipedia to me is kinda stupid cause it applies to articles but not images apparently, you can monetize of adding images to commons and getting free publicity by enforcing your images on related enwiki articles but if you decided to make an article of a person who might barely meet the notability criteria, then you are obviously getting paid to do it..If anything, looking at his logs, Tulsi deleted a lot of images of indian people over the last few years for failing commons copyright policies... Stemoc 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Taivo. We would need evidence that they engaged in undeclared paid editing on Commons itself or evidence that they abused use of the tools on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a reminder: paid editing, either disclosed or undisclosed, is totally allowed on Commons (see COM:PAID), so that alone wouldn't support removal IMO. Of course, if there are any concerns regarding his administrative actions or VRT permissions (although he hasn't had the VRT permissions global group since 2023), or if he lied, etc., that could be an issue. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We would need more evidence, and even then, as Mdaniels5757, paid editing is not grounds for removal of adminship per se. Bedivere (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either see any substantial evidence that Tulsi has abused advanced permissions on Commons. Nonetheless, as Mdaniels5757 has noted, UPE claims do not merit initiating an RfDA. Tulsi resigned from VRT voluntarily a year ago, so I don't think that's a place to look around too much as he seems to have very fewer VRT actions in 2023 itself. ─ Aafī (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPE, undiclosed paid editing (?), is apparently not the same as mere paid editing. Both are abhorrent to me, but COM:PAID, official as it is, goes out of its way not only to allow it, but to allow it going on undiclosed. And now most people commenting on this thread think it’s great to keep in a trusted position someone who admittedly (?) / apparently (?) engages in paid editing. Just wow. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like a policy on commons, you are free to propose a change. We aren't going to remove an admin for not violating policies on Commons.
Don't bring the drama of enwiki's admin's noticeboard here. I will always regret having created that damned thing. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just my opinion, but I don't think paid editing is that much of an issue on Commons as Wikipedia. It certainly isn't something that would be worth removing admin access over. At least without serious evidence that it's negatively effected the project. Although I would remove VRT privileges from someone doiong paid editing just to air on the safe side. Since as I've noted above it's much harder to delete an image on here once it has VRT permission. Plus someone doing paid editing shouldn't have access to that kind of private information anyway. Although it appears that Tulsi isn't working in that area anyway. So I guess it's not really an issue in this instance. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"paid editing, either disclosed or undisclosed, is totally allowed on Commons" Why is it tho? Trade (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: Commons:Requests for comment/Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. - Jmabel ! talk 14:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bring enwiki drama onto Commons. Can an admin please close this thread? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask that the thread not be closed quite yet. I want a little bit of time to look through Tulsi's administrative actions, and encourage others to do so as well if they would like to. But, as I said above, my view is that this is likely going nowhere absent more than the allegations I've seen. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished looking for now, and didn't find anything of note. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your diligence Mdaniels5757. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have more than 16,000 files from Bollywood Hungama, uploaded by many different users, so claiming that this file is advertising is... well... nonsense. But that's becoming quite a habit... Yann (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you never do miss an opportunity do you? Lets not make this about me and your personal beef please. If I can't say your axe grinding when you make comments like that then you could at least have the scruples to knock off your end of it instead of being petty and insulting. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin please close this divisive thread? There are no admin actions needed. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

Popefauvexxiii: refusal to AGF[edit]

User:Popefauvexxiii stated in a comment I have created a deletion nomination in bad faith.

I then warned the user at their talk page and told them that their comment was violating a WCommons policy of WP:AGF. They replied by stating: I stand by my statement. Good luck on your digital crusade. When, in the same thread, another user stated such an accusation of bad faith required proofs, Popefauvexxiii replied: I believe our respective activity logs paint a very clear picture for anybody who cares enough to scratch the surface (link to talk page section: [5]).

Popefauvexxiii, without any proof, claims I behave in bd faith. I think sanctions need to be taken against Popefauvexxiii for their refusal to AGF. Veverve (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actively advocate melodramatic flouncing, but I guess it beats vituperation. - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dishtankir[edit]

Copyright fraud. This poster is very clearly not from before January 1, 1929. --Trade (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done File speedily deleted. Already warned. Bedivere (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eriksvepare[edit]

Copyright fraud. This photo is very clearly not from before January 1, 1929.--Trade (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done File speedily deleted. Already warned. Bedivere (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parwiz ahmadi[edit]

Uploading copyrighted files despite multiple warnings ever since account was created. funplussmart (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir , my account was created about 1 year ago , I did not known about wikimedia regulations.
but know I know about it.
unfoutrunately the last photo was mistakenly uploaded by me othervise currently I know carefully about regulations. please consider my cotribution in last 4 months. this is the only picture that mistakenly uploaded by me.
please give me a chance
thank you Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the copyright holder send me this photo , I can prove it Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Parwiz ahmadi: It doesn't really matter who sent it to you. What is the evidence that it is free-licensed? - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems obvious he got the permission through email Trade (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: He makes no statement about the copyright-holder offering a free license. He only says they sent him the image. If I were to email you an image on which I own the copyright, that is not tantamount to a free license! - Jmabel ! talk 14:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I deleted all his remaining uploads as copyvios and blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mithoron[edit]

Excessive number of copyright violations. Doclys👨‍⚕️👩‍⚕️ 🩺 • 💉 06:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated 5 of his/her uploads for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

188.170.76.167[edit]

Free copyrighted images attributed to the California government for no reason whatsoever. Trying to delete the image. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:El Golli Mohamed[edit]

I opposed an FPC nomination by this user.
He then opposed one of my nominations at FPC and a significant number at QIC.
I posted a message on his talk page and he has responded with an expletive. I'd be grateful if someone could ask him to cool down. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locked image with wrong licence[edit]

This image File:Simon Harris, April 2024 02 (cropped2).jpg has a wrong licnece and is locked for admin only editing. Obviously it is not a logo and the source page copyright link clearly states the licence is cc-by-4.0. Please correct it. Ww2censor (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

181.117.182.46[edit]

181.117.182.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 105.102.227.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be related to a LTA, ([edit summary was removed by Achim55)]. Bidgee (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked both for vandalism and hided one edit summary. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smash'mallow[edit]

The user Smash'mallow uploads copyrighted contents regarding French musicians since many years, and has been warned. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:D430987[edit]

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

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

Giaan2023[edit]

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

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

A1Cafel[edit]

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

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

@84.126.228.207: Do you have a specific complaint that has not been addressed in previous discussions? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least, there is an issue with A1Cafel uploading derivative works of non free content (which I deleted), while being a zealot creator of nominations for copyright violations. Also removing this threat twice is not OK. Yann (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Any action. Although I agree that A1Cafel could probably name files better, but there's no guideline about how to name files. Let alone is someone creating bad file names grounds for banning them. Especially on it's own and the rest of this really just comes off as a rehash of issues that have (mostly) already been dealt with. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose actions against A1Cafel. However, I'd like to note that the removals of this thread A1Cafel attempted should not have taken place. An anonymous editor is not less than a registered user, and the thread is not a personal attack or abuse, so it should stay. --Bedivere (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sara1997Xeneize[edit]

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

Uploading copyvios after final warning. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done 3-month block. They don't have any meaningful contributions on any projects. An es.wiki admin may want to take a look at their edits there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=869432343"