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
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
118, 117, 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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

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

Again User:Finoskov

[edit]

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

After the end of his first blocking he continued his behavior, to a greater extent than before. I think he has not recognized his mistakes. He wrote a comment with his signature in a template. See here.

Last weekend I spent many hours correcting errors which he made in the Mulhouse Museum categories. I only did the decades from 1870 to 1930. This week he ruined the work. Of course, he did not engage in any discussion on any of the points.

Now he obviously tried to solve one of the problems with "of the Musée" instead of "in the Musée". But he still put these categories under categories "in museum". That cannot be right!

Two points:

  1. 20 Reverts. Last weekend I had made changes (from wrong to right) and written edit comments. He made reverts (from right to wrong) without comments. That doesn't work! Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. With a closer look: Often I removed the category in this museum. Sometimes he made exact revert, ignoring that some pictures were not made in this museum. Sometimes he added the category of the museum, ignoring that (example) Category:1920s automobiles of the Musée National de l'Automobile cannot be a subcategory of Category:1920s automobiles in museums because some pictures were not made in museums. I don't know if it's okay to press the revert button to make a hidden change. It looks like an attempt at deception for me. This must be multiple misuse of revert.
  2. He didn't move categories properly. He created new ones, moved the content from the old ones to the new ones, and made quick deleting requests on the old ones. Example: old Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) and new Category:Panhard & Levassor 20 CV Sport Type X29 Labourdette torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30. He also simply blanked the category discussion page, see here. This carries the risk that the discussion page will be deleted together with the category. This must be misuse of blanking talk page and misuse of Commons:Rename a category. Other examples: 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s.

I request: A block for a longer period than the first time. If possible and usual on Commons: A ban for specific areas for a long time. Perhaps for the areas of creating categories, moving categories, renaming categories, emptying categories, suggesting for quick category deletions, changing main categories or subcategories, and reverts. Or generally for everything to do with vehicles or vehicle museums. Buch-t (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buch-t: I am sympathetic, but not all of the above edits look at all obviously wrong. For example, at [1]: what exactly is wrong with adding each of the following to Category:Alfa-Romeo type 8C 2,9 B biplace course (M.N.A. 1118)? Please reply under the respective bullet points for any where you think I have it wrong.
So for this edit, I see one pretty obviously correct change, one other that looks correct, one other that is not a well-named category but looks otherwise correct, and one that is, indeed COM:OVERCAT. If that is typical, this does not suggest high competence on Finoskov's part, but is not usually the sort of thing over which someone gets blocked.
It is really hard to go through a laundry list like the one you posted above and try to work out whether someone's edits or good, bad, or (as it appears from this one) somewhere in between. This took me over 5 minutes just to evaluate on edit in an area where I don't normally work and it came up "not great, not awful." I would much rather see you take 3-5 specific edits of his that you think are wrong and break them down like I did above. In other words: if this is what you want us to look at, please do the heavy lifting yourself instead of making an admin spend an hour on working out whether you are correct.
As for the category moves: yes, that is very wrong, and might merit a block all on its own, especially if he won't promise to stop. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I followed up on that last (about the category moves) at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Finoskov&diff=prev&oldid=973625389. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will give more details of 3-5 specific edits tomorrow (European time). --Buch-t (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More details to the first 5 reverts.
I have visited the museum in Mulhouse and also the 3-month-exhibition in the museum in Kassel, Germany.
Remember: I wrote edit comments when I deleted wrong categories. He wrote nothing when he reverted me. --Buch-t (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finoskov: all of this looks very wrong on your part, especially putting way too broad categories under particular museums that might have an exemplar.
Blocks are intended to be preventive, rather than punitive. If you promise to stop this now, and you do stop, I see no need for a block. If you persist, I would advocate either a 3-month block now, to be turned into a year-long block if you come back and do this again, or a complete topic ban from anything about automobiles. - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finoskov wrote on his talk page that he cannot understand your English words. --Buch-t (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Finoskov feels competent to override others' decisions about prepositions in English, but does not understand enough English to follow what I'm saying. Also apparently, he believes that the overhead of a cat redirect is something comparable to, for example, downloading images.
French is about my fifth or sixth language, which is to say I can read it moderately well, but certainly cannot express myself in it significantly better than a Google Translate rendition of my English. @Ruthven: I know you are quite comfortable in both English and French, can you possibly take over this situation, or let me know that you can't so I can look for someone else to ask? - Jmabel ! talk 08:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I translated your message. Hopefully, the pretext of not understanding English won't be used now. Yann (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yann for the translation. I find worrisome that Finoskov sees your message as an "attack", when it's just a warning about a behaviour. Jmabel, would a partial block on the categories ns suffice? Ruthven (msg) 14:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven and Yann: do what you think best. My request to bring in another admin was not strictly a language issue. After my entirely appropriate warning was described as vos attaques, and after what I agree was almost certainly a "pretense" of not understanding me, I was livid enough to impose a long, long block. I figured it should be left to someone else to handle this, because acting out of anger is not generally a great thing to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look into the details of the case. I will do it later unless someone else block Finoskov first. Yann (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of moving categories Finoskov creates new ones tagging the old ones for deletion (I didn't count exactly, it might have been about 4000 categories). That is massive disruptive behavior because a) one cannot move the cat back if necessary and b) links pointing there from other projects are broken. Therefore I asked Finoskov in 2019 and again in 2023 to refrain from that, but they ignored it. Therefore I herewith request a block only for category namespace for one year. --Achim55 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: , and this also goes for any other admin: it's two days later, obviously no one else is taking this on, and I'm tired of it dragging on. If it is left to me—and if this sits another 24 hours, I'm going to consider it left to me—it is going to be an indefinite block from category namespace. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Finoskov has not edited since December 23rd, so I don't know if he deliberately ignored our messages, or just took off some vacation. Yann (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: does that mean you are definitely taking this on, and I can "safely" let go? - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finoskov had the opportunity to write here, but did not use it. He wrote on his talk page. He did not write that he will be offline from ... to ... --Buch-t (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minor edit because of the ArchiverBot. --Buch-t (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) (mentioned above) was deleted yesterday by User:Krd. 4 week after the deletion of Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) by User:Yann. The new category Category:Panhard & Levassor 20 CV Sport Type X29 Labourdette torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 is similar. This is a late consequence of Finoskov's incorrect approach in creating new categories, although the category already exists under a different name. --Buch-t (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No edits by Finoskov since nearly 4 weeks. --Buch-t (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelsito Maduro, revenge DRs after their own copyrighted maps got deleted

[edit]

Nelsito Maduro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please stop this madness? Nelsito Maduro is a on a hefty DR revenge spree after they were caught in uploading copyrighted maps, still continuing despite these great and helpful comments by User:Enyavar on their talk page [2]. Here is the previous ANI thread about Nelsito Maduro, in which they kept attacking me for nominating their copyrighted maps for deletion [3] HistoryofIran (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done three day block, will be extended to 1 month if they continue —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Matrix! HistoryofIran (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their responses on their talk page are not encouraging. I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up indeffed before this is all over. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Three days is very lenient. I would have blocked this user for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: I wanted to see if the user would change/reflect after the block. Seems like they haven't, if they continue I would block for 1-2 months. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Baginda 480 / User:2402:1980:8249:402A:522:505:D004:CCC6

[edit]

I received an request to upload Flickr files from a User with an IP address here: User talk:Ooligan#Hello. I see this IP address are currently blocked by @Achim55 with the blocking edit summary stating, "block evasion." - Special:Contributions/2402:1980:8249:402A:522:505:D004:CCC6. See also: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Baginda_480 [4].

Apparently, another User @Bookish Worm and I have been solicited to help in "block evasion," if I understand this correctly. The Commons block expires on January 16th - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Baginda+480 [5].

I'd say let them go. Extending the block would not help and I've still a bit AGF in stock. I think they've learned their lesson regarding copyright. I blocked several IPs not primarily because of their edits on cats, files or galleries but because of their persistent canvassing. A user from Malaysia who has only one topic: Mahathir Mohamad (see history, also of Category:Mahathir Mohamad and subcats). If there will appear copyvios again, User:Baginda 480 could be blocked again, but my belly says that it won't be necessary, hopefully. --Achim55 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I respect your view. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the voluteers here. I hope your "belly" is correct! Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blackcat

[edit]

en:On December 24th, User:Blackcat replaced Category:Romania national football team with a redirect (the original category is now a redirect) and accused User:YarikUkraine, who returned the category to its original location, of vandalism. After my request to show on what specific community decision the decision to rename was made, Blackcat began other renamings (Azerbaijan, American Samoa, Angola). I asked a member to open a discussion for possible renaming of such categories, but then started even more extensive renaming without any discussion (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Belarus, Gabon, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone). I ask the Commons community to return the original names for these categories and start a discussion about the naming issue.

ru:24 декабря User:Blackcat заменил Category:Romania national football team редиректом (сейчас изначальная категория является редиректом) и обвинил вернувшего в изначальное расположение категории User:YarikUkraine в вандализме. После моей просьбы показать на каком конкретно решении сообщества было принято решение о переименовании Blackcat начал другие переименования. Я попросил участника открыть обсуждение для возможного переименования подобных категорий, однако после этого начал ещё более масштабные переименования без каких либо обсуждений. Прошу сообщества Викисклада вернуть исходные названия для этих категорий и начать обсуждение вопроса о наименовании. Mitte27 (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is an user's feature, not admin's. That apart, the name scheme is consistent with "association football". I don't undersstand what the user is complaining about, since their behaviour is disruptive. -- Blackcat 12:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the renaming of national teams discussed? Mitte27 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting a page is an admin's feature. Well very well (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UPD: User:Blackcat continued renaming - Zimbabwe, Cyprus, Guinea-Bissau. Mitte27 (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitte27: , so what? It's 7 years that these categories are consistent with the principal name scheme "association football". Now can we safely assume you stop with this complaining? -- Blackcat 13:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A significant portion of these categories were named without the word "association". I have already asked you twice to open the renaming procedure to reach a consensus... Mitte27 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless. It's just instruction creep. -- Blackcat 14:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. At least three different users have explicitly shown their disagreement with your actions, so you must no longer consider your actions consensual. Well very well (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's years that is the scheme. If you want to change open a CfD . -- Blackcat 01:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If half of the categories used one scheme and other half another that means there was no explicit consensus at that moment. You should've opened a discussion to find out whether there is one still. Well very well (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless. It's not "half", more thqan 90% use the term Association football, and just because the switch was slow. The main category is association football, and in the past 7-8 years the names have been switched by several users to give consistency in all the subcategories (also here, here, here. and so on). So, deal with it, association football is the way it is for now. The renaming will go on. If you think it must be changed, open a CfD and discuss it. -- Blackcat 00:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think myself that "football" is better than "association football" ― I just think you shouldn't have done these renames without a discussion.
It's not "half", more thqan 90% use the term Association football
Half in the category of national teams. Well very well (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't attempt to fool me because I am as intelligent as you. You know well that categories must be consistent, thus the name of the topic must be the same in the whole category tree. -- Blackcat 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blackcat has also protected the Romania redirect page immediately after undoing YarikUkraine's rename — in 7 months after that rename has happened. Well very well (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no admin issue here, but it would be good to have consistency on "national football team" vs. "national association football team". Right now the members of Category:National association football teams are quite inconsistent on this.
As an involved party, Blackcat might not have been the best person to protect this one way or another and head off a wheel war, but it should be discussed, a consensus should be reached, and until that happens there is no point to people moving it back and forth between two roughly equally valid names. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: , I protected the cat for the strictly needed time to cool down the issue, then I quickly removed the protection. For the rest, I simply ensured consistency of the category tree, a path started almost six or seven years ago, and not by me. Thus this controversy is pointless in my eyes. -- Blackcat 19:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I protected the cat for the strictly needed time to cool down the issue
Haven't it cooled down in those 7 months before? Well very well (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User الشيخ ياسر الدوسري

[edit]

الشيخ ياسر الدوسري (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is uploading a multitude of images flagged as unsourced or copyrighted, of which a great numbers have already been deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Militum professio scriniarii

[edit]

Militum professio scriniarii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Worried about another users uploads

[edit]

I am worried that Jmjm0110 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded many photos that are not actually theirs of Ruston High School. They are all listed as own work. I've asked them on their talk page about it. Should they all be tagged? Could someone take a look please? Ktkvtsh (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a few DRs. The photographs could be public domain but that's a matter that requires due diligence. Abzeronow (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. What is a DR?
At first I thought they could have been included in the application to list the school on NRHP, but they would have been black and white, so the photos don't belong the the National Park Service. Ktkvtsh (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion Request. I see now. Thank you. Ktkvtsh (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh: I just wanted to direct your attention to COM:Glossary, which I find very useful, especially for abbreviations and jargon. Whenever I run across one that is new to me (or that I notice is undocumented) I try to add it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Thank you so much. I'm going to add it to my Useful Stuff list. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aornamras1982

[edit]

Aornamras1982 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being previously warned. --Ovruni (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files already deleted. Yann (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FireBreathMan

[edit]

FireBreathMan (talk · contribs) has spent a few months making deep reverts (many files they are editing have not been edited since the 2000s) to maps that contain Serbia/Kosovo, disrupting all the improvements that have occurred in between. Even for files where the specific change they want might make sense, their specific fixation creates much more significant issues. They have twice edited File:Europe polar stereographic Caucasus Urals boundary.svg in a way that shifts the boundary away from the Caucasus, which is per the title the entire point of the image. They reverted File:European Union Serbia Locator (with internal borders).svg and File:European Union Kosovo Locator.svg for reasons that are apparently so minor I can't see them, but by doing so readded the United Kingdom to the EU map. This is after a previous series of similar edits, which I raised on their talkpage in December. CMD (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RenatoGar

[edit]

RenatoGar (talk · contribs) has been making attacks and false accusations against me in the Village pump (see here), also spreading falsehoods and seeking to involve other users into a conflict against me. Until now I had avoided intervening in the Village pump discussion because I did't want to fuel [more] the conflict and because of how conflictive this user is being, but I'm tired to see that he maintains public defamation against me.

He is accusing me of having falsely made an arbitrary transfer, when I clearly explained him the circumstances in my discussion to clear up misunderstandings. I explained that the editing summary was not saved and I explained what source I was using. In this case use an official heritage source (here). But the user RenatoGar told me that the main name in the source was not correct, and provided other official sources (as you can see here). I realized my mistake, and I corrected it, acording to those sources provided by him. I did not like his bad manners and I warned him not to write to me again on any topic. Far from leaving me alone, he went to village pump to defame me, accusing me of ignoring him and other things that have nothing to do with the issue.

I would like to point out that this user has had virtually no activity on Commons until a few days ago, and that he is clearly bringing up conflicts he has had with other persons outside Commons and turning this into a kind of crusade (see this and this). Even user @Jmabel: tried to reason with him, without success. CFA1877 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Taking this to ANU is a needless escalation of a conflict that appears to be coming to its natural conclusion. Nothing has been said as far as I can tell that warrants disciplinary action. Taking the discussion to the Village Pump after getting nowhere on your talk page is a pretty normal and (depending on the nature of the conflict) appropriate move, in this case it was to ask for community input on a change you had made that they wanted to revert. That's what the Village Pump is for. And regardless how you feel about their attitude, they haven't taken any actions on their own that they haven't gotten support for from other Commoners. The category name is still in Spanish.
Their first edit(s) on Commons were to make a category for an Aragonese church using its Aragonese name, which you then changed to Spanish, which was the source of the conflict. They have a lengthy edit history on other Wikiprojects (Special:CentralAuth/RenatoGar), noting his lack of an edit history on Commons without any of that other context strikes me as an attempt to undermine his credibility. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ReneeWrites, dont use that template on any admin noticeboard unless a user has ben blocked at AN/V or AN/U. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 22:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the template and switched it for a regular comment one. Saw other people use it in the past so I figured it was appropriate in that context. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. I will never edit or upload an image to a place where my language is persecuted and prohibited, and I will take all necessary measures to denounce this abuse and harassment. Never say that this is a multilingual project, from the moment this persecution and aggression against the only category existing in this project in the Aragonese language is generated, created by an Aragonese to complement an article in the Biquipedia in Aragonese and which deals with an Aragonese church. How it bothers the Spanish neo-Nazis that there are 10,000 of us who speak Aragonese and that we have created a Wikipedia with nearly 50,000 articles. Goodbye. RenatoGar (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bye. In English, "multilingual" means multiple languages, so we will continue to call Commons "multilingual". There's a relatively tiny number of people from Spain here, and the Spanish speakers are at best a large minority. You seem to have come here with a chip on your shoulder and antagonized all the people who have no ball in the game.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about who is "you" in Prosfilaes' comment, but what his comment describes doesn't seem to match Special:Contributions/RenatoGar. I only can see that RenatoGar did a single edit in Commons and that edit was the creation of a new category. After that edit, that category was renamed unilaterally by other user and the other edits of RenatoGear have been just discussing that arbitrary renaming, first with the other user and then in the Village Pump. Even this thread wasn't started by @RenatoGar.
And I agree with Prosfilaes that Commons is a multilingual site, but the edit that undermined Commons' multilingualism wasn't RenatoGar's creation of the category, but its renaming to another language without discussion - and latter with the argument that there is an official source in another language. In addition, that renaming without previous discussion was clearly biting a newcomer, and RenatoGar's just show that newcomers get hurt when being bitten. Pere prlpz (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks by Charlesjsharp

[edit]

Per #Discussion of block length/alternative measures, it is clear consensus is for Charlesjsharp to be unblocked. This is further strengthened by #Response from Charles J Sharp, i.e. Charlesjsharp's apology and commitment to change. I also do not see the need to impose a formal IBAN since both Charlesjsharp and Giles Laurent agree to (mostly) stay out of each other's way. Furthermore, blocks are preventative and not punitive, therefore I will lift the block. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:12, 19 January 2025 (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.

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

Attacks against me

[edit]

It is with deep regret that I bring forward this case but I feel that I today have no other alternative anymore.

Since my very first day on FPC up to this day, I have been subject to multiple attacks by Charlesjsharp. Many of these attacks may look insignificant at first glance but the accumulation of these attacks shows an agressive pattern that this user adopted against me. Moreover, things escalated recently and I have the feeling that this user is also trying to tarnish my reputation. I can no longer accept this and I am therefore forced to open this ANU thread.

Here are multiple examples of these attacks on my FPC nominations :

  • Example 1 : basically saying he thinks his pictures are better than mine.
  • Example 2 : basically calling me a liar and saying I am inventing bird behavior and that I should go delete my comment.
  • Example 3 : opposing my nomination on the ground that he thinks that his pictures are better than mine.
  • Example 4 : opposing my nomination on the ground that he thinks his pictures are better than mine and also saying that my nomination "can't even compare" with his picture.
  • Example 5 : responding in a unpolite way, giving more links to pictures made by him that he thinks are better than mine.
  • Example 6 : saying my image was horrible.
  • Example 7 : opposing on the ground that he thinks that his picture is better than mine. Also, he is publicly calling me as a liar (his claim is completely false). This is absolutely unacceptable to me. Featured pictures are made to comment on the picture and not to try to publicly tarnish another's person reputation. This is an important escalation of the attacks.
  • Example 8 : inviting people to boycott or to oppose to my picture on the ground that I would have too many flamingo featured pictures. Not commenting on the picture, only commenting on the photographer.

Here are also examples on my VIC nominations :

  • Example 1 : accusing me of having written a false description.
  • Example 2 : ungrounded oppose where he says a picture of extremely low resolution of 458x604 pixels (0.2 MP), 60 times less than the nomination, would be better than mine.

These attacks against me have not gone unnoticed and I received this e-mail from a user that also saw them. I will not reveal the name of this user to respect his/her privacy (and because that message wasn't public) so the following screenshot has it's username censored : screenshot link.

I tried reaching out to Charlesjsharp on his talk page to tell him that I feel attacked by his behavior and I asked him to not do it anymore. I also warned him that I considered the situation serious enough to justify an ANU thread in case of new behavior. Instead of apologizing he putted all the blame on me by saying that I would be unable to accept criticism. I accept, welcome and thank constructive criticism but I can't accept childish behavior like "my pictures are better than yours" and publicly calling me a liar as he did multiple times. This latter behaviour is particularly unacceptable to me. Also he publicly accused me of insulting him, which I never did (see my response in previous link). This is again an absolutely unacceptable new attack against me that I will not tolerate and constitutes a new escalation. This has to stop.

Attacks against other users

[edit]

I have not been the only person attacked by this users and many other people also got targeted by him. Here are some examples :

  • El Golli Mohamed also went under attacks by Charlesjsharp : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 . Unfortunately El Golli Mohamed responded in an inappropriate way and was sanctioned for it. After that, Charlesjsharp kept reminding everyone on FPC and VIC that El Golli Mohamed was temporaroy banned, tarnishing the reputation of El Golli Mohamed : 1, 2, 3, 4
I think this behavior is disruptive and very inappropriate as instead of focusing on the image Charlesjsharp tried to destroy El Golli Mohamed's reputation.
  • ArionStar was recently banned from Wikimedia Commons and found a new home in the en wiki version of FPC. Eventhough ArionStar behavior on Wikimedia Commons was inappropriate, he didn't deserve to be constantly reminded on his nominations that he was banned from Wikimedia Commons. 1, 2, 3 Here again, Charlesjsharp tried to tarnish another user reputation instead of judging the nomination as it's supposed to be on FPC.
  • Charlesjsharp also opened many ANU complaints against other users which is again an agressive behavior :
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Many users also testified or commented on Charlesjsharp attacks and disruptive behavior :

  • Written testimony from another FPC user : "I just want to say that I really admire how you endure Charles’ attacks on the Featured picture candidates (FPC) page with endless patience and always with constructive answers. For a long time Charles has dominated wildlife photography on the FPC page with his shots, tolerating only the photos by Ivar and JJ Harrison with a forced smile. When Poco a Poco started to nominate diving photos in 2021 (or so), Charles fought against them fiercely; they got better, but in the end Poco turned again to other subjects. But now you are seriously endangering Charles’ dominance, and this seems to drive him crazy. At least this is my explanation for his recent very patronizing, often odd and always negative comments on any wildlife FP nominations." ;
  • Written testimony from Wolverine XI : "This conduct is typical of Charlesjsharp, who has a lengthy history of getting into arguments with many users over remarks like the ones above. He is quick to refer individuals to ANU for trivial issues while failing to see his own flaws. Sure, he may be a valuable contributor to the Wikimedia project, but he should really take more care when posting here. Accusations of legal malpractice are a serious matter that should not be made or taken lightly. I believe it's about time that this behavior is finally dealt with" ;
  • Complaint from Jeff G. : Reasons for reporting: Long history of argumentative tone, as seen and mentioned above in #User:A.Savin." ;
  • Complaint from El Golli Mohamed : "Support A block for two weeks. Charlesjsharp attacked me on a lot of my nominations on FPC to try to push me down" ;
  • Complaint from A.Savin : " Support a block for libelous comments, and per all above." ;
  • Complaint from Bodhisattwa : complaint about Charlesjsharp trying to rally many users to vote against his picture for presumably misleading votes, which was not at all the case ;
  • Yann testimony on Charlesjsharp behavior and the fact that Charlesjsharp attacks others : "Pdanese's writing is not nice, but your reviews are often not nice either. If you don't want to be attacked, do not attack others." ;
  • Yann testimony : "Your reviews go much beyond "criticisms of images". While you may not cross the limit, they are often borderline. Even negative criticism should make the receiver feel that something has to be learnt from the critics. But your critics often create bad feelings. If you make them without that intent, then you have a problem" ;
  • Chris.sherlock2 also testified of the problematic behavior of Charlesjsharp : "You might like to consider why a page worth of pithy comments about yourself is considered an attack on yourself. If you are offended by this page, then you might want to seriously think about your own pithy comments and how they would potentially be seen as attacks on those your comments are directed towards. You might open yourself to scrutiny. Obviously the page should be deleted, but a bit of self reflection might show your own behaviour is at times problematic." ;
  • W.carter testimony : "Yes, you are a true expert at keeping your acidic reviews just on the right side of what is possible without getting yourself reported, but your reviews and comments nevertheless create a toxic atmosphere on FPC. I'm not surprised that someone finally had enough. Unfortunately, when someone has "had enough" it's easy to get carried away by that emotion, and it will blow back at them instead" ;
  • And there are also many ANU complaints against this user. Here are some :

Admin actions requested

[edit]

The attacks against me and against other users creates a toxic atmosphere that is disruptive to the Wikimedia Commons project. There were times where I considered stopping contributing on Wikimedia Commons because of this. I wouldn't be surprised if other users stopped contributing because of that. This might actually be the case for the talented photographer El Golli Mohamed that stopped contributing after his issue with Charlesjsharp.

Wikimedia Commons needs to have a welcoming and friendly atmosphere free of personal attacks or agressivity.

Charlesjsharp has been warned for years by many users that his behavior was considered as attacks (see quotes above). He was invited to self reflect on his behavior but never changed acting like he did for many years.

He even received a formal warning by a Wikimedia administrator asking him to not accuse people of wrongdoings. Four users requested sanctions against Charlesjsharp.

Despite all this - and in violation of the formal warning he received -, he recently attacked me again by calling me a liar and accused me of insulting him, which is completely false.

Comments, warnings and even an admin formal warning have proven to be insufficient to stop this user's behavior. I think that only a proper sanction might allow this user to reflect on his behavior and to stop his aggressive attitude that is damageable to the Wikimedia project and to new users.

In view of the above I kindly request the following admin actions :

  • 1) Temporary Block this user for the time you see fit.
I suggest a period of 1 to 3 months. This should give him time to consider his past behavior and motivate him to not repeat that behavior.
  • 2) Forbid him to interact for a period of 1 year on my nominations and on files by me nominated by other users.
I will of course do the same as long that he keeps doing it too. Only exception: if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on a page then I reserve the possibility to answer.

Thank you for your understanding. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all users that were active on the latest ANU case regarding this user: Jeff G., Rhododendrites, Matrix, Adamant1, Red-tailed hawk, Charlesjsharp, El Golli Mohamed, A.Savin, Gbawden, Wolverine X-eye, Jmabel, Yann -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support the admin actions required -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would like to understand more on the topic. So far, in the links provided, I saw 1. an user's subpage created to criticize Charles's behaviour which was deleted because it bordered the personal attack and 2. an user problem discussion in which seemingly the attacked one is Charlie. And I guess I am not the only one to not understand the issue. -- Blackcat 23:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply.
    -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: I think you might have only read the "Admin actions requested" section. Please read the sections Attacks against me and Attacks against other users first before reading the "Admin actions requested" section to understand the case. Thank you in advance for your time! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Not tired to say again and again. Toxic users we don't need here, no matter their contentual contribution. --A.Savin 03:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I don't care what you do on commons, but if you are not civil with other users, I will happily support showing them the door. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alachuckthebuck (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment To avoid a punitive action, I suggest a mutual agreement to refrain from reviewing each others' nominations and images nominated by others for one year. If they can't agree on that, then a more coercive action may be needed. Yann (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your answer Yann. I already requested this to Charlesjsharp and he responded with a new unfounded attack putting all the blame on me, saying I would be unable to hear criticism from another user and he falsly accused me of insulting him, which I never did. Please check my answer to his answer on the previous link. Thank you -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than responding to each accusation, which I would be happy to do, I @Rhododendrites, Radomianin, Wilfredor, VulcanSphere, Adam Cuerden, and Crisco 1492: @Basile Morin, Agnes Monkelbaan, Famberhorst, Cmao20, Poco a poco, Harlock81, and Llez: @Jakubhal, GRDN711, Terragio67, Draceane, Archaeodontosaurus, Ermell, Rbrechko, The Cosmonaut, and Jmabel: to open up the discussion. I have already agreed to avoid any comments on Giles Laurent's images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, @Charlesjsharp: , not sure to understand your point, would you be so kind to help me understand better? -- Blackcat 18:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done I have imposed a one-year block on Charlesjsharp as requested to address repeated behavioral concerns. They may, however, have the chance to appeal it. I will leave the discussion open for further comments if needed. --Bedivere (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you think it was premature to close this so quickly? Wouldn't it be better to wait a little before taking any action? Wilfredor (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think action needed to be taken. However, if there is consensus for an interaction ban I would not oppose lessening the block. I have to note, however, that a sanction was much warranted. It is not the first time Charles is reported here for bad behavior. Bedivere (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bedivere: , I am not aprioristically for / against blocks but wouldn't be better to wait for the end of the discussion, in your opinion? -- Blackcat 18:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the length of this response... Maybe my bar for "attack" is too high from spending time in the swamps of enwiki's politics talk pages, but I do not see many attacks above. Saying an image is "horribly overexposed", for example, or "I took this photo that's better" are frustrating when they come from the same person repeatedly, but squarely in "commenting on content, not contributors" territory and thus permitted and often even encouraged here. Pointing out that a user has other FPs of the same species/subject, or talking about how many FPs we already have of the subject, or about the similarity between FPs are all reasonably common at FPC. Would it have been an attack if it were me who had said it instead? (To be clear, I would not have felt the need to say such a thing and agree with other participants there -- just making a point). My sense is it probably feels worse coming from Charles not because of the content of the remark but because, well, Charles has been grating on you and at this point it probably feels personal (maybe it is -- hard to tell if it would be different for anyone else nominating a bunch of wildlife photos). That makes the complaint harder to evaluate, as most of the diffs don't seem to point to anything especially objectionable taken one-by-one. Bedivere, I'm curious which you looked at that seemed worth action. The incidents with e.g. A.savin and W.carter were unacceptable, but those took place years ago, and I'm having trouble seeing any diffs that would call for a one-year block.
    The situation, as I see it is this: Charles dedicates a huge amount of time, energy, and money to take wildlife photos and indeed produces a large quantity of very high quality work. This experience has given him a very clear, and not very flexible, idea about what makes photos good/bad. He has become a bit of a gatekeeper -- by intention, if not always in practice -- and several other users seem to value his judgment and defer to it (that may be more true on enwiki). I get frustrated by this myself. I feel like Charles frequently applies different standards to other people's photos than to his own, and presents his opinions not as opinions but as plain facts (though, and this is important, he is not the only one at FPC to do these things).
    Some time ago -- perhaps after the last ANU thread -- it seemed like Charles switched to mostly commenting rather than voting. That felt like a constructive step for someone who has received feedback about abrasive votes. I will say that, since then, while I can understand some frustration when disagreeing with his criticisms (and the "not as good as mine" comments), he also frequently has a decent point. I have a much bigger problem with the e.g. no-information "Oppose - Nothing special" kind of votes some other folks rely on.
    So I frankly don't know what to do here. It's clear there's still a lot of friction among multiple users, probably owing to mostly minor issues accumulating into resentment, and it's well documented in research that conflict can lead to burnout. I don't want to see either Giles or Charles burnout/banned, as they both contribute a lot of amazing work. But I'm also not sure what remedy would make sense. An IBAN would be hard for people who participate in a process like FPC, and I'm reluctant to support it when most of the evidence is about criticism of photos rather than attacks on people. It would be easy if the two just agreed to avoid each other, but it sounds like that wasn't agreeable? I don't understand the one-year block, but it's possible I've missed some of the recent diffs. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) In case it's not clear from my comments here and below, I  Oppose the one-year block, and endorse the voluntary avoidance both Giles and Charles have expressed consent for previously. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment Rhododendrites. As I said at the beginning of my thread, many of the attacks may look insignificant at first glance but it is the accumulation of them and the increase in aggressiveness over time that created a feeling of an aggressive pattern against me. Comparing an image to another is something, but opposing many images and solely linking his own images and saying he thinks hiw own images are better is something else. Saying an image is "horribly overexposed" is unnecessary aggressiveness. Simply saying that an image is "too much overexposed" gives the same information but in a respectful way. Yes each of these aggressive comments alone would not be enough to justify sanctions, but repeated aggressivity against someone should not be tolerated. Charlesjsharp was warned for years by many users and even recently (see quotes and links above ; example from only 10 months ago) that his behavior can be seen as attacks and was invited to change his behavior and to self reflect on it. Instead of taking in consideration the amount of feedback about his behavior, he continued it and received a formal warning by an administrator just 4 months ago. Later a thread was even opened against him where four users requested sanctions against Charlesjsharp and even that was not a wake-up call for him to consider changing his behavior. Moreover the problem I had with him is not only his agressivity but his repetitive occasions where he publicly called me a liar (1, 2, 3), which is something I feel tarnishes someone's reputation. That is unacceptable.
    I tried reaching out to Charlesjsharp on his talk page to tell him that I feel attacked by his behavior and I asked him to not do it anymore. I also warned him that I considered the situation serious enough to justify an ANU thread in case of new behavior. Instead of apologizing he putted all the blame on me by saying that I would be unable to accept criticism. I accept, welcome and thank constructive criticism but I can't accept childish behavior like "my pictures are better than yours" (as I said above, he almost only linked his own images) and I can't accept him publicly calling me a liar as he did multiple times. Also he publicly accused me of insulting him, which I never did (see my response). This is again an absolutely unacceptable new attack against me that I can not tolerate and constituted a new escalation.
    The A.Savin incident was not years ago, it was just 4 months ago because of a comment in the green section of this page that constituted a new unacceptable attack.
    It is also just 4 months ago that El Golli Mohammed complained about Charlesjsharp.
    It is just days ago that Charlesjsharp attacked ArionStar : 1, 2, 3.
    It was just days and hours ago that I was again attacked.
    I agree with your statement (and also noted myself) that Charlesjsharp applies stricter standards to other people's photos than his own photos and that he presents his opinions not as opinions but as plain facts. I personally don't think that's normal and I hope he doesn't do that anymore on other people when his block expires.
    I did say on his talk page and here that if he would agree to stop editing pages of my nominations or pages of images by me nominated by others I would agree to do the same (with an exception if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on such page) but I didn't agree for him to attack me again on his talk page by putting all the blame on me, saying I would be unable to hear criticism and falsly pretending that I would have insulted him. These are unacceptable to me and he has to stop any form of attack, wherever it is.
    Moreover it was under a voluntary basis that I made that offer but I'm against an "IBAN" because you described such as a something imposed and I would personally feel sanctioned to have that officially imposed on me when all I asked for was to not have attacks anymore against me. Charlesjsharp was warned for years that his behavior was problematic, received a formal administrator warning for it, four people requested sanctions against him 4 months ago. I don't have that history and I would feel it as extremely unfair to have any sort of "measure" against me.
    Once the ban expires I would do what I proposed but only on a voluntary basis and not on an imposed basis, and as long that he respects it, as long that he doesn't do new attacks and with the above mentioned exception. There is no reason to believe that I would not stand to my word. So I'm strictly against an IBAN imposed against me. But an IBAN solely addressed to Charles that I can accept and was admin action number 2 that I requested. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    even that was not a wake-up call for him to consider changing his behavior - This would be determined by evidence of a problem since then. You've put about 30k of text in this section so far, which is more than any one person can reasonably evaluate carefully, but here's what I say about the recent stuff:
    publicly called me a liar There is a difference between challenging/questioning and "calling a liar". These may skirt the line, but people frequently interpret an image or its context incorrectly. We correct them and move on. Here and elsewhere you also say that Charles says this "falsely", etc., which is also "calling him a liar" by that definition.
    The A.Savin incident was not years ago. It was years ago. 2021. A.savin was right to be upset at the original incident, but there was no need to re-inflame that conflict out of the blue. But yes, sure enough Charles responded indignantly and opened a foolish ANU thread rather than just letting it roll off his shoulder.
    Example text I'm just not seeing it. In the second diff, Charles highlights a couple comments from you that are, to my eyes, exactly the same kind of unintentionally offensive criticism that Charles has become known for (e.g. boring and easy to get with bird photography in my opinion. When he points that out, you say I absolutely never insulted you as you falsely pretend (i.e. calling him a liar), then you open this thread saying that it's an entirely one-way street of Charles attacking you and calling you a liar, supported by diffs that do not sufficiently support those claims and in fact include instances of you criticizing Charles and calling him a liar (at least according to the same definition of "calling a liar"). Avoiding both such comments would make for a happier place at FPC, and Charles is certainly better known for that style than you, but I find you weaken your argument every time you frame something as "attack" when it looks to an outsider like two opinionated people pointing the finger at the other, with neither party willing to let things go. Let me be clear: I'm not trying to say you and Charles are the same -- Charles does have a long-term pattern of making sometimes harsh criticisms, and while I do get the sense that you don't like to back down, I can't say I've ever read anything you've written and thought "ouch" (unlike sometimes when I read what Charles writes). What I am saying today is that I do not find your recent evidence persuasive enough for a one-way IBAN, tban from FPC, or a block.
    I'm against an "IBAN" - Me too. You should be subject to that kind of pressure/stigma/whatnot. I think you two should voluntarily avoid each other, and that such a commitment should be enough to resolve all of this. If Charles agrees to that and violates it without a prompt apology/fix, ping me to the next thread and I'd support something stronger. Lest you think this is some sort of partiality towards Charles (contrary to history at FPC :) ), I'm pretty reliably a fan of the narrowest possible intervention that will reduce harm and retain productive contributors (we don't have any to spare IMO). :) — Rhododendrites talk |  01:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Charles, Arion, and I... there's a clear intention to create a toxic environment, almost like a witch's den. The real issue isn't the users themselves, but the section, which has turned into a breeding ground for negativity. Charles endured constant mistreatment and baseless accusations; no one can remain passive when faced with such hostility. This pattern keeps repeating itself. FPC used to be much more peaceful before certain users joined. When the roles of victims and perpetrators reverse, it's as if the world itself has been turned upside down. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Baseless accusations", interesting. If you don't like baseless accusations, how would you evaluate then this baseless accusation (by Sharp) and this baseless accusation (by yourself)? Long live double standards? Just like at Putin's, "for myself & friends - everything, for all others - laws"? Wow --A.Savin 15:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wilfredor I respectfully ask you to either stop posting on this topic or to switch to a gentler tone because you are the only other user who's behavior I also find at times prolematic.
    These behaviors of you in the past raises questions or sometimes could be seen as attacks:
Examples
    • this comment was never clear to who it was addressed and I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed good faith of you and that it would not be directed against me. But if you are, I absolutely never insulted Charlesjsharp and if you said that then it is a severe accusation that I will not accept. The rest of that comment is also inappropriate and an attack on the photographer/reviewers instead of keeping FPC focused on the image ;
    • on this comment you confused someone else's picture with me and ungroundlessly accused me of narcissism which I find unacceptable. Here again this is attacking a photographer/other user instead of focusing on the picture.
    Also :
    • You are now saying that the accusations against Charlesjsharp are baseless without giving any explanation on why they would be baseless. Worse, you are even saying that the roles of victims and perpretrators were reversed, which is again a serious accusation, since that is an insinuation that I would myself be attacking Charlesjsharp which is not the case. All I want is to defend myself from his attacks and I was forced to bring this to ANU as despite several warnings he received from the community, from an administrator and from me asking him on his talk page to stop he continued attacking me.
    • On this comment you are explicitly accusing me of creating a hostile environment because I opened this thread. Once again, all I wanted was for Charlesjsharp attacks against me to stop. When asked on his talk page he responded with a new attack.
    • On this comment you are accusing me of just wanting to collect FP, which is untrue and I consider as an attack.
    • Here you are talking about "ego masturbators" which I think is inappropriate.
    • Here you are accusing the administrator of having an extremely reckless action. You may not agree with his decision, but that is by no mean a reason to have such inapropiate tone against him. So far three other administrators expressed their support to a 1 year block : admin 1 (who even said he might have done an indefinite in this case), admin 2, admin 3
    • Here it seems like an attempt to canvas votes that was thankfully reverted by Yann.
    • Also this comment presumably against Basile Morin is absolutely unacceptable and there even was an ANU thread opened recently against you for it.
Stop reading when you accuse me of calling you a narcissist, my comment was not directed at you, I think you have a great ability to write huge texts and collect "evidence", but no, you are not the one I was referring to. I'm going to retire to do productive things, I'll leave you with your discussion, I've already made my point clearly. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if I can and if it is still possible to participate, but please look at this comment of Charlesjsharp about himself. He is strict, but honest. Maybe, he uses the same approach when talks to others, and it is not the best here, but imho he sure lacks of harassment intent. This may be an opportunity to change in part this way of approaching others in the FPC nominations, but honestly I don't think that the one-year block is necessary. --Harlock81 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you; Charles's comments may be harsh, but they're exactly the kind of feedback that helps the section grow. In the past, there were other users with a similar level of critical insight—like Colin—who also left due to the same ego-stroking spirit that seems to dominate FPC Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose to the block. I think that it is a great loss for Commons if Charles remains blocked for such a long time. I am very rarely active at FPC and I find the mostly quite low level that is considered to be an attack on FPC quite intimidating. That said, I wonder whether a ban to vote or comment on each other's images would be a much better solution, enforcable by a block only if the quarrel does not stop. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On my number 1 admin action that I requested, I asked for a block for a period of time that an admin sees fit and suggested a period of time of 1 to 3 months so I wasn’t expecting a full year either.
    The full year I asked for was in regards to an IBAN imposed to Charlesjsharp solely (while I would also avoid commenting his nominations but on a voluntary basis) on my number 2 admin action that I requested.
    However, Charlesjsharp was warned for many years that his behavior could be considered as attacks. He was invited to stop them and reflect on them. He even received 4 months ago a formal warning from an administrator. I personally asked him to stop on his talk page and he responded with a new attack. I am sorry but that is an extremely high bar to reach and I can think of no other user that has such history and that avoided sanctions for so many years. So a sanction in the form of a block was definitely needed because the user has proven to not want to change his behavior even after a formal administrator warning.
    The question of the length of the block is another. I personally leave that question in the hands of administrators. I note that so far four administrators have expressed that they think that a 1 year block is appropriate : the administrator that blocked, admin 2 (who even said he might have done an indefinite in this case), admin 3, admin 4.
    Charlesjsharp was warned for years that his behavior was problematic, received a formal administrator warning for it, four people requested sanctions against him 4 months ago. I don't have that history and I would feel it as extremely unfair to have any sort of "measure" against me when all I wanted is to stop receiving attacks. Once the ban expires I would do what I already proposed on his talk page but only on a voluntary basis and not on an imposed basis, and as long that he respects it, as long that he doesn't do new attacks and with the above mentioned exception. There is no reason to believe that I would not stand to my word. So I'm strictly against an IBAN imposed against me. But an IBAN solely addressed to Charles that I can accept and was admin action number 2 that I requested.
    That being said, my goal is not to have Charles blocked for a long period. I just want him to have enough time to reflect on his past behavior and to realize it is time to change that behavior. I would support an early unblock after a minimal period of 1 to 3 months on the following conditions:
    • He expresses that he realizes that his past behavior was at times problematic;
    • He sincerely apologizes for it;
    • He promises to do his best to avoid any sort of attacks against anyone;
    • He promises to especially avoid any sort of attack against me given our relationship;
    • He promises to stop editing pages of images that I nominate or of images by me nominated by others.
    As I already said I would in return avoid editing his nominations or images by him nominated by others (only exception: if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on such page then I reserve the possibility to answer), and as long that he respects his promise and as long that he doesn't do new attacks.
    -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't think this is fair. Many of these accusations seem to relate to Charlesjsharp making harsh criticisms of others' photos. I agree that he is a harsh critic but I do not think he is an unfair one. He also frequently supports the work of other photographers in the wildlife genre such as JJ Harrison, Poco a poco, and Iifar. I have frequently seen him change his vote when criticisms are addressed, or, as in this case, where authors pointed out something he didn't know. With respect to Giles Laurent who I think is a great wildlife photographer, I'm not sure why it's inappropriate for Charles to point out when he thinks his own pictures are better. FP is about promoting the best images on the project and Charles usually phrases it as 'I'm biased but I think mine is superior because...'; I'm honestly not sure how else he could phrase it if this is what he sincerely believes. I am sad that this has been pushed through without any consensus having been reached. As for Charles pointing out ArionStar's actions on English Wikipedia FP, I think this is merely warning another similar project that Arion has caused severe disruption, which is an important consideration when voting on his work; and I don't think it can fairly be construed as harassment (ArionStar is already being warned by other users for continuing his poor behaviour on EnWiki FPC, so it's not like Charles's warning was unfair, he is already being vindicated). Charles is a great photographer and an asset to this project. He has provided a huge amount of high quality work to Commons and although his comments can be terse and others may find them abrasive, I have never seen any intent to hurt or wound. I have learnt a great deal from his critiques of photography and believe I am a better judge of the quality of images because of interacting with him. I am disappointed by this decision. Charles has already agreed to avoid commenting on Giles Laurent's pictures in future and I do not think there is any need for further punitive action. If this decision stands Commons has committed a grave self-inflicted wound. Cmao20 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To "point out [that] own pictures are better" is also possible without personal attacks and libelous accusations... You know? --A.Savin 16:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Cmao20, I wish I had time to respond in detail to everyone but it already took me many hours to answer to a few comments so I kindly ask you to read my above answers to Rhododendrites and to Flogaus-Faust -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment A one-year block seems excessive, I think a shorter duration, like a week or a month, might have been enough to get the message across of treating others with respect, regardless of the quality of your or their work. It's also worth noting that addressing similar behavior earlier might have avoided the need for such a significant measure. Allowing someone to repeatedly push the boundaries of acceptable behavior because of the quality of their contributions can give the impression of favoritism and leads to simmering resentment that then explodes on ANU like this. To this effect, I appreciate Bedivere for taking decisive action after years of apparent inaction. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for bringing it here, I thought I was the only person who had noticed this Wilfredor (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this thread, Giles proposed mutual avoidance. In Charles' response, he effectively agreed, but some other part of that response led to a tangent. Let's regroup here: Giles and Charles, are you both content to avoid each other's nominations/comments on Commons (it would be best if this were a straight yes/no option, without additional commentary on whose comments were/weren't attacks). If so, perhaps that resolves this issue and we can move on without losing any contributors here. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A one-year ban is an extraordinarily severe measure and, in my opinion, should only ever be used as a last resort. I believe that a shorter period of time - such as a week or a month - would have been sufficient to send a clear message about the importance of respectful behavior. Taking such drastic action risks permanently losing a valuable voice, and I believe we should always strive for de-escalation and reconciliation before resorting to such measures.
It is unfortunate that tensions were allowed to simmer for so long without being addressed, ultimately leading to this escalation. Earlier intervention with clear boundaries may have helped to avoid reaching this point. I appreciate the efforts to maintain a constructive environment at FPC, but I believe that proportionality is key to ensuring that decisions are both fair and effective.
I find myself agreeing with Yann's suggestion that the parties involved simply avoid each other to move forward. This approach feels practical and gives everyone a chance to continue contributing without further conflict. It seems like a step toward restoring balance without resorting to unnecessarily harsh punishment unnecessary sanctions.
On a personal note, FPC has been a place where I've sharpened my perspective on photography and learned to appreciate the diversity of viewpoints. What I truly long for is a forum where we can engage in respectful dialogue, even in the midst of disagreement. A place where a shared passion for photography fosters understanding and collaboration rather than division. Despite the challenges, I remain hopeful that we can work together to create an atmosphere of mutual respect and peaceful coexistence for all concerned. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Since participating on FPC, I have been aware of the challenges posed by the sometimes tense and toxic atmosphere. I understand how difficult it can be for everyone involved, and I have tried to respond with calm, objectivity, and kindness, hoping to set an example of constructive and respectful interaction. For this reason, I believe it would have been better if we as a community had reached a collective and democratic consensus before making a decision as significant as a one-year block. Fair and consistent treatment, in accordance with established policies, should apply equally to all. I believe this is the foundation of a just and democratic process. I value the contributions and perspectives of all participants in this discussion and hope that we can use this situation as an opportunity to reflect and improve together as a community. With sincerest regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a problem with the duration of the ban I might even have blocked infinitely in this case. Blocks are not to punish someone. Blocks are to prevent further damage to the project. Blocked user can request to be unblocked when they convince us that they understood what the problematic behavior was and that they will change this in the future. GPSLeo (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like someone arguing that this avoids disruption to point to specific diffs of disruption that would be avoided (diffs in the time since the last ANU preferably). — Rhododendrites talk |  17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GPSLeo: Thank you for the clarification and the perspectives shared. While I now better understand the reasoning behind the ban, it still feels significant to me. I remain hopeful that respectful dialogue and understanding can guide us as a community. Despite conflicts, I tend to focus on the good in people. It's not always easy, but I believe it's possible. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)  Comment Thanks Bedivere for taking action. While I see the points the opposes are bringing up, I think a block is in order to prevent further disruption to commons. Weather the block needs to be a year long i'm unsure, but at least we now have something to work from. Rhododendrites, I'm assuming you have an en-wiki style 2way IBAN in mind? Commons is so much bigger than en-wiki that IBANs can be useful to allow 2 contributors to work on commons without butting heads (at FPC). All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have a voluntary measure in mind without some formal sanction (typically an IBAN is something imposed, not voluntary). These are two users with a lot of talent and experience who don't like each other, but I do not see any particularly problematic disruption/attacks that aren't years old. Most importantly, I don't see anything being solved by a block that couldn't be better solved by these two simply doing what they both already said they wanted to do and avoiding each other. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GPSLeo above. But honestly... Charlesjsharp and self-reflection? Charlesjsharp and apology? Not in my wildest dreams I can imagine something like that --A.Savin 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I see an extensive text filled with countless "evidences" and links, a red flag immediately goes up. It seems that when there isn’t enough evidence or when the intent is to punish a user, a convoluted theory is often crafted. I’ve experienced this myself and have seen it happen to others. Are we photographers here to support each other, or are we collectors of evidence trying to create a hostile environment? What is the real purpose of this space? Charles has been openly critical of everyone, but in the same way, he is often self-critical. He is a serious photographer who isn’t swayed by the opinions of others like a sheep; he has his own perspective. On FPC, if you don’t vote in alignment with the majority or dare to vote negatively, you are often punished. As a result, many users avoid leaving critical feedback, which ultimately hinders growth and progress. I don’t believe Charles’ behavior warrants a block, as prematurely enforced by an admin. On the contrary, his contributions should be appreciated. He has dared to question and provide constructive criticism without fear, unlike others who merely flatter. Is this a beauty contest, a race to collect medals, or a section aimed at improving technical quality? --Wilfredor (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Please release the current block. Could we hear the defense's voice first? I feel like the user was blocked abruptly, at least without any consensus established, at this point. Just on the basis of accusations, probably sincere, but not necessarily balanced, compared to the sanction. Some of us have barely had time to read or study the request. Wikimedia is an American project and it seems to me that in the United States we have the right to express ourselves at the time of our trial. The lawyers on both sides speak, each side is free to apologize if they wish (which generally has the effect of calming things down), and then, in the end, the judges decide. Charles is not the kind of vandal who deserves to be blocked on a whim. We have read a lot of very constructive opinions from Charles. And some tinged with humor, which is valuable. example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4,... I think Charles can also be both critical and complimentary, as for example two days ago. -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to comment, I'm happy to transclude his comments from his talk page to here. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page of a blocked user should be used to ask for unblock and not for amswer comments Wilfredor (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm sort of with Rhododendrites here. Yes, Charles is one of the users who excels in creating a toxic atmosphere at FPC and elsewhere. I've been at the receiving end of some rather crude lies and accusations from him, I find his behavior toffish and often unbearable. He uses a sort of language that is perfectly natural for arguing on the floor of the Houses of Parliament, but not on Commons. I do wish he would learn the difference! But like I said in the part where I'm quoted above, he knows exactly where the legal line is, so the whole thing is tricky. He is as limber in his outrageous behavior as a UK or US politician, and keeps just on the right side of the rules. He keeps his toes on the right side of the line while leaning over with his whole body. Arion was another thing, since he deliberately broke rules and created new ones for himself. That block was a blessing. Here I don't see that we have grounds for such a drastic measure. We can't punish people just because they can't even spell 'diplomacy'. Charles is too old to ever change his ways or learn how to behave now. A block will not reform him in any way. I think it might be better if he wasn't blocked, but was restricted from voting and commenting (on/about anything!) on FPC. From what I can tell, he doesn't vote on FPC anymore these days anyway. He could still upload photos and nominate, but at least we would be spared his lack of tact. A block is too much here. --Cart (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, this situation isn’t as simple as a "good side" versus a "bad side." I don’t see how your comment helps to ease tensions or deepen our understanding of what’s happening. While Charles’ critiques may come across as harsh, they show a straightforwardness from a time when communication was less restrained—perhaps blunt, but often more sincera. Arion, Charles, and I share the experience of addressing issues with the same usuario, though I am not referring to the individual who made this report here. Currently, FPC has lost much of its productivity, and I believe this is a point where we can find common ground. Wilfredor (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never mentioned good vs bad sides, only within or outside the rules of the site. And I'm explaining why someone with the bad history I have with Charles, still thinks a one year block is too severe here when other measures can be taken. I'm sure there are those who probably think I would jump at any chance to get rid of him, but I believe in treating everybody fairly, even people I don't get along with. --Cart (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Cart for being a voice of reason, sense, and decency. I agree that Charles has needled you in the past but I don't think there's really anything wrong in the recent diffs here. As you say he doesn't vote on FPC anymore these days, just nominates his own pictures and comments on others. Anyway, regardless of whether his behaviour has at times been rude, this whole process seems utterly arbitrary to me. There is not much logic to blocking him for these specific edits. Cmao20 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am sorry to all of those who I had not time to respond, I wish I could respond to everyone individually but that would just make the page very long and have things repeated many times so I kindly ask you all to read :
I will also respond bellow -- Giles Laurent (talk)
  •  Oppose overreaction. The initial eight examples show no "attacks" worthy of a block, see #My analysis of the evidence below. Huge focus on "tarnishing reputation" which is not something any Wikimedia project cares about. Then a lot of duplication. A few diffs of "testimony" which are probably worse "tarnishing reputation attacks" than any of the original eight examples. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of block length/alternative measures

[edit]

Hi, let's discuss block length/alternative measures here instead of cluttering the !votes. I see a few options:

  1. Extend to indef block
  2. Keep at 1 year
  3. Reduce to 3 months
  4. Reduce to 1 month
  5. Reduce to 1 month with IBAN between them and Giles Laurent
  6. Unblock and have IBAN between them and Giles Laurent
  7. Unblock with no punishment

These are all the possible combinations I can think of. Please choose one to support and explain your stance. Really sorry for cluttering everyone's pings but @Rhododendrites, Radomianin, Wilfredor, VulcanSphere, Adam Cuerden, and Crisco 1492: @Basile Morin, Agnes Monkelbaan, Famberhorst, Cmao20, Poco a poco, Harlock81, and Llez: @Jakubhal, GRDN711, Terragio67, Draceane, Archaeodontosaurus, Ermell, Rbrechko, The Cosmonaut, Jmabel, Robert Flogaus-Faust, and A.Savin: sorry if I missed someone —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix, I think you forgot me, but here's IMHO, the minimum regarless of block status:
  • 2-way Iban between Charles and Giles,
  • Indefinite ban from FPC (appealable only to the community after 6 months)
As to the block itself, convert to indef to require them to request an unblock recognizing their mistakes. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not do anything as long as we do not have a statement from Charlesjsharp. We could lift the technical block and allow him to place the statement here or keep the block and look at the statement on the talk page, but this is irrelevant for the final decision. GPSLeo (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no further statement from Charles on his UTP is to come, then I support Keep at 1 year. Should there be sufficient apology for past incivilities and libel, I reserve the option to support reducing the duration or even lifting the block; but I don't believe it will ever come. Should there be unnecessary, inflammatory and/or further libelous comments by him on his UTP, I would support an immediate extend to indef block, preferrably with talk page block. --A.Savin 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unblock and have IBAN between Charles and Giles Laurent, per Rhododendrites' 'I do not see any particularly problematic disruption/attacks that aren't years old.' Charles's net contribution to Commons, and to FPC, is clearly positive. I agree with Wilfredor that 'Charles has been openly critical of everyone, but in the same way, he is often self-critical.' The fact that an editor often speaks bluntly should not be enough to ban them. Cmao20 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No amount of useful contributions justifies harassment. The complain by Giles Laurent is justified, so something has to be done. I don't know how long a block is necessary, but future will tell us. Now if Charles apologizes, I could agree to lift the block. Yann (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't accept the characterisation of this behaviour as harassment. All I can see is two users who don't get on. Charles is a harsh critic and always has been but he has already stopped voting on nominations presumably because people were upset by the tone of his opposing votes. Tone is easy to misunderstand on the internet where words have to stand on their own without any vocal cues to help interpret them. Charles has already promised not to comment further on Giles Laurent's FPC nominations so I don't think anything further needs to be done. Cmao20 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*:@Cmao20, Please look at the case of Davey2010. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) striking as probably the second worse comment I have made on commons. sorry about that. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]
  • ??? As someone who's followed both the Charlesjsharp and the Davey2010 cases over the years, they are not remotely alike. Davey would repeatedly, for years, fly off the handle into profanity-laden personal attacks, calling people "fucking idiot" and whatnot. Please link to the diff in the "attacks on me" section above that's at all similar. The challenging thing with Davey was he'd typically come to his senses after a few days and deliver a good apology. The challenging thing with Charles is that, with a handful of years-old exceptions, there's far from consensus that his criticisms, which are nearly always about the content rather than the contributor, are attacks at all (clearly some feel that way, and far more would characterize some of his comments as hypocritical, nitpicky, or self-serving, but I'd argue what we're talking about with the more recent diffs are within the realm of what should be expected in a forum like FPC where criticism is encouraged). — Rhododendrites talk |  18:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree entirely with Rhododendrites. Some of Charles' comments particularly to W.carter and A.Savin in the past have in my opinion gone too far. His comments more recently to Giles Laurent seem to be entirely within the paradigm of reasonable criticism. You can find another user making very similar criticisms of a picture here, but of course no one is talking about banning him. Let's not turn FPC into a place where we have to tread on eggshells around criticism. Cmao20 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites and @Cmao20, You're right, the situation is completely different, but even valid negative criticism can be phrased in a friendly tone that doesn't cause AN threads. (I don't really have a comparison here thats appropriate, so we're going to be making prescient here. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and when I cast oppose votes on FPC I usually first try to acknowledge what I like about a picture before discussing my criticisms. But I don't think this should be mandated. I don't see anything in the recent diffs that is outside the boundaries of reasonable criticism. This is achieving nothing other than driving one of the most productive photographers on Commons away, and exerting a chilling effect against criticism on FPC that will eventually lead to the decline of standards. Cmao20 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response to Rhododendrites, my response to Robert Flogaus-Faust and my message here. Especially have a look at the response to Rhododendrites in regards to the recent issues.
Toxic and agressive atmosphere also drives away good photographers and I wouldn't be surprised if El Golli Mohammed has not been active anymore because of his issue with Charlesjsharp. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock for now (option 6 or 7) More time needed to find an intelligent and efficient solution. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles is a bit prickly, but I don't think malicious. He is prone to extreme bluntness, and can go too far sometimes, but a year block feels far too much. As far as I can tell, he never even received a warning before being blocked for a year.
This is not the way to get behavioural improvement, this is how you drive someone off the site. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with Adam. I would not blame Charles for leaving after this. Cmao20 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If he does apologize, let's lift the block with a 1 month probation on FPC and a agreement to not interact with Giles. But as A.Slavin said above, he's probably just going to wait it out. Let the block stand. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize because I criticize the photos in an objective way with the same harshness with which he criticizes himself? Isn't criticism what makes us better photographers? Or is it just a matter of accumulating FPs? Wilfredor (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly good contributions are not a free pass for bad behavior. Bedivere (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp received dozens of warnings from many users but ignored them. Please see my response to Rhododendrites -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 6: Unblock and have IBAN Charlesjsharp can be challenging to deal with at times, and I’ve personally had issues with his comments. I do think he needs to work on his tone and communication style, as his remarks often create unnecessary tension. However, he is an incredibly valuable contributor to Commons, and it would be a significant loss to ban him from the project. The decision to block him feels rushed, particularly given that he has already committed to refraining from commenting on Giles Laurent’s nominations. Additionally, I believe it’s crucial to foster an environment where people feel free to voice their honest opinions about photos. At the moment, it seems like some prefer to remain silent rather than risk raising even justified criticism. For these reasons, I believe Charles deserves another chance. -- Jakubhal 20:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly oppose any option with an « IBAN » against me.
I did say on Charlesjsharp's talk page and on my request for admin action that if Charlesjsharp would agree to stop editing pages of my nominations or pages of images by me nominated by others I would agree to do the same (with an exception if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on such page) but I didn't agree for him to attack me again on his talk page by putting all the blame on me, saying I would be unable to hear criticism and falsly pretending that I would have insulted him. These are unacceptable to me and he has to stop any form of attack, wherever it is.
Moreover it was under a voluntary basis that I made that offer but I'm against an "IBAN" because Rhododendrites described such as a something imposed and I would personally feel sanctioned to have that officially imposed on me when all I asked for was to not have attacks anymore against me. Charlesjsharp was warned for years that his behavior was problematic, received a formal administrator warning for it, four users already requested sanctions against him 4 months ago. I don't have that history and I would feel it as extremely unfair to have any sort of "measure" against me.
Once the ban expires I would do what I proposed but only on a voluntary basis and not on an imposed basis, and as long that he respects it, as long that he doesn't do new attacks and with the above mentioned exception. There is no reason to believe that I would not stand to my word. So I'm strictly against an IBAN imposed against me. But an IBAN solely addressed to Charles that I can accept and was admin action number 2 that I requested.

Moreover on my number 1 admin action that I requested, I asked for a block for a period of time that an admin sees fit and suggested a period of time of 1 to 3 months so I wasn’t expecting a full year.
The full year I asked for was in regards to an IBAN imposed to Charlesjsharp solely (while I would also avoid commenting his nominations but on a voluntary basis) on my number 2 admin action that I requested.
However, Charlesjsharp was warned for many years that his behavior could be considered as attacks. He was invited to stop them and reflect on them. He even received 4 months ago a formal warning from an administrator. I personally asked him to stop on his talk page and he responded with a new attack. I think that is an extremely high bar to reach and I can think of no other user that has such history and that avoided sanctions for so many years. So a sanction in the form of a block was definitely needed because the user has proven to not want to change his behavior even after a formal administrator warning.
The question of the length of the block is another. I personally leave that question in the hands of administrators, whose judgment I trust. I note that so far four administrators have expressed that they think that a 1 year block is appropriate : the administrator that blocked, admin 2 (who even said he might have done an indefinite in this case), admin 3, admin 4

That being said, my goal is not to have Charles blocked for a long period. I just want him to have enough time to reflect on his past behavior and to realize it is time to change that behavior. I would support an early unblock after a minimal period of 1 to 3 months on the following conditions:
  • He expresses that he realizes that his past behavior was at times problematic;
  • He sincerely apologizes for it;
  • He promises to do his best to avoid any sort of attacks against anyone;
  • He promises to especially avoid any sort of attack against me given our relationship;
  • He promises to stop editing pages of images that I nominate or of images by me nominated by others.
As I already said I would in return avoid editing his nominations or images by him nominated by others (only exception: if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on such page then I reserve the possibility to answer), and as long that he respects his promise and as long that he doesn't do new attacks.
-- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think an IBAN should always be on both quarrelling parties. Otherwise one of the two would be free to attack and abuse the other who is prohibited to defend themselves. Such a temptation should be avoided. An IBAN here works about the same way a restraining order works in real life. --Cart (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this page there can be a one-way interaction ban. I think it would be justified in this case as I did not attack him and don't have his attacks history against other users (he was invited multiple times to stop, he received a formal administrator warning four months ago and four users already requested sanctions four months ago). I would feel sanctioned to have a sword above my head when all I asked was for attacks to stop and am strongly against an IBAN against me.
In case an IBAN would only be possible on both parties (which is not the case according to the previous link) then, as already said at the end of my previous message, a solution might eventually be found in the form of a voluntary agreement and promise under the above given conditions. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case though, if an IBAN is put in place, I think a sturdy two-way IBAN "wall" between the two of you would be best for the sake of peace on this site. Looking at the enormous amount of text you have produced here, does not give me much confidence that you would be able to uphold a one-way IBAN and refrain from quipping stuff in Charles' general direction. --Cart (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a man of my word and respect my promises and terms given (as long that the other party respects theirs as well). Contrary to Charlesjsharp that opened 11 ANU complaints here, this is my only one and I hope the last one. I have no intention in participating in other ANU threads just as I've never done it before. I'll only do it if I feel forced to or asked to respond to something. I tried avoiding this ANU complaint by a request on his talk page but as he just "agreed" he directly attacked me again which demonstrated to me that he was not willing to calm things down and that I needed help from administrators. I don't hold grudges and can accept sincere apologies with promise to not reiterate but such apologies have to exist.
So far
  • 11 users recently said some sort of sanction were necessary/justified (but with multiple different appreciations on the length) : 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
  • 4 administrators said a long block is necessary (1 year or indefinite) : 1, 2, 3, 4 and 2 other administrators said the block can stay in place but be lifted in case of apology 1, 2.
For now I will stop commenting on here as you've said I write too much text.
My offer made above is still on the table and I could support the block being reduced to 1 month if the apology is sincere.
Let's all give space to Charlesjsharp to apologize if he is ready to -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis of the evidence

[edit]

I'm going to review Giles' listed problematic things.

FPC

  • Example 1 : "basically saying he thinks his pictures are better than mine." - I'd say that a fairer assessment is saying that his weaver bird pictures are better than the specific weaver picture under discussion.
  • Example 2 : "basically calling me a liar and saying I am inventing bird behavior and that I should go delete my comment." I think this is more challenging Giles' statement that the nest was intentionally made to conceal it from predators. Now, Charles is doing this based on a fairly off-hand comment by Giles about what he likes about the image.
  • Example 3 : "opposing my nomination on the ground that he thinks that his pictures are better than mine." Again, this is him comparing Giles' image of a young gorilla to his own. Now, on COM:FPC, there's no real limit to how many images of one general subject can be promoted, so I get how it would annoy Giles, but it's well within the grounds of how one would judge an FPC.
  • Example 4 : "opposing my nomination on the ground that he thinks his pictures are better than mine and also saying that my nomination "can't even compare" with his picture." - Charles: "You have also possibly not noticed that when I opposed this nomination it was horribly overexposed; there was also a distracting twig. I am now neutral about it."
  • Example 5 : responding in a unpolite way, giving more links to pictures made by him that he thinks are better than mine.
Same image as 4
Same as 4. He said it was "overexposed", which Giles fixed.
  • Example 7 : opposing on the ground that he thinks that his picture is better than mine. Also, he is publicly calling me as a liar (his claim is completely false). This is absolutely unacceptable to me. Featured pictures are made to comment on the picture and not to try to publicly tarnish another's person reputation. This is an important escalation of the attacks.
This is probably the worst behaviour of Charles. It also was off-Commons.
  • Example 8 : inviting people to boycott or to oppose to my picture on the ground that I would have too many flamingo featured pictures. Not commenting on the picture, only commenting on the photographer.
A little uncharitable, but I get why Giles would be uncharitable at this point.

I'll review the rest later, but it feels like Charles and Giles should definately not interact - an IBAN is appropriate - but I don't think this is a year block offense. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see anything out of the ordinary, other users make similar comments, now is criticizing a photo something that merits a block? To what extent are we going to transform FPC into a section of photo flatterers and ego masturbators? Wilfredor (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, out of 8 examples, I see (If I'm wrong correct me):
  • in 6 cases he judges negatively a photo (no, I don't see him calling anyone "liar" for the case of the bird's nest, he simply asked to not infere conclusion from things we don't know. Maybe I wouldn't have written "It's not good to invent bird behaviour" but "It's not good to assume bird behaviour", but I don't see attacks on it.
  • in 1 case he judges negatively a photo telling that it's the n-th photo with flamingos. I might find such a rationale bizarre or flawed but just don't see how it can be read as "inviting s.o. to boycott or to oppose to one's picture".
  • finally in one case there's something which can be read as personal attack. But it's too late. Assuming that it falls into the policy that forbids personal attacks, It should have been reported and, in case, sanctioned at that time. Now it's even pointless to mention it. The ban is not - and must not be intended as - a cold-case-style punishment for past misbehaviour, but a measure for preventing the project from an immediate and solid disruption hazard.
All these examples only suggest me, and I agree with @Wilfredor: on this, that the two users simply have mutual issues, thus should not interact, for a decent amount of time should not propose their own photos as FPC (say, one year each) and at the most let that some other user does it without participating at the discussion. -- Blackcat 00:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response to Rhododendrites. Many people oppose everyday at FPC. There's disagreements between users everyday. But I can't think of another user who's been told many times by many different users that his behavior can be considered as attacks. He received a formal administrator warning for it only four months ago. Shortly after four users requested sanctions against him. Despite all that, he continued. I'm sorry but this shows that something with this user reviews/comments is sometimes considered problematic. Please also don't forget I wasn't the only one he attacked -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Constructive criticism doesn't warrant attacks. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confused (too)

[edit]

 Hello

  1. I am quite perplexed by the content of the accusations of so-called "attacks". Let's look at the new diffs (rather than those from 2015). Here I see mostly divergent points of view, and interpretations of attacks, which is extremely different from "attacks". The most blatant example is in my opinion this one: "I prefer the previous Wikipedia lead image". => What's the problem, seriously? It's unbelievable that this harmless and even downright innocuous comment could be perceived as a "personal attack", and added to the list. There must be a biased view of the situation, I mean a subjective interpretation of reality. That's why I would really like to hear the voice of the accused. Because for the moment he is deprived of the right to speak. I have the impression that there are "interpretations of attacks" in both directions, and I would like to discover the other point of view, to compare.
  2. Also, Charles is accused of being "aggressive" because he reports users at COM:ANU. I would like to know if Giles Laurent is also an "aggressive" person because he's reporting Charles at COM:ANU?
  3. Here the user Ikan Kekek clearly encourages Charles to report the user to COM:ANU. Is it Charles' fault if someone did this?
  4. In this nomination mentioned in a diff above, who is the aggressor, Charles or the other one?
  5. Do we agree that there is a considerable difference between this kind of attack: "Fuck you" (by El Golli Mohamed against Charles), and this "wrong" that is attributed above to Charles against El Goli Mohamed: "Very small and I much prefer this one of mine, not surprisingly"? Same level?
  6. "Example 7": No, there was no consensus when this image was inserted into Wikipedia on August 10, 2024. And by the way, the insertion was reverted by another user (not Charles) on the same day. The page states "<!--Please do not replace these featured images without a consensus-->" Indeed, a very slim consensus (2-0 with the proposer's vote included) was later obtained, on 18 August 2024. So why would we assume that Charles is lying when he writes "There wasn't any consensus."? It was true at the time of the facts.
  7. A huge number of accusations are, in my opinion, highly controversial. We can't go into everything in detail, it would take too much time, but it's important to be aware of that.
  8. Example 1: Giles says "basically saying he thinks his pictures are better than mine." => No, Charles writes "I cannot claim to be unbiased." It's different.
  9. Giles, you write "I personally prefer this one over the one with the flat blue background as such backgrounds are common, boring and easy to get" with a direct link to Charles' photo. Do you consider this as an "attack" from you too, or do you think your way of doing things is the most polite and courteous one can imagine?
  10. For the record, here are:
Please consider everything. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without saying anything in regards to the rest, producing good content is not a get out of jail free card and doesn't exempt Charles from following civility standards. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, however, there is an undeniable difference between forgetting to smile when saying hello and hitting someone with a baseball bat. In one case I lecture or ignore, in the other I call the police. -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The case of Charles is way above "forgetting to smile". There is a long history of uncivil behavior towards quite a number of users, usually when they are competing on FPC or having different views about FPC. Yann (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To discuss this with Charlesjsharp and his buddies is useless; hypocricy and double standards is the only answer they have. --A.Savin 13:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How many (really) problematic cases out of how many standard ones in total? Please send the diffs. There is "attack" and "lack of courtesy". I agree with many other users here, especially Cmao20. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said earlier that I would for now not comment anymore but as this long message adresses many direct questions to me I feel obliged to answer. But I please ask others to not do that as, like Basile, I think it's time to hear Charlesjsharp answer.
  1. A general conclusion of this page is that many different people have different understandings/definition of what they call "attacks". As I already said twice, each of most of the attacks taken on its own doesn't reach the threshold of a sanction. But it's the repetiton of them that is problematic. It makes the person feel targeted as if the attacker tries to find unfounded excuses to oppose (feeling that I had with the VIC you linked, because of the person previous behavior). Moreover Charlesjsharp couldn't ignore that many users told him in the past that they consider his past behavior as attacks. Also, some attacks are by themself unacceptable to my eyes and the worse ones are the ones where he pretends that I lie or when he accuses me of having insulted him, which I never did.
  2. The difference is that out of the 11 ANU complaints by him, only 2 or 3 of them resulted in an admin action. Wolverine XI wrote (see above) : "This conduct is typical of Charlesjsharp, who has a lengthy history of getting into arguments with many users over remarks like the ones above. He is quick to refer individuals to ANU for trivial issues while failing to see his own flaws". I only made 1 ANU thread and it resulted in an admin action. I don't have any intention in participating in other ANU threads except if forced or asked to. So yes there is a big difference.
  3. That is just 1 out of 11.
  4. Yes that user in your link was uncivil/inappropriate but that doesn't justify making the same mistake against others users.
  5. I said in my initial message that El Golli Mohamed was inadequate. But I still think that it was inadequate for Charlesjsharp to post on 4 occasions that El Golli Mohamed is a previously banned user. If users would post on Charlesjsharp future nominations that he is a previously banned user he would hate that and feel it as an attack and I would also be against it.
  6. The image can't be considered added on 10th of August because it was reverted shortly afterwards. I used the visual editor instead of the source editor so I didn't see that HTML hidden comment. Charlesjsharp comment is obviously talking about the edit of 10th September because he directly referred to the summary of my edit. There is no quorum for the consensus of adding that picture and everyone had more than enough time to speak. Claiming that my edit would have been made under a lie is inacceptable because that is not true.
  7. Yes as I've said in number 1, many people have a different definition of an attack. But Charlesjsharp couldn't ignore that many users told him in the past that they consider his past behavior as attacks and he was invited to stop them by many users but still continued. As SHB2000 rightfully said, there is a civility standards code of conduct and Charlesjsharp didn't respect it on many occasions.
  8. That was the beginning of his comparisons but he kept comparing on later occasions solely/mostly to his own pictures and claiming that they were better than my image and that my image can't compare with it, which I think is not constructive criticism and inadequate. Also if there were only these comparisons I would never had open this ANU thread. As I already said, besides the fact that the repetition of such behavior is problematic, the most serious and unacceptable attacks to me are the fact of publicly pretending I lie and publicly pretending that I insulted him, which I never did.
  9. If you look at my message there's absolutely no reference by me to Charlesjsharp, I'm solely speaking of the picture. Also what I say is a problematic behavior is going on other's people nomination and opposing on the sole ground that one thinks his own image are better than the one nominated and doing it a multiple amount of times. Simply responding to a comment from another user and keeping the review to the picture and personal taste/opinion like I did is in no way an attack.
  10. As Yann, SHB2000, Bedivere, A.Savin, Alachuckthebuck and other's said, any amount of contributions can't justify immunity or long time violation of civility standards.
Again, like Basile, I also think it's time for Charles to speak so please let him space. As announced earlier, I won't comment anymore on this page for now so please don't ask direct questions to me except if absolutely necessary.
-- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm taking bets on how long this "man of his word" will refrain from commenting here. --Cart (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has a harsh aproximation to critiquing photos because he applies the same level of criticism to his own work—it’s a whole other standard. It’s nothing personal against you; he has also been highly critical of my photos, and I think I only received negative votes from him. However, instead of punishing him, we should be grateful, as these critiques help us grow as photographers. It’s normal for some photographers to be more sensitive than others, but trust me, in the past, there were users whose critiques were even harsher than Charles's. Wilfredor (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This situation did not need immediate action

[edit]

I think I do need to say Bedivere's actions in blocking Charles were inappropriate. Not in the "strip him of administratorship" way - we really don't need another hasty action in response to a hasty action, people need to be able to make mistakes - but:

  • The discussion was less than a day old.
  • A temporary block (a week, say) might have been appropriate, had Charles done anything between this being posted and the block. He hadn't, he hadn't even actually responded to any allegations. Jumping straight to a year block both keeps him out of discussions and has a very chilling effect - This is how you drive contributors off Wikipedia.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this administrator has a long list of quick actions, and as was commented by another user above, his action in this case raises many suspicions. I sincerely hope that he can reverse this extremely reckless action. Wilfredor (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the block was warranted and Charles has a history of bad behavior, yet unsanctioned to this point. If the community believes another solution is better, I'm fine with that. The block came as a result of their pointless pinging of several other users. Despite a reasonable effort was made by Giles, they did not respond to it. Shows no respect. @Wilfredor Just because you don't like my actions does not make them "extremely reckless" Bedivere (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bedivere, how can pinging other users and not responding within 16 hours possibly warrant a block, let alone a 12-month one? And if the driver was Charles' past behaviour, shouldn't one put specific examples up for consideration - as Giles has done for recent comments - before a sanction is considered? Julesvernex2 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find Charles's decision to ping me to be pointless. As a regular reviewer and nominator at FPC it is important to me to know that one of the most productive contributors has been blocked. I would not have known about it if Charles did not ping me. It is reasonable for him to want the people he interacts with most regularly to have their say. As for 'Despite a reasonable effort was made by Giles, they did not respond to it', it is very easy to write a long list of diffs that you believe are problematic in Charles's behaviour, and very difficult to respond comprehensively to so many different points, each of which have a lot of context Charles might want to explain, without being accused of bludgeoning the process. So I can understand why he preferred not to write what would have doubtless become an extremely long and involved reply. Cmao20 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my words were not clear enough. I take that mass-pinging as an evasion of a proper response to an appropriate report -no less- in the administrators' noticeboard. My action is further reasoned in their poor behavior. I would much have preferred them to write "an extremely long and involved reply", for example apologizing, rather than avoiding it all together and leaving it to others to defend them. Bedivere (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., but then why not just answer the mass ping mentioning that you expect them to answer, not other users? Blocking the user complicates and reduces the blocked user's ability to respond to the complaints. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about personal feelings or disliking your actions; it’s about recognizing that this was a hasty and irresponsible decision. Many users here have tried to communicate this to you in different ways. I’ve already reported similar behavior from you on other occasions, as it continues to be problematic. While I’m skeptical about whether you’ll change, I urge you to at least listen to the feedback from others. Please don’t take this personally—own up to this mistake and take responsibility for your actions Wilfredor (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a mistake. Sorry to tell you. And I have no idea what are you talking about (re. "reported similar behavior" i. e. not liking or agreeing with my actions) Bedivere (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly and respectfully ask you to reconsider and reverse your action. Allow the user to speak and let the conversation run its course; if you wish, you can block them indefinitely afterward. This isn’t an accusation, nor is it personal—it has nothing to do with you. However, your responses have been rather vague and somewhat irresponsible. This will be my final request for you to lift what seems to be a hasty and overly harsh decision Wilfredor (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is he not allowed to speak? --A.Savin 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, he is entitled to request an unblock and point out their arguments against those in this thread. Bedivere (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to explain to Charles in some way exactly how and where he can appeal a block and reply to this. He is not the most code and procedure-savvy user we have here. This might also explain why he just 'pinged' a lot of users when this occurred rather than dealing with this himself. --Cart (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A user shouldn't have to request an unblock half a day or so into a discussion about him. A ban kind of needs consent. It's a very ambiguous discussion. You're being a terrible, capricious admin. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info I blocked User:Adam Cuerden for the attach on User:Bedivere. The block can be lifted when he asks for apology. GPSLeo (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: This would justify maybe a 1-3 days block, never ever an indefinite one. Please undo this nonsense a.s.a.p. --A.Savin 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this direct attack justifies a block until there is a request to apologize. If there is an appropriate comment I would even unblock after one hour. GPSLeo (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I also would not veto if you really want to change the duration. GPSLeo (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere as you are the one who was attacked here are you fine with setting to block duration to tree days or even lifting the block? GPSLeo (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would not mind getting it lifted or reduced, but I appreciate the reasoning behind the block. I think too Adam has a reason to criticise me, even though with some rude words. But you know, insulting or disrespecting each other will not solve anything, and this goes for everyone in this thread. Things have gone nuts certainly, some users defend and avoid scrutiny on Charles' actions. I think some compromise needs to be accomplished but it is not possible when there is no will. Bedivere (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: It is not in the best interest of the community that from time to time users come here with lengthy reports against others, because of their poor behaviour or communication skills, sarcasm, irony, and whatsoever goes on at FPC. You all do good work and should know better, should certainly have some better behaviour. Bedivere (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is far too much drama at FPC but this does not entitle you to just block the person the accusation is made about without consensus or considering the facts of the case. Just because someone has come here with a 'lengthy report about others' doesn't mean the lengthy report is accurate or fair. Blocking policy says that a block is a 'last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons.' It should be 'a preventative measure and not a punitive one', yet it is hard to escape the conclusion that Charles is being punished for everything harsh he's ever said on Commons (viz. massive list of diffs stretching back years and discussing completely different situations) rather than this block being to prevent further negative interactions between him and Giles Laurent (whom he has already agreed voluntarily not to interact with). Cmao20 (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the first time Charlesjsharp's behavior is questioned here, Cmao20. It's been reported before. A block was in order this time. Bedivere (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This block is terrible, reverse this immediately. 1989 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will simply go ahead and make it a 24-hours block. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't agree with Adam about Charles, but I don't see the need for blocking Adam either. Please call down, and try to find a peaceful outcome. Yann (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree It feels like shooting first and asking later. Poco a poco (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree, and it is even more appalling that Adam Cuerden has been blocked merely for questioning the decision of an admin. He said nothing rude or impolite. Of course ‘You're being a terrible, capricious admin’ is not a ‘direct attack.’ How absurd. Cmao20 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could also be language misunderstanding. I did not know what "capricious" means and looked for the translation into German and calling someone "schrecklicher, launischer Admin" is a very rude harassment in German. With a slight change (just leaving out the comma) it would in German mean "schrecklich launischer Admin" what could be considered more in humorous way. GPSLeo (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a 'harassment' at all, even in the German translation provided. If you think it is harassment then you should report it to the police because 'online harassment' is illegal and a serious offence (and a serious accusation to make). But I'm sure you don't. 'You're being a terrible, capricious admin' = 'this is a terrible decision with no logic behind it and is unbecoming of an admin.' Didn't know the admins were suddenly above criticism on this project so you can jump straight to the block as soon as anyone disagrees with them. Cmao20 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The English 'capricious' in that sentence, is closer to 'wunderlich' and 'unbeständig' than 'launischer'. --Cart (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree in accordance with other users. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree This action was way too fast and severe. Even though I'm waiting in the tall grass for Charles to really botch things and get indef blocked, this was not that time. Fair treatment should be for everyone. --Cart (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I had previously reduced the block issued by GPSLeo to a period of 24 hours, but have revisited my action again - and reversed the entire block. Blocks should never be punitive. Let's discuss the issues here and see what we have at the end? Regards, Aafi (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This is regarding Adam Cuerden, not Charlesjsharp. 1989 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This is now getting even more confusing because some of the 'agree' votes here including mine, Poco's and Cart's are pretty explicitly about Charles but others seem to be about the decision to block Adam Cuerden (which I would hope nearly everyone thinks is patently ridiculous). Cmao20 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, I was under the impression I was agreeing with Adam's initial statement here: This situation did not need immediate action. Luckily this is not an official vote, and Adam's block has been removed now. --Cart (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, I was confused by the amount of text on a mobile device and was referring to the fact that I find Adam's block very questionable. I have changed my vote comment accordingly. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I... Wow. Okay. It's clear that the entire procedure for blocking people on Commons is broken if criticising a single action as capricious and terrible is enough to get an indefinite (!!!!!) block. I've been out all day, so I came back to after I was unblocked, but this is ridiculous. I'm not calling for any admin to be punished, but this is clearly not how blocks are meant to work. If they're happening, then the whole system for blocking needs fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also point out there is a huge difference in English between "you are" and "you are being" in this case. "You are being" means that your current actions are causing you to fall into a classification. Bedivere blocking Charles less than 24 hours into a discussion makes him, in that moment alone, a terrible and capricious admin, but outside of that very specific moment, he may well not be. Also, "capricious" means "acting on a whim".
    What we can say is that the Commons blocking policy is utterly broken, and causes admins to be terrible and capricious. Like, I fail to see how, even if I had meant it as an attack on Bedivere and not his actions, a single insult of that level could possibly justify an indefinite block. I'm not out for admin blood, though: If multiple admins are making bad decisions about blocking, that's probably more of a problem with the policy on blocking, not the admins. That said, I think I'm going to take some time off Commons, because this is just broken. I've said before: this kind of action is how you drive people off Commons. I'm not going permanently, but it's killed my current bout of enthusiasm. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry you feel this way Adam. I hope you don't take too long off but I completely understand this. You have been treated very poorly and falsely accused of 'harassment', which is a very serious accusation, and I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving the project entirely after this. I am deeply uncomfortable with this entire process and I think it shows that Commons blocking policy is being applied very inconsistently, that the rules are basically being made up as we go along - first Charles was punitively blocked for a combination of recent edits that don't seem very objectionable and older edits that don't seem very relevant, and then you were blocked arbitrarily for no reason at all other than daring to question an admin. I have lost a lot of confidence in Commons because of this. Cmao20 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't envy the job of admins in these cases. On one hand, there's so much discourse around [Wikipedia, mainly] about long-time abusive users getting away with chronic abuse because of high-quality content. On the other hand, we do need a clear explanation of exactly what the block was based on and why. Which of the recent diffs were egregious enough to compound with past events to justify a block? My worry is less the fast action and more that it's in response to a long report + past indiscretions, without looking closely at the merit of the more recent complaints. As I've said elsewhere, the recent diffs don't look like attacks to me, but there's room to disagree -- could you specify which led to the block? — Rhododendrites talk |  04:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing Charlesjsharp to participate in this discussion

[edit]

Rather than playing Marco Polo across the user talk page and here, I think it's easier just to unblock Charlesjsharp and let them comment here, providing they don't edit anything else. There also seems to be consensus above that Bedivere's block was too early. We can decide whether they should be blocked and the duration after we come to a consensus, not preemtively. Therefore I will unblock Charlesjsharp under the condition they only participate in this discussion (will partially enforce with partial blocks). It's clear this discussion is very controversial and what Charlesjsharp says is definitely important. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Bedivere (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but the block should quickly be reinstated if he ever edits anything else. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe. If you look at Charles block log you'll see that he is still blocked from most of the site. --Cart (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it too much to ask for someone to think logically and reasonably enough to unblock the user until this issue is resolved? I understand that admins might deal with vandalism or frequent reports, making blocking seem like the easiest solution, but I'm making a true effort to look at this in good faith. I can't help but wonder if there's a mature and responsible adult managing this situation. Wilfredor (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What difference will it make Wilfredor, other than not solving the issue that started the thread, that is, poor behavior from Charles? I am yet to see a statement/apology/whatever from Charles. Bedivere (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the middle of the night here in Europe (where Charles lives) and most people are asleep. Well obviously my back is keeping me awake, but you gotta allow for time difference. Jeez... --Cart (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was just typing this thank you Cart - Charles was unblocked at 9:45pm UK time and it's now 3 in the morning in the UK - it would be unusual for him to have made a statement/apology yet and we could honestly do without the needlessly hostile tone here that makes it appear that the admins, who really ought to be impartial, have already made up their minds. But hey, they are blocking people for literally no reason at all other than criticising their decisions now so I expect my own block will be coming soon... Cmao20 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of immaturity, plenty of "flying monkeys", and a noticeable lack of empathy/good faith. Just as staying uncritical in FPC keeps you out of trouble (most critical users are no longer there Colin, Charles and I), the same applies to dealing with the admins—agree with them, and you won’t face any issues Wilfredor (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of good faith there. Before, during and after the block, no comment from Charles and the span of time has been more than a day. Charles has a history of getting reported and getting away with it afterwards. They've been warned more than once, only to just disregard such warnings. IMO a block was long overdue, not as a punitive measure as some of you conveniently have called it, but rather as a preventative one because they have not stopped such disruptive actions. Then with one user, now with another, the cycle goes on and on. Bedivere (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. If you look at his talk page you will notice that he thought he couldn't edit anywhere while being blocked. This is the first time he's being blocked, and he didn't really know how things worked. It wasn't until I requested that someone should tell him how things were done, and Matrix informed him, that he responded. Yes, he's been here before, but like you said, things did not get this far then. He is not someone who hangs out on ANU just for the fun of absorbing procedure knowledge. You keep bringing up the timeline over and over again, but you can't come down on someone just for being ignorant and not being as fast in his actions as you are. Of course his behavior should be thoroughly scrutinized, but I don't see why there is such a rush with getting down to business. I'm not just speaking on behalf of this case, I now dread how I would be treated here since I have a life outside Commons and may be too busy to answer promptly if I was reported here. This is after all a site where most users edit as a hobby. --Cart (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that blocking on such short notice was probably not the wisest course of action. I should have allowed the discussion to remain open longer or waited for someone else to take action, which may have been the better approach. That said, I stand by my decision, as I believe the behavior in question would likely have led to a block eventually. While my approach could have been more measured, I acted with the intention of addressing the issue promptly. I take your comments (and others') seriously and will keep them in mind. Bedivere (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bedivere. I had many interactions with CJS in the past, so his behaviour towards other users meanwhile is kind of predictable to me. Remaining silent, not answering to relevant comments or questions, seems part of his strategy. He has lots of photographic knowledge, lots of money to travel around, and invested in Wikipedia and sister projects this normally would be a great gift for all who benefits from Free Knowledge, including myself and all of us. What he on the other hand seems not to have at all: a) sensibility for other important processes on Commons such as categories; b) tolerance towards those who happens to have a differing opinion; c) empathy. And this, sadly, makes this actually great gift a "tainted gift". --A.Savin 06:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a) true, b) true, c) true. Trust me, with all the bad things he's said to me and called me over the years, I'm no fan at all! I am however a stickler for correct procedure and setting the right precedent for future cases. This is an accumulative offence, with each of the components not being serious enough for a big block here. Tricky. I'd say we muzzle him and keep the gifts, hoping they will not be as tainted in the future. Give him a two week block to make a point of the seriousness of the situation and to placiate the hardliners here, and have him keep his word about being quiet at FPC, QIC, VIC and only nominate. And since Giles has indeed not added any more text here, let's do a one-way IBAN for Charles' interactions with Giles, making what Charles says he will do anyway more official (again for the hardliners). --Cart (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, fair enough IMO. --A.Savin 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Charles J Sharp

[edit]

It has taken me a long time to read everything on the thread.
I read some of it on my mobile phone the day before yesterday but as I was blocked I assumed I could not do anything. Thank you to Cart for her helpful contributions and to Matrix(!) for intervening yesterday evening.
I was blocked for 12 months within half an hour of my pinging users currently active on FPC. I felt justified in doing this as a partial list of interested users had already been pinged by Giles. I am truly bewildered by the Commons process that blocked me from contributing while everybody else could post.
I am very grateful to all those users who have taken the time to respond to the accusations - some in great detail; some supportive yet critical. They have written most of what I would have written, but in a more diplomatic tone. I salute Adam Cuerden who got blocked for his troubles. I’m sorry, Adam, but thank you; Basile Morin for his detailed analysis; Wilfredor who has been tireless, Rhododendrites and Cmao20.

All that being said, I have clearly annoyed a lot of people with my criticisms of image nominations. I apologise unreservedly for this. It has never been my intention to be offensive or rude. I have high standards and, yes, I do look at my own images with a kinder eye.
I accept the criticisms that have been made of me and consider most of them constructive. After the last ANU, I stopped voting at FPC, except on a couple of manipulated images. I will now stop even pointing out flaws. I will not comment at all at FPC. I have already said I would avoid any comments etc. related to Giles’ images.

I may nominate images at FPC, VIC and QIC in the future, but will not do so while Adam takes ‘some time off Commons’. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks Charles for your post. It is the first time I see that you understand and accept the criticisms against you. I hope that interactions with other FPC participants will be smoother in the future. I find a pity that your skills as photographer are downgraded because of communication issues with other people. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you. Charles, for your understanding -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to express special gratitude to Cart, who, despite her own reluctance, took on the role of "devil's advocate" to defend you, particularly against the bad faith that seems to prevail among certain administrators. Without her, you would undoubtedly have been blocked. It's refreshing to have a woman with a different perspective and greater stability amidst all the compulsive chaos and immature battles fueled by testosterone-driven egos. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith? Come on Wilfredor, you can do better Bedivere (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Charles. I think you have answered in the best possible way. I thank you for your apology that I accept as I have the feeling that it is sincere and like Yann it is the first time I see you understand and accept the criticisms against you so I salute that because that is not something easy to do and it is a big step forward.
Like I said above, I now support Charlesjsharp 1 year block being reduced to 1 month. Moreover I am someone that believes in second chances and I think sincere apologies should be rewarded so I accept the block being reduced to only 2 weeks if admins accept.
I also believe in sincere promises so I have faith in Charles promise and I withdraw the one-way IBAN request and we can keep it as a simple promise.
I also promise to not edit pages having a picture of Charlesjsharp nominated (with the exception I stated above: if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on a page then I reserve the possibility to answer).
If after 1 year all goes well I invite Charlesjsharp to contact me on my talk page or on his talk page to adapt/delete our promises if he wants to -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking solves nothing. Is it really so hard to resist being carried away by emotions? When we see a comment that feels offensive, why not pause, take a deep breath, and approach it with the most positive and good-faith perspective possible? You're new to FPC, but trust me, years ago, people like Charles were the norm, not the exception, and no one was taking these things to heart. Wilfredor (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: It is not because once upon a time things were different that they should stay that way. Some toxic users who were not able to change left Commons, either forcibly or on their own will, and hopefully atmosphere on Commons improves over the years. Yann (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the old days FPC was different in the best sense, it was a considerably less toxic environment. Wilfredor (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm being honest, this message exceeded my expectations. But here is my problem with this whole thread: We're still this far into the discussion and, as far as I can tell, nobody has looked at the opening report and said "yes, those 'attacks on me' are attacks worthy of intervention". Instead, all of the support for sanctions came almost entirely from Charles' past misdeeds. There are a couple people who, I think, would show up at any thread about Charles and support intervention because of the past, irrespective of what's happened recently. ...And I get it. When we believe someone is a toxic menace, we take opportunities to show them the door. But I'd like to think we leave room for people to improve, too. That's the problem with ignoring the fact that the recent diffs are not convincing. Even the blocking admin does not seem inclined to try to justify the block with any recent behavior. The closest we have is I think the block was warranted and Charles has a history of bad behavior, yet unsanctioned to this point. [...] The block came as a result of their pointless pinging of several other users. In other words, [old stuff] plus ... pinging a bunch of FPC regulars to a thread about discussions at FPC (which is still a bizarre justification to me). A few years ago I might've been right there calling for some kind of sanction, but here's the thing: I've noticed a difference in Charles' approach since the last ANU, and find it disappointing to me that we reward that with a pile-on ... based almost entirely on what happened in the past. While I commend Charles for the self-reflection and peace offering, I don't know that FPC is better off for this. But yes, we'll avoid such "attacks" as "Comment: I like this photo that I took better", and will likely motivate some folks to oppose with generic rationales like "no wow" rather than risk "the image is horribly exposed" being framed as an personal attack. Anyway, with that I'm feeling like I've clicked "publish changes" too many times already in this thread, so will take my leave. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that this issue has changed from what it was in the opening report, but that is the nature of any COM or WP thing, they change depending on who gets involved or what new or old issues are brought forward. This brought out a lot of pent-up emotions, and here we are. Being adaptable, and at the same time not get carried away, is the only way to survive here. --Cart (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a FPC problem that needs addressing. Either folks don't take some comments so personal or hard, or another system needs to be thought Bedivere (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem we've been addressing again and again for years. But users come and go, so discussions are forgotten or ignored. FPC is one of the most vulnerable projects on Commons, because it's the only place that peoples' personal work get critiqued. A lot of folks come there with no clues and a lot of hope, and not everyone can handle rejection or a multi-lingual environment where most users speak incomplete English. It's a hotbed for clashes. Plus the long-time regulars get tired and bored after reviewing tens of thousands of photos, and fall into old habits. Add to that that it is an almost all male project, with the testosterone that goes with such a territory. --Cart (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2025 (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.

Silar

[edit]

I recently encountered Silar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  when they made an edit without a summary to an image I uploaded removing two of the categories. I reverted them as I considered the categories valid, asking them to explain their rationale. They removed the categories again, providing no edit summary again. At that point I stopped editing the file page and instead left a note on their talk page asking again for an explanation. They did not reply, so after waiting more than a week, I reinstated the categories. You can guess what happened next.

I find this lack of communication unacceptable from an editor with more than 100,000 edits. And while I don't have time to dig into the rest of their contribution history, at a cursory glance I see several indications that this may not be an isolated incident. Sdkb talk 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silar was blocked three times for edit warring and once for vandalism. The user page is also unusual, presenting various screenshots from Commons, including File:Macuser . Next may be indef. Yann.jpg. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baginda 480

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified Baginda 480 (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Baginda 480: What? How? Certainly not your attention to detail.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also User talk:Jeff G.#Hello.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that my initial claim of "Own Work" for this file was incorrect, and I apologize for this mistake. I have now updated the file description as per your feedback. The following changes have been made:
1. I removed the "Own Work" claim entirely.
2. I attributed the original publication to The Straits Times.
3. I provided a direct link to the source of the article on the National Library Board of Singapore's website.
4. I included a licensing rationale based on Singapore's **Copyright Act (Cap. 63)**, specifying that this work is now in the public domain because it was first published before **10 April 1987**, in accordance with the law.
Please let me know if further adjustments are needed. I value your guidance on ensuring compliance with Commons' copyright policies. Baginda 480 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Considering large number of copyvios yesterday I decided to block Baginda for half of year (fourth block). Taivo (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tissirtout

[edit]

Tissirtout (talk · contribs) is the new identity of the banned user Simotissir (talk · contribs). He's uploading the same kind of useless crap again. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Simotissir. Edelseider (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Last file deleted. Yann (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: thank you. Please have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tabonmohamed. It's clear now that this is again the same person. The names of the files are a giveaway. Edelseider (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musichistory2009

[edit]

Musichistory2009 is trying to implement this consensus by recreating from scratch categories for Romanian communes with the new name (and leaving them empty, so far) instead of following procedure and moving them from the former category names (Commons:Rename a category#Rename process). This is creating a lot of nonsensical issues, as, among others, "village categories" having no "village content" at all, since they are incorrectly equating the content of the categories of communes (wider) with the content of the categories of the homonymous villages (narrower), aside of creating dozens of empty categories and messing with the history of categories. They have been told the proper way to do this (User talk:Musichistory2009#Category renaming), but they keep insisting. Strakhov (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your message is full of exaggerations and inaccuracies to the point that I'm beginning to doubt your good will. First of all, I'm leaving the new communes categories empty just for a short period of time, before I begin to populate them with the proper content (maps and coat of arms files, then the village categories which are administered by that commune). The old category (which was commune+village altogheter and was linked to the commune Wikidata) becomes the village category and will be linked properly with the village Wikidata. It looks nonsensical because you don't have the patience to wait until I finish the whole county. Take for example Communes/Villages in Botoșani County, which were made entirely by me and now are the best structured county localities categories. The history of all the old categories which have content is kept. The empty categories are deleted, obviously with their history. The new categories do not have history yet, obviously. By renaming the village category into the commune category, the only thing that you get is keeping the history to the commune and not the village, which is something quite minor. If you really want to help, you would try to understand the structure, which content is must have and then maybe you'll let me work in peace. The nonsensical issues are created by you by interfering with someone's else work in progress invoking some "holy procedure" (which I know, by the way). Musichistory2009 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Júnior GSF

[edit]

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

Systematic violation of copyright and license laundering, falsely claiming freedom of panorama in a nonsensical and blatantly bad-faith manner. I stumbled upon this case by chance through this image, uploaded from the uploader's Flickr account. The description is almost comical: "Photo under Freedom of Panorama and edited by the uploader". The author, evidently, is not them. There are currently 211 images uploaded by the account from their Flickr, although some appear to be self-authored. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bedivere

[edit]

This user/admin has supported license laundering by ignoring the comments made in a deletion discussion about that very thing happening. They've closed a deletion discussion based on license laundering ignoring the fact that multiple users commented that license laundering was likely to happen in this case once Trump assumed office, and refuse to accept that those comments are at least, on their face, potentially valid. They've commented on their talk page that It is obvious to me they (Trump or his team) is the legitimate copyright owner even when the actual copyright holder has (as pointed out in the discussion) said they did not sign copyright over to Trump/his team.

Normally this would be able to be chalked up to a simple error. But this admin closed the deletion discussion 10 whole minutes before Trump was even officially inaugurated, and did so without addressing the concerns. I do not believe it is appropriate for an administrator to so blatantly engage in license laundering - to the point of using their administrative authority (by closing the discussion) to do so. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, Trump was already inaugurated when the request was closed. Furthermore, the White House page states very clearly "third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". They certainly have a right to publish the official portrait of Trump, which was obviously commissioned by him or his team to serve as such. I can't think how this is license laundering but rather a very clear misunderstanding and wiki lawyering something that does not have to be. I recommended the user to renominate the files for deletion but they proceeded with this incorrect and unfair report. Bedivere (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Them having a right to publish it does not mean they have the right to license it. Please read COM:LAUNDER - it specifically addresses this circumstance where a non-copyright holder (Trump or his White House staff) publishes an image on a website with a purported license. This is not an unfair report - you ignored all the comments about license laundering in the discussion and closed it based on your own personal opinion. That is not an appropriate closure of a deletion request. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was taken by a Trump staff member (chief photographer in his own words) before he took office. As a work for hire for then President-elect, it is pretty clear the now President or whatever LLC or representation he used, holds the rights to that photograph. Furthermore, the purpose of the photograph was to serve as the official portrait. It was obvious it was going to be reproduced on the White House website, which makes a clear exception by saying: "hey, our white house materials are PD but if for some reason we use third party content, unless stated otherwise, is CC BY". I don't see a reason why not to trust the White House they have the needed permissions to make such a release. Furthermore you only make this report and oppose the closure of the deletion request based on assumptions, not current, actual facts. Bedivere (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply untrue. He didn't contract the copyright over in 2017, there is no reason to assume he did too. The White House having the rights to publish an image does not mean they have the rights to release the copyright. The current, actual facts are:
  • Trump has engaged in license laundering on the White House website before, for the entirety of his first presidency (not just the inaugural photos)
  • The photographer here has told at least one user on Commons (via Twitter, presumably) that they did not release the copyright to Trump or the White House
  • You ignored all the comments in the deletion request and the prior deletion review of the 2017 images that explain why you should find a reason not to trust them.
  • You closed the deletion discussion based on your own personal opinion, rather than evaluating the consensus of users in the discussion.
That is inappropriate behavior, and amounts to you condoning license laundering, which is explicitly prohibited on Commons. An administrator condoning a prohibited behavior through supervoting on a deletion request without even addressing the comments is not appropriate behavior, hence why I brought it here as advised to by the page addressing administrator misconduct. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Bedivere, can you add Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump (second presidency) to File:TrumpPortrait.jpg? Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. If the official White House website says it's CC licensed, I think we've done our due diligence on Commons. It's not hard to believe that there was some arrangement whereby the image was to become PD and/or CC BY such that it's covered by the copyright statement on the site, so absent evidence to the contrary (the second-hand comment from Torok that implies a misunderstanding of what public domain means doesn't seem like great evidence, though it may be worth reaching out again), I'd assume it'd be kept. It's not like we're talking about a brand new Flickr account created just to falsely license an image. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: does your comment still hold when the photographer themselves stated they do not want it used for commercial purposes without permission (see: File talk:TrumpPortrait.jpg)? To me, that is more than enough (when combined with the 2017 images being "stolen" by the WH) to invoke the precautionary principle. Regardless, I still disagree that this was an appropriate closure of the discussion - we shouldn't have to rehash the arguments here, the administrator never should've closed the discussion early. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer literally said on Twitter "Should be public domain on the 20th but with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval". Well, the WH released the file under a more liberal license. End of the discussion Bedivere (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Should be" is not confirmation that he signed the copyright over to the White House. As can be shown in the deletion discussion from 2017, there's many people who think the President can just "waive" copyright on something with a magic wand. There is no evidence that Mr. Torok didn't assume it would be public domain even if he didn't want it to be public domain. Commons requires a clear and irrevocable release of an image - this is neither of those things. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer never said "they do not want it used for commercial purposes without permission" (as in, their , the photographer's, permission) as you have incorrectly and falsely even, implied. All we have is a clear and conundent release from the White House which you refuse to accept for no good reason. Bedivere (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval? That's a statement that it cannot be used for commercial purposes without permission, lol. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the photographer said on Twitter, which I linked for you. "with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval" - the image was released under the more liberal CC BY license by the WH. Stop this nonsense. Bedivere (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no evidence that they had the right to do so. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://x.com/dto_rok/status/1880204839076167863?t=j4J8H9LDzItNspXOvLnfXA&s=19
This should be case closed, right? Buildershed (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"OK to upload to Wikipedia" is not a clear and irrevocable release under an appropriate license. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skipping past the specifics to the ANU issue of the closure, the DR looks like a close call. I wouldn't say that one side had a clearly stronger interpretation than the other, so I'm not inclined to think there's a noticeboard-level issue with Bevidere's close. The best course of action now is to reach back out to the photographer to clear things up and renominate if there's new information. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been calling it "early" based on this: Less clear cases should remain open for at least seven days. Complicated cases can remain open for weeks or even months. from COM:DR. The correct course of action would've been to not supervote and wait for more opinions, if anything. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've renominated to a near unanimous keep vote. If you haven't mentioned that already Bedivere (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know, this is why people don't like commons. You have an admin who closes a discussion that was contentious early (per COM:DR it should've remained open at least 7 days) based on a SUPERVOTE that ignores all the arguments made, and the result is that we are now violating the copyright of a private photographer just because people want the image to appear on Wikipedia. I'm shocked that there's such a blatant license laundering and precautionary principle violation being tolerated from an admin. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I always err on the side of deleting files because it's so much easier and saves both the rights of the legitimate owners and saves us the time and hassle of hosting problematic content. But this one seems so crystal clear that I am shocked at your constant accusations of license laundering and the likes. Where have common sense and good faith gone? Bedivere (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not crystal clear. See Commons:Deletion requests/Some third-party images hosted on National Weather Service servers for a list of examples of other images that had many many keep votes initially because people didn't understand LAUNDER and PRP but were then deleted because common sense prevailed. You're an admin - you are expected to know and understand those two policies. There is no evidence that the photographer intended to give the White House total control of the copyright. And so per PRP, we must assume that he did not, until and unless proven otherwise. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://x.com/dto_rok/status/1880204839076167863?t=j4J8H9LDzItNspXOvLnfXA&s=19
Everyone is referring to the White House website and the other tweet but why are we ignoring that he is PERMITTING Wikimedia to use the images. Buildershed (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid release. Images released solely to Wikipedia are not acceptable. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buildershed, can you quote him? I don't have a Twitter account. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, that's even more evidence that he does not intend for everyone to be able to use them for any use whatsoever. For @RodRabelo7: quoting: Sure. Thank you. But you should wait for the official downloadable WH versions. Color/contrast etc will be refined. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Downloadable WH versions"
They're already available I believe Buildershed (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean they are freely licensed. He has not stated that he signed copyright over to the White House nor that he has freely licensed them. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: fixing ping. Apparently {{Yo}} doesn't redirect to {{Ping}} here :P Berchanhimez (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I appreciate that everyone who shows up from enwiki, never edits Commons, and doesn't like something they see is obliged to say something like "this is why nobody likes you!", what you're seeing is exactly the opposite of the usual "nobody likes you" reason. We're usually the evil deletionists who remove Very Important Things That Must Be On Wikipedia. This might be a first where the "nobody likes you" is arguing that we keep things ... just so they can be used on Wikipedia. Frankly, I can see both sides of this issue, which makes it a hard thing to close. My advice to closing admins is usually to include a better explanation of their closure when it's likely to be controversial, and that could still be done here. Bevidere could also undo and wait for a stronger consensus to emerge, though it sure looks like it's trending towards keep (even if you discount the insubstantial !votes). But either way, I don't think Bevidere was out of line with this closure, and I don't know why it's worth arguing so much over an ambiguous comment by the photographer when someone could just reach back out and nominate (or not) based on that. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction per nom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
??? Bedivere (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=985655900"