Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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 (index)

Note

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

Adamant1

[edit]

Consensus is this does not warrant administrative action. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it from discussion of similar issues about other people, there is no limit on a user blanking their own user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand people are free to revert comments on their talk if they feel like it. Plus Jeff G. added theirs to an existing section that had nothing to do with what they were messaging me about. I did take note of their complaint though, but there wasn't really anything to say about it and it's my prerogative if I want to remove off topic talk page comments. Although I am interested in where exactly @Jeff G.: claim that I was blocked for doing a similar thing in the past comes from. Since as far as I've never been blocked for reverting messages. Or conversely @Jeff G.: can admit this is a big nothing burger and we can move on. It's his choice. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly free to revert. But "Take the concern trolling bullshit somewhere else and fix your own god damn problems next time." isn't helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this merits any administrative action, Jeff. But Adamant's revert message does underscore that as I've said previously, the user is a tad too argumentative for their own good. But this does appear to be as Adamant says a "nothing burger." I'll just say that we'd prefer users to archive their talk pages rather than blanking, but they're within their rights to blank. Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, but I actually reverted the comment instead of replying to it in order to avoid any potential arguing. You can't really win on here though. Regardless, I have no issue re-adding the comment and archiving it if Jeff prefers, I usually do that anyway. Although I do ask that he start a new section for it next time instead of writing an off-topic comment in a conversation that had already been resolved. Otherwise I'm just going to revert it as off-topic. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI, when I posted this edit, I was responding about note 4 of the section last found at special:diff/883642987#Greetings and some notes. It was on-topic as far as I was concerned.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POSSUM chowg

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved by Bedivere. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:POSSUM chowg seems to be a troll account that's just uploading personal logos and selfies from other projects while posting nonsense on the Village Pump. Can someone please deal with them? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Adamant1 was blocked for trolling and edit warring, which amount to incivility.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at User:POSSUM chowg's contributions [I had a broken ping here to Adamant1, but it was moot by the time I noticed that - Jmabel ! talk 06:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)], some diffs would have been useful here), I see importing drama from another wiki, a series of basically silly edits to his own talk page. I'm close to blocking on this, but there is a lot of misc history here, there might be contributions that balance this, and I don't have the patience to look through to see if there is anything more egregious.[reply]
@Jeff G.: Adamant1 was blocked for a total of 16 days, none of it in the last 18 months. As far as I know, he is a contributor in good standing, including that he is a filemover. What exactly is your point? Are you saying that there is something wrong with his bringing this complaint, or are you just making an irrelevant ad hominem argument? If the latter it is not typical of you, so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, but please explain. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a troll account. I am the creator of a page about a park in my hometown, although it is not a very good page... needs some improvement for sure. POSSUM chowg (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am talking on commons because I am unable to edit on Wikipedia, even on my own talk page. I was blocked without warning on English Wikipedia so I had to post here. Is there anything else I can do? POSSUM chowg (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I have never posted a selfie here, and I would never do that. However, I have uploaded a logo here. POSSUM chowg (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Indefinitely blocked. Bedivere (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now also globally locked. I blanked the user page on Meta. Yann (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yann's unfair block against Adamant1

[edit]

Following the above discussions, isn't Yann targeting the wrong target user for blocking? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that? Yann blocked Adamant nearly two years ago. Bedivere (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yann blocked me a super long time ago. I'm not currently blocked. Nor is he trying to block me again at this point. Jeff G could have been could have been clearer about it though. Or really just kept it to himself. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That block was nearly two years ago. Adamant is not currently blocked and there's a resolved section above in which no action was taken against Adamant. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The point of closing the discussion like this was to prevent escalation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I posted facts.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User is mad that I remixed his work

[edit]

I have used one of images of User:Snake bgd (File:Yugoslavia-Army-OF-6 (1951–2006).svg) as a basis to create a new file (File:Yugoslavia-Army-OF-12 (1980-1992).svg). Author of OF-6 god mad, accused me of stealing, then uploaded their own version of OF-12 several hours later and put up my version for deletion. See more on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Yugoslavia-Army-OF-12_(1980–1992).svg

There were two problems with my upload:

a) Name was not correct. That could have been solved with simple request for rename. b) I failed to include attribution for source (OF-6) image. I corrected it since. Again, simple request to add attribution would suffice.

I am trying to explain to user Snake that he gave explict permission for remixing his work when he published it on Commons, but he doesn't budge, and continue claiming that I "stole" his work. He used sneaky tactic of uploading of essentially same work and asking for deletion of my version to erase my contributions. Additionally, when he puts request for deletion, he deletes complete metadata of the file and erases it from categories where it is added.

I am asking for mediation in this dispute.

Ђидо (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not remixed work and i am not mad. You simple modify work as you wanna it without said who is copyright holder of original work and that stealing. Here are my works that are made in 2023. I didnt add epalettes of Memeber of Presednecy because i thought that i wasnt necesary. For uploading work in past i got banned and he should two. I think admins should consider this line: "Report freely. You are wrong. I can do whatever I want with CC 4.0 files. The license is clear." I think he cant do everything if violating rules on this platform. Snake bgd (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snake bgd: while User:Ђидо should have linked and credited your work in the first place, they have now. I've further corrected the attribution. And, yes, people can do pretty much whatever they want with CC 4.0 files, limited only by issues like personality rights, trademarks, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jmabel, I was not aware of this syntax of {{Self}} template. I do not think that upload wizard is steering you in that direction, at least I do not remember asking whose work it is based on. It could probably improved in that aspect.
Regarding dispute, I am mostly surprised by @Snake bgd's reaction in bad faith. Instead of directly asking me to provide attribution, which I would gladly provide, he goes on stealth attempt to erase my contributions, by uploading essentially same image under different name, then asking to delete my (earlier) image as "copy" of newer image. Little bit of a good faith attempt to correct attribution (and title) would go a long way to resolve it in a civil manner. There was never intention to "steal" his work (even there is no such thing under CC 4.0 license), but simply a technical/knowledge problem. I will strive in future to provide correct attributions with derived works.
Ђидо (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Sannita (WMF) on the remark here about the Upload Wizard. - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carolus

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No action needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carolus advises other users that one prolific contributor "refuses to respond to questions and suggestions" at User_talk:Jeanhousen#c-Carolus-20240618060200-Hjart-20240617212300.

This despite that the issue mentioned had been resolved. I asked the user to withdrawn their problematic comment at User_talk:Carolus#Comment_on_userpage, but they persist. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't think that 👉👈 sorts of conversations are useful. Coming in with a blame approach seems to only get negative reactions. If we try to AGF and some understanding, then we can be looking to a useful solution. I truly recommend that the fingerpointing stops; that users look at their words and reflect on whether their points are escalating or going to help find a solution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's close this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User:Jmurphy042000

[edit]

One of this user's first edits was to add a German nationalist slogan to the user talk page with no context [1]. I have asked them for clarification on their Talk page and have received no response. I cannot assume good faith – this user should be immediately blocked. If they ever choose to explain themselves, they can do so in an unblock request. Toadspike (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This request is somewhat ridiculous, why should they be blocked for something they added in 2020 if they have made constructive contributions afterwards. Also you failed to notify the user which I have done for you. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that the national anthem of Germany includes at its very beginning the phrase "Deutschland über alles". It is not a block-worthy offence, for sure. Bedivere (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not notifying Jmurphy and thank you for doing that. This sort of behavior cannot be tolerated no matter what their other contributions have been. Knowing, unqualified use of that phrase clearly serves to provoke and offend. Commons as a project at least deserves an explanation, and if a block forces an explanation, then I support a block.
@Bedivere, saying that this phrase is “at the beginning of the German national anthem” is stretching the truth. Perhaps you are correct, under some weird technical interpretation of the law, but for all practical matters (and legal protections) the German national anthem now consists only of the third stanza, because the first stanza is strongly associated with Nazism and toxic German nationalism. I am not the only person to be offended by the use of the first stanza; use of the phrase in question alone, with no context or explanation, is far worse. Toadspike (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about the phrase, but what difference does it make almost four years after it was made in a somewhat obscure early edit of that user? Had it been a pattern of their editing, they'd have been for sure warned/blocked but this seems a one-off, and one that happened a long time ago. Bedivere (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is that users may post offensive statements so long as they're not caught for several years, then fine, this report can be closed. Toadspike (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the report is stale. And while the use of the phrase is questionable, it is not clearly, to me at least, intended maliciously. Despite that, I will give this user a warning.
As a result, this request is  Not done Bedivere (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StarkWinter

[edit]

Category:Georgia (country) photographs taken on 2024-05-04 and others

[edit]

I've got a request for template editors: could someone fix Template:Georgia photographs taken on navbox, please. Someone tried to disambiguate between Geogria (US state) and Georgia (country), but something went wrong, I think. Thanks in advance Wieralee (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, this is a category that redirect to itself, which is obviously wrong, but it is not obvious what is desired. - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note about it at Template_talk:Country_photographs_taken_on#Broken_at_Georgia and on COM:AN. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JorgeVBis

[edit]
✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orijentolog/Massive rollbacks

[edit]

Since this morning the user Orijentolog is carrying out massive reversions of edits that I made more than a week ago and that until now had not been a problem for him. The editions are related to architecture categories, in which there were templates that in my opinion are excessive because the internal sub-categories that already exist fulfill their functions (some examples: 1, 2, 3). Beyond threatens to report me and demanding me not to oppose his reversals ("refrain from removing proper templates"), he has been unable to give me a clear explanation of the reason for this procedure and is reverting me even in categories in which he had previously not even intervened. In fact, it has reverted mostly without giving a single reason in the edit summaries (4, 5), although most recently he does it accusing me of vandalism (6, 7, 8, 9) after initially opposing their massive reversals. CFA1877 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're doing a huge damage to this project by removing proper top templates. There is nothing which can justify this edits ([2][3][4]), yet you call my reverting to previous (proper) condition as "disruptive". No one in the past two decades has come up with the idea to remove it, except you.
Second, the claim that "templates are excessive because the internal sub-categories that already exist fulfill their functions" is nonsensical. Categories do not make templates redundant. According to your logic, virtually all top templates related to countries are "unnecessarily" because there are categories. I can't believe that you came up with the idea that thousands of contributors and hundreds of thousands of categories with such templates are "wrong", and you are the only one right.
Third, I personally made Template:Western architectural styles and inserted it in thousands of relevant categories. Everyone else was happy to use it, including some of the most active users to the categorization of architecture (AnRo0002, Triplec85, etc.), and suddenly you came and started to massively remove it all around with claims it's "unnecessarily". I restored it all around, along with general templates (like Template:Countries of Asia) which you also removed (point 1), and you started to remove it once again. That's rude.
If you have an issue with top templates in general, open a complain & suggest a massive removal from millions of categories. But don't destroy the work of other contributors based on the views that only you have. --Orijentolog (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. FYI, after I opened the Template:Western architectural styles, I edited almost everything related to styles in major European countries. The template is not at the top for aesthetics, but it helps a lot for architectural chronology. It took me tens of thousands of edits and months for all that. Then you suddenly came a week ago and spent a few minutes removing that template from tens of categories of few selective countries, with flawed arguments, and now you are surprised that someone reverted you. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a miracle. A little unpleasant of you to refuse to give me clear explanations. It seems that after a notification here you have regained the ability to speak. Possibly this issue would have been avoided if you didn't have those rude ways. But this explanation doesn't justify massive reversals on me, in cases that don't seem to affect you.
I repeat, you have reversed many more things than you claim here. For example, there are users who add templates "en masse", even for a single element (no relation with other elements/categories). That's nonsense. I intervened in some of such cases. Why do you also burst at me in these cases?
And finally. Since you attack me without limits, I remind you that your discussion is full of complaints and protests from other users about your view on this topic. It doesn't seem like everything is as pretty and colorful as you describe. In this case, it is clear that if your opinion prevails it is because of the force, given that you preferred to revert to normal dialogue with me. This is my last intervention, I do not want to contribute to prolonging the issue. CFA1877 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA1877: I looked at several of Orijentolog's edits you referenced in your comments above. Their edits you are complaining about are obviously correct; I can see why they did not feel a need to write an explanatory edit summary, though I would have done so myself. These navigation templates exist for a reason. If you object to the navigation template, nominate it for deletion (and you will discover that you are pretty much alone in thinking this). Otherwise, please do not remove navigation templates from categories. It is possible that you were not handled as gently as you might have been in this, but your edits were not easily distinguished from vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable removal of CC-Zero City vector maps

[edit]

Hello. I published vector maps of cities created by me personally, the user SounderBruce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SounderBruce deleted them under a fictitious pretext. He wrote me a notice (copy at the end)

  • He didn’t like my nickname. Reason for removal - "Maps added by self-promotional account"

However: My username VECTORMAPPER does not represent any brand, company or public organization. Also, this name does not represent any service, product, website, etc. This is my VERY old nickname, due to the fact that I have been working in the field of vector cartography for a very long time (more than 25 years). And of course, many people in many countries know me by this nickname - it simply reflects my profession.

I am providing the Wikipedia community with free access to some of my vector maps without any restrictions on use.

I really hope that my work on the Wiki will be useful to many people.

Also. My vector files provide the ability to edit, embed in any designs of any scale, in any projects that involve subsequent printing, use in media, and others. Maps, which are usually presented in info box on the Wiki Pages, may be visually informative at the “just look” level - but they are completely impossible to use in any way. The city maps that I published provide users with the ability to easily edit maps in any vector editor and use maps in any media and printing projects, including cinema, television, interactive maps for Internet projects, and games. All maps I publish are fully CC-0 licensed and therefore can be used in any way. I am confident that the city maps I provide are necessary and useful to users.

Message from SounderBruce:<br? Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Vectormapper", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually (not your role), such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company". Thank you. SounderBruce 07:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC) 

List of the removed maps: 
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  +2,556‎  N User talk:Vectormapper ‎ Warning: Username and conflict of interest. thank Tag: Twinkle
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −72‎  m Tulsa, Oklahoma ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −77‎  m São Paulo ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −74‎  m Zürich ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −72‎  m Shanghai ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −71‎  m Toronto ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −114‎  m San Francisco ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −104‎  m Seattle ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  +22‎  m Sydney ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −72‎  m Tampere ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −66‎  m Tokyo ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −147‎  m Warsaw ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −78‎  m San Juan, Puerto Rico ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −86‎  m Salt Lake City ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −153‎  m Wellington ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −84‎  m Sacramento, California ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −114‎  m Oakland, California ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −68‎  m Turku ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −88‎  m Sioux Falls, South Dakota ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −138‎  m Bellevue, Washington ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −102‎  m Yokohama ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −70‎  m Salem, Oregon ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −82‎  m St. Gallen ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −78‎  m Tauranga ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −94‎  m Winterthur ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −194‎  m Tampa Bay ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback

Vectormapper (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only deleted file from Vectormapper that I can see is File:Zurich Switzerland street map.jpg (deleted 18 June 2024), so I cannot make head or tail of this. Perhaps it is about some project other than Wikimedia Commons? @SounderBruce: can you shed any light on this? - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The logs look like English Wikipedia to me since Twinkle is included as a tag (which is a gadget I use there) and the references to "self-promotional account". Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above you can see a list of my city maps vandalized from the Wiki pages (under a far-fetched pretext) Vectormapper (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing about the username. "Vectormapper" is exactly the same legitimate username as, for example, "cook" or "fitter" or "doctor" or "archaeologist" - it accurately reflects the user's identification. The idea that the name "Hannibal_Lecter_666" is more acceptable than, for example, "Philatelist" seems ridiculous to me. Vectormapper (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot resolve English Wikipedia matters on Wikimedia Commons as Commons is a different project with different policies to enwiki. For the record, I agree with you on the username (which does not violate Commons policy). Abzeronow (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, but where can I challenge the fact that my materials were removed from the pages of the English Wiki? Vectormapper (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try en:User talk:SounderBruce, otherwise take a look at en:Wikipedia:Village pump. Bidgee (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Verctormapper: I would also strongly suggest that you not refer to this as "vandalism", which means doing wilful damage. Obviously you and Bruce are having a disagreement, and quite possibly even one in which you are correct, but that does not make him a "vandal", and if you continue to throw around accusations like that your account is likely to be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 21:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any deletion of materials that do not contradict civil laws and Wikipedia rules is essentially vandalism.
If a user simply had questions about my publications or me personally, I, as you can see, am ready to explain and defend my point of view.
Instead, the user simply deleted my maps for made-up reasons.
If I, for example, deleted your own materials from the Wiki because ??? (I don’t like your nickname, or it seems to me that you are advertising yourself, or because of my or your nationality) ??? -
You yourself would admit that this is vandalism.
I could still understand if the articles included AT LEAST SOME maps of cities. But there were NONE of them. Don't you find it strange that in an article about a city there is no map file of this city? Vectormapper (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:VectorMapper User:Vectormapper - I don't know what the detailed definition of vandalism is on Commons. The guideline on Vandalism is not informative on that point. However, if the definition is similar to what is used in the en:English Wikipedia for Vandalism, then you, VectorMapper, are making inappropriate allegations. This is a good-faith content dispute, and using the label of "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute is a bad idea. In the English Wikipedia, it is considered a personal attack and is blockable. So don't yell Vandalism unless you have a reading of a vandalism policy or guideline that confirms what you are saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to say you were advertising on Wikipedia since I really have no clue or care to find out, but the text on your user space is clearly promotional. The same goes for the watermark in your uploads with the url of your website and your inclusion of it in the file description. So if it were me I probably would have done the same thing. Since although none of those alone are an indicator of anything, I think combined they clearly point to you using this as a way to upsell or advertise yourself. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fair. Everyone has the right to write about their achievements - if they exist, of course. The profile simply states what it really is - a brief description of professional qualifications. If I, for example, bred fish and wrote articles about it, my profile would indicate that my fish are the most beautiful. And a physicist would probably have an academic degree and significant publications. And in your profile, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamant1 your interests are indicated in great detail. Isn't this an obvious advertisement? Vectormapper (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your interests are indicated in great detail. Isn't this an obvious advertisement? No because I'm not patting myself on the back about my personal work in a promotional way or trying to upsell anyone on visiting a website where I sell images of postcards like your doing. Your profile literally says "WEB: vectormap.net Vector Maps of the Cities, States and Countries: High Detailed Editable Printable Street / Road Maps in Adobe Illustrator, PDF, CDR, DWG, DXF." Where exactly am I doing that? Sorry, but that's clearly advertising and in no way is it at all comparable to me linking to a galleries of images I've uploaded on my profile. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Planet Work Force Terraforming

[edit]

Blocked a couple of times last year for uploading and writing out-of-scope material about their personal theories on how we can terraform the oceans and the apparently hollow interior of the planet Earth. After a nine month break from Commons they have resumed adding that kind of content today. Belbury (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done indeffed. They have not listened to warnings nor previous blocked. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TamikaWest

[edit]

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

This person has uploaded many pictures of personalities (171 currently), all without EXIF data, selfies by Pilar Scratch, and pictures of Pilar Scratch which are not selfies. So something is not right (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Celebrity wardrobe stylist Pilar Scratch and friend wardrobe stylist Denise Styless attend the Krab Queens Grand Opening in Harlem.jpg). Many pictures need checking. Yann (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roermondernaar

[edit]

Uploads copyvio (File:SC Leeuwen logo.png) after having been warned for it yesterday. Jonteemil (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted some complex logos speedily and created one DR. Taivo (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everhardy

[edit]

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

Blatantly not here to do anything constructive Dronebogus (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laurel Lodged

[edit]

Khankendi is a city in Azerbaijan and since 2023 it is under Azerbaijani control. Its previous name was Stepanakert but in 1991 it was renamed and today its official and since 2023 de facto name is Khankendi. Even in recent reliable sources this city is mentioned first of all as "Khankendi" but "Stepanakert" is mentioned only as a name "known to Armenians" or "known in Armenia"[5][6]. Even the recent report of The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights uses the name of Khankendi throughout the report, only once in the beginning mentioning that the city is "referred to as Stepanakert by Karabakh Armenians"[7]. For that reason all categories containing the name of this city in their names should be with "Khankendi". And categories with "Stepanakert" should be redirected to the categories with "Khankendi". But user Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues edit warring reverting the categories with "Stepanakert" back misleading the readers of Commons. I asked this user on his talk page to not revert "Stepanakert" back and explained why the categories should be with "Khankendi"[8], but he ignored my message and continues mass edit warring reverting the wrong and not actual name of the city back and removing the redirects to "Khankendi"[9][10][11][12][13]. So, please stop this user from posting false information into Commons and help to revert his edits on these categories. Interfase (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should now be using the Azeri name, with the Armenian name as a redirect. It's possible that there are certain historical categories where the Armenian name is correct, especially if it is part of a longer proper noun phrase. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, we have redirect from "Swaziland" to "Eswatini"[14] which is relatively new renaming (in 2018), but Stepanakert was renamed to Khankendi in 1991 and the old name ceased to exist de facto in place in 2023. We should have the same redirect here as well: from "Stepanakert" to "Khankendi", not the other way around. There is no any "Stepanakert" in Azerbaijan today. The current situation is simply absurd. Interfase (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just my personal take of course, but I'm hesitant to say we should adopt a new name for somewhere the second it's changed. Depending on the circumstances categories aren't supposed to be 100% accurate depictions of the current facts on the ground to begin with and lots of times they aren't (or can't be) anyway. That's fine. The main thing is that people are able to find and organize media related to the topic. In this case maybe locals know the name has changed, but it takes time for the rest of the world to catch up and this isn't a project just for locals or people who are overly obsessive about the latest trends in geopolitics or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than 30 years passed since the city was renamed to "Khankendi" and today this name is widely used in the world press nad other sources. The rest of the world already catched up the name "Khankendi". Just 2 years passed when "Swaziland" was renamed to "Eswatini". What is a problem here? We have more that enogh sources showing that "Khankendi" is widely used in the world. Interfase (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Interfase: See Prosfilaes' comment below this one. Your claim that The rest of the world already catched up the name "Khankendi" is clearly false. Regardless, there's no point in changing it if the vast majority of other projects are still using the original name. Again, the point in a category is to find and organize files. That's it. Not be a 100% accurate representation of the current facts on the ground, whatever those facts are in this case. Maybe take it up on Wikipedia's end though and then we can update it once they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia (and probably the majority of Wikipedias) hasn't changed the name yet. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia says there's not much of a Khankendi in Azerbaijan, either; the entire population appears to have fled on the approach of the Azerbaijan military. When you say "Stepanakert was renamed to Khankendi in 1991", that's omitting who gave it that name; the Azerbaijan government may have made that change, but the people of Stepanakert never accepted it. This is complex; instead of renaming anything, I'd almost recognize it as a new city on the same location and completely separate categories depending on time period. It's like the difference between Category:Königsberg and Category:Kaliningrad.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you think that here we should use the same approcah? Keep both categories with "Khankendi" and "Stepanakert" and put files related to the period since 1923 to 2023 into "Stepanakert" and the files related to the period till 1923 and since 2023 into "Khankendi"? Interfase (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many images have been uploaded since 2023 compared to before that? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 100. Interfase (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I am not agree to have two different categories for the same city because almost all of the images related to the city were taken at the period when the city was officialy called "Khankendi". Interfase (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I could really go either way with it myself then. Although it's probably better not to create two different categories anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an administrator, this does not appear to be a user behavioral issue. If the category was at a longstanding place, and you are seeking to change it against opposition, please utilize the categories for discussion method in order to attempt to gain a consensus. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But user did not bring any arguments for his reverts. It seems that he did reverts for the reverts without any explanation on his talk page after my message. Interfase (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I opened the discussion here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Stepanakert (thanks for navigation) and proposed to move the categories carrying the "Stepanakert". Interfase (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iwatchonlinex

[edit]

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

Creating nonsense DR after I warned this account not to advertise on Commons: Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Groom Talks in His Sleep (1935) by Heinosuke Gosho.webm. Yann (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help removing category from a User page

[edit]

Hello, I am currently working as committee for Indonesian Data Visualization Competition, which one of the tasks is writing article at participants' user page in Wikidata and uploading their work to Wikimedia Commons.

One of the participant (@Anazzahro129) misread the instruction and wrote the article in their Commons' user page instead. The problem is when they added the competition category and WikiProject Indonesia category to their user page and this messed up the category page for the competition.

When I tried to remove the category myself, my action detected and blocked by Abuse Filter since I tried to edit other user's page. I have tried to contact the user themself via email which they used for registration to no avail. Can the admin helped me remove the competition category, and also the WikiProject Indonesia's category ? Thank you. Athayahisyam (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Athayahisyam: ✓ Done. That did not need an administrator. Just an autopatrolled user. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the category. Athayahisyam (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Редактор СВА

[edit]

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

Deletes copyvio templates from files they upload, removes user talk page messages about their copyright violations and reuploads the same file again (File:KITH Персонаж.jpg) after it was deleted for being a copyvio (File:Kith персонаж.jpg). - Sebbog13 (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 3 day blocked. They removed the warning so clearly they read it (or at least knew it existed). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 20:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

通報しますた

[edit]

通報しますた (talk · contribs) made an edit on User talk:Ktojsecgiioe, which is obvious Legal threat. Lemonaka (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Already globally locked. Yann (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I did not see global lock, so I blocked the user locally indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP address users on Category:Reproducing piano recording

[edit]

 Since June 24, 2024 on the Category:Reproducing piano recording, these IP address users have been repeatedly posting SPAM link to the abandoned comment-section of the unrelated external site, and also leaving the meaningless threatening message on each edit summary field (see History page).
 In my eyes, these IP address users may be the same person as an already blocked user User:GraceMaryGrace and her IP address set through the proxy/VPN, because she have been caused same trouble on Wikimedia Commons Category:Vorsetzer and Wikidata's my Talk page since February 2024, as a habitual stalker. --Clusternote (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, protected page, FYI this LTA is probably GRP. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process closer by admin after threat on my talk page

[edit]

Earlier I opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maîtresse-vitre de la cathédrale de Dol-de-Bretagne. A few hours later a user, @GO69: , threatened to contact French administrators over it. The DR was then closed out of process and for no reason a few minutes later by @VIGNERON: . Clearly because they contacted by @GO69: about it. The whole thing is clearly a conflict of interest, goes against the Universal Code of Conduct, and as well as being an abuse of the administrator privileges. Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did close this DR thanks to GO69 warning as there is obviously no reason for deletion (per Commons:Snowball clause). If we talk about abuse, @Adamant1: would be the one abusing the Commons:Deletion requests process (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ancien siège d'Ouest-France is also in the same case). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What snowball clause? There was one delete vote and it had only been open for a couple of hours. There wasn't enough comments or time for there to be a snowball. You clearly closed it before the 7 days was over for no reason because a another user from France asked you to. Which is clearly an abuse of the administrator tools and goes against the Universal Code of Conduct. You can say my justification for the DR was wrong, but that's not a valid excuse to close it early and before there was any discussion just because another French user randomly threatened to contact you about it on my talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did came to the DR because of GO69 (who made no threats just factual explanations) but I closed it because as a 13th century work it's very clearly in the public domain. « If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. » Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what GO69 said on my talk page "I point out your ludicrous conception of copyright to administrators such as User:VIGNERON (A), User:Pymouss (A), User:Jean-Frédéric (IA/A)." That's not just factual explanations of anything and it's clearly a threat to contact administrators from France to deal with the DRs. Which is exactly what you did. Regardless, "the snowball test", which you cited, is pretty clear that something has to be ran through the process resulting in a unanimous decision for it to qualify as a snowball. There was no process or unanimous decision here though because you closed the DR after a few hours without there being any discussion. It doesn't really matter though because there's a clear consensus on Commons that DRs should be open for at least 7 days anyway. 2 hours is certainly to early to close a deletion request. Especially if it's being done as a personal favor for another user. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The full message of GO69 in French is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&oldid=888477761
One need to run through the whole process in order to « no need to run it through the entire process » ? That's kind of defeating the purpose.
DR don't have to always to stay open 7 days (see Commons:Deletion_requests#Closing_discussions), it's quite common to close them before. It's more common for close when the result is delete (cf. the page for today Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/06/26 with a few DR already closed) but it's not that uncommon when the result is keep.
Me closing the DR was clearly not a « personal favor », Adamant1 is clearly not assuming good faith and I take it as a personal attack.
I never thought that keeping a 13th windows would cause so much problem. I'll let my admins colleague decide what to do...
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DR don't have to always to stay open 7 days "In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days. Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier." The guideline literally says they can be closed after seven days unless it's an obvious copyright violation. Which it clearly wasn't. Nowhere does the guideline say it's OK to close a DR after two hours because someone pings you about it as a way to threaten and intimidate another user.
Me closing the DR was clearly not a « personal favor » GO69 contacted you on my talk page specifically for the sole purpose of having you deal with it, which you then did seconds later. On top you didn't even bother contacting me about it before hand and I've never interacted with you before this, the last time you dealt with DRs was 2 months ago, and you clearly didn't just stumble on this one randomly because you were already working in the area. So I don't know what else to call it besides a personal favor. If it walks like a duck. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I think that the DR closure by Vigneron is adequate. Restoring an old stained glass window doesn't create a new copyright. The purpose of restoration of such old works is that they appear as faithful as possible as they were at the time of creation. It usually include replacing some broken glasses and straightening the structure, not creating anything new. Yann (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on what kind of restoration work was done and how much personal creative liberty the artist takes while they are doing it. Some restorations are 100% recreations of the original and some aren't. Like in a similar DR the "restoration" involved the artist replacing like 30% of the window with their own artwork. So it really depends on the situation, which is the whole point DRs to begin with. You can't really find a consensus about an edge case or something that isn't clear if a DR is closed 2 hours after it's opened and before people can comment on it. It really just defeats the whole purpose of the thing if administrators can come along and close DRs after a few hours due to a personal opinion that they are invalid or because someone asked them to. The way VIGNERON went about it was clearly wrong to regardless of the merits of the deletion request. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In France, you can't change whatever you want when you restore a piece of art, in particular when it is enlisted as an heritage building. Trust me, I have experience regarding this topic. :)
Okay, there are cases where a change is done. It was actually a topic today at the national French radio France Inter, about Notre-Dame-de-Paris. For Paris, it is clearly for political reasons and the guests where like "that shouldn't be done unless we have nothing to save".
But trust me (again), it is not the case for Dol-de-Bretagne, at all: we are lucky to have proper 13th century stained-glass windows that have been preserved and restored using similar techniques (what Yann described).
Trizek from FR 17:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trizek: This has nothing to do with buildings and the example I brought up to Yann were the artist doing the restoration added their own artwork to a window was in France. It's a separate issue then VIGNERON's behavior anyway. Maybe familiarize yourself with the actual issue before commenting next time. Otherwise it just risks sounding like an off-topic handwaving lecture. Someone's personal experience in a particular usually don't matter if it has nothing to do with the actual problem or what's being talked about. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, you're playing hopscotch on the line between acceptable disagreement and personal attack. There was no need to respond to Trizek like that. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 again

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See my closing comment below. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Started the above nonsense.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what "above nonsense" your referring to. Can you be more specific about what the actual issue is and provide some actual diffs instead of just making a pointlessly vague accusation? Also, your under no obligation to indulge me on this, but since we're here I'm kind of interested to know what your sudden interest and issue with my behavior lately is about since this is the second time recently that you've made vague accusations in an ANU complaint about my behavior and I don't really think it's a productive way to go about things. So really, what's the axe grinding about? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: You started the above section in this edit after trying to have an image of a 13th century stained-glass window deleted. You always seem adamant about something.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And? I didn't know it was against the rules to report an administrator for abusing their privileges. It seems your just drama farming. To the degree that I might or might not be adamant things sometimes people like you continuing to stir up drama for no reason really doesn't help it. I'm not going to drop things if other people won't on their end and your the one continuing it with the vapid nonsense. Like repeatedly hijacking old discussions on my talk page after I've told you multiple times not to. It's a little laughable that your reporting me for something when you can't even be bothered to follow a simple request like that for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Also, you made a personal attack in this followon and forgot to ping me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not obligated to ping someone when I reply to them Jeff. Regardless, I think it was a personal favor and I presented plenty of evidence for why I think that. You can disagree, but its not a personal attack to have a negative opinion about another users behavior. Especially in an ANU complaint. Otherwise you'd be blocked for opening this. ANU is exactly the place to raise those types of issues though and its not like I'm going around making the accusation anywhere else or out of context. So I don't really see what the issue is. I've certainly been the victim of much worse on here that people like you never seem to have an opinion on for some reason. Be my guest and report the person when I get attacked next time. Then maybe I'll care about your opinion. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closing comment Jeff, this is the administrators' noticeboard. Ergo, it is reasonable to expect that administrators already see the discussions happening there (and indeed, participate in them). Creating a thread on this noticeboard to highlight the thread literally right above it on the same noticeboard doesn't seem productive. You seem to have it out for Adamant1 - this is the second thread this month you've started targeting them IIRC - and the back and forth sniping is doing neither of you favors. I don't see any reason for admin action here, but I suggest you two either work out whatever is going on between you two or avoid each other. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=889118399"