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
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
39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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 fou 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.

User:Seiichi Miyashita

[edit]

This user has no understanding of the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, repeatedly creates categories whose purpose is unclear, and and does not attempt to explain why it is necessary in the discussion. He does not even seem to accept repeated warnings. Also, in that discussion and the category he created, he remarks that “let's upload a photo to commemorate the visits”(Revision #929658148) and seems to mistake Commons for SNS. Bart Buchtfluß (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bart Buchtfluß: You must inform users when you report them here. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate it. Bart Buchtfluß (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the category, and warned this user once more. Yann (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
みなさん、ありがとう、つかれるね、よろしく。宮下 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
（ご参考）https://seiichi-miyashita.jimdofree.com/2024/09/28/cross-architecture/ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
拙稿の英訳も遅れがちなので、説明の原文も、翻訳してから、ブログのページに載せますね。お元気にてお過ごしください。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
アーキテクトとして、わたしの目から見て、コモンズの写真群も、フリーなアップ先に、思えたんですけどね。
よく撮れているなら、いいんじゃないかな。みなさま、それぞれ、お考えも、あるとは、十分に心得ています。。。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
かさねがさね、せっかくなので、
Pages in category "Commons users"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Commons_users
に、「User:Seiichi Miyashita」というページを、作らせてもらって、
適度なレイアウトにて、「十字架と教会」の写真群と説明文も載せる、というのなら、よさそうに感じます。
そんな方も、いらっしゃるけど、「他の人もやっているから、自分もよいだろう」ということになるのかな？ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI : User:Seiichi Miyashita I want to upload my media to this page. ok? Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
（試しに、作ってみました、ご意見、待っております、説明文、いらないのかな） Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ＦＹＲ：ガイドライン、スレスレかも。よいのではないかな。説明の英文は、もう物議をかもさないよう、そのうち、ブログのほうに載せますね。いつか、お目にかかれますことを、心より、楽しみにしております。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
　　　　　　　　　　（ご指摘を受けとめ、直しました）
　　　　　　　　　　　　 「Cross & Architecture」
　　　　　　　　　　『十字架とともに、映るチャペル』
　　　　　　　　　　〜十字架と建築の織りなすビスタ〜
いつも、十字架と教会は、互いに、強く、暖かく、慕うように、支えあいます。
ハーモニーは、美しく、確かに、広がり、我々の心に、深く、永く、響きます。
教会を訪れたら、建物の光景と、重厚な風格を、破天荒な輪郭にて、捉えます。

Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

＊ご了承いただけたのでしょうか、もしそうなら、ありがたいです、これから、翻訳を依頼しますね＊ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bart Buchtfluß: もしよろしければ、ゆっくり、英訳お願いします。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seiichi Miyashita 今一度こちらのコメントをご確認いただいた上で，コメント内でBart Buchtflußさんが言及されている質問「なぜCategory:Church Apex crossesがすでにあるのにCategory:Cross & Architectureを作るのか」にお答えください．「カテゴリに関するガイドライン」についてはCommons:Categories/jaをお読みください．
なお，ご存知であれば申し訳ありませんがCategoryという英単語には「分類上の区分」「種類」などという意味があり（参照），ここにおいては写真を種類ごとに分類する機能です．貴殿の「いろいろなトピック」というコメントは少々解釈違いに見えましたので，見直していただけると幸いです．--Tmv (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
それは、コメントにも軽くふれたように、
「頂点にある十字架」というワードには、
コモンズにアップする品格の写真を撮る、
モチベーションを維持できないと感じた、
ということも、大きな、動機、理由です。
「教会の頂点にある十字架」だけでなく、
教会建築との、確かで、豊かな、一体感、
を捉えた、写真群の、構成を考えました。
また、ガイドラインを、すべて把握して、
トライするには、無理もあると思います。
まずは、気軽な投稿を、勧めてもいます。
当初、個人の制作物のコレクションにも、
見えるような成果も多いと、感じました。
ただ、相応に、テーマ、分類、などなど、
コンセンサスもあるようにも、思います。
いまは以上です。ありがとうございます。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
私もウィキ関連の価値をよく学び知るべきだけれど、新しい多くのユーザーを迎える優しさも大切に思う。 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
「井戸端」にても、話題になっているようです。
なので、気は進まないのですが、付け加えます。
自分の利用者ページに、写真群の説明文の英訳、
さらに、当面において、最後のアップロードに、
プロテスタントの礼拝堂の正面の壁面の十字架、
レリーフ、を捉えた、写真を、撮りにゆきます。
これは、「教会の頂上の十字架」というよりも、
「十字架と建築」に、なるのかもしれませんね。
ただ、すでに、議論の的になった当カテゴリは、
もうありませんし、作品を置けても、みなさま、
カテゴリをチェンジされていましたし、わたし、
自分にしか撮れない写真群、かもしれないから、
自分のページに置けるなら、それがベストだと、
思うようになりました。それでよいでしょうか。
FYR:https://www.satohide.co.jp/works/05/05-11.html Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seiichi Miyashita 返信ありがとうございます．やっとMiyashitaさんの意図が見えました．確かにCategory:Christian crossesには「建築と共に十字架が写っている写真」のカテゴリはありません．作るにしても，より明確なタイトル（例えばCategory:Crosses with religious architectures）と説明が必要だと思います．ちなみにレリーフについてはCategory:Reliefsがあり，他のものについても大抵は既存のカテゴリに収まるのではないかと私は思います．これ以上は管理者の仲介が必要なさそうなので，（まだ腑に落ちない部分があるのであれば）井戸端に場所を移しましょうか．
@admins: according to his comment above, he created Category:Cross & Architecture for photos of crosses with religious architectures. He says the existing category is limited to crosses on tops, and there is no category for photos of reliefs — crosses on the front wall of a chapel, etc. I told him about Category:Reliefs, but it may be true that there's no overarching category for crosses with religious architectures. Anyway, we don't seem to need to be here anymore, so we will move to the project chat. Thanks, --Tmv (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tmv さん、
ありがとうございます。
『Category:Crosses with religious architectures』は、コモンズの創作・撮影・アップのモチベーションを、
ガイドラインに基づいて、より確かに、伝えてもらえる、とても、素晴らしいネーミングと、感じますし、
ぜひ、個人的にも、強く、支持したいですし、ぜひとも、カテゴリとして、活用させていただきたいです。
自分の利用者のページにおいては、いまのまま、シンプルなイメージにて、わかりやすく、伝わりやすい、
ナチュラルな「Cross & Architecture」として、写真群のギャラリーを、キープしておけたら、と思います。
よろしくお願いします。
宮下誠一 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
わたくしより、『Category:Crosses with religious architectures』も、ご提案したい、と、願っております。
コモンズにふさわしい、普遍的かつ客観的な、英文の説明も調えたいので、しばらく、お時間をください！ Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@admins:
今後とも、お力添え、お願い申しあげます。
宮下 Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999: Thanks.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF?uselang=ja#Cross_&_Architecture Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ーーーーーーー（説明文案）ーーーーーーー
みなさまへ
『十字架と共に映る宗教建築』創設に際して、
ウィキメデイアの熟練者の方々の勧めも受け、
このカテゴリの初版の制作者として提唱する。
カテゴリ名の英単語の連鎖は、十字架と教会、
キリスト教の建築と記念碑を、示唆している。
両者を、象徴的、両義的、叙情的、芸術的に、
捉えた、主題群、画像群、を、示唆している。
品格あるメモリアルな光景も、示唆している。
特定の、構図に、情報として、抄録したもの、
両者の、対峙と、協調へと、昇華しないもの、
など、趣旨に、沿わない画は、対象としない。
明快な、明確な、基準はなく、主観に委ねる。
神聖と崇高を、信仰と友愛を、思慕と憧憬を、
確かなモチーフに示す、作品のアップロード、
多くの方々に、鋭意、推奨したく、念じます。
宮下　誠一
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
皆さま、それよりのちに、
なにも、コメントはなく、
文言も、代わらなさそう。
英訳を、近く、頼みます。
ご静観、お願いしますね。
https://www.ulatus.jp/?utm_term=ユレイタス&utm_campaign=Ulatus_Japan_Translation_Brand_Mar22&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=8722753614&hsa_cam=16574079525&hsa_grp=134922315335&hsa_ad=624613055012&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-337631684070&hsa_kw=ユレイタス&hsa_mt=e&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADggnbjnNSq5eQryxKlswP_ZDGj2H Seiichi Miyashita (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elcobbola and out of process deletion.

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The ratio of "fire and brimstone" to "constructive conversation" has gone out of wack, and there is no consensus for any further action, so it's time to close this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this history Creating File:Shellenberger2024.jpg - Wikimedia Commons: and this series of edits on the Undeletion requests. User:Elcobbola reverted my undeletion of this file which I did before his comment, and I commented afterwards, saying it was done.

As far as it goes, this file should remain undeleted and a deletion discussion take place, because of the disagreement. Also, User:Elcobbola needs to be instructed not to revert other admin actions without discussion first. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he threatened to block me on my userpage. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say by me. There's that critical reading again. Эlcobbola talk 20:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the policy where out-of-process admin actions cannot be reverted. That an admin believes "Creative Commons - free for reuse" is an acceptable license is so blatantly wrong as to be embarrassing. Эlcobbola talk 20:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your delete of my undeletion was out-of-process. I undeleted it before your comment and was getting ready to close the discussion when we had an edit conflict. The fact that we had a disagreement mean that this should have been taken to deletion discussions. "Creative Commons - free for reuse" is certainly an expression of intent, and should be good enough until we can have proof of source, since the individual did not apparently know about the impending deletion until there was time. You have the worst case of never assuming good faith. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is, of course, a lie. My comment was entered at 19:57, 4 October 2024, the same exact time as the out-of-process restoration (19:57, 4 October 2024). It also took time to research the source and write the comment; it was "in process" well before the out-of-process restoration. There has been discussion, after discussion, after discussion resulting in consensus that UDRs are to be left open a reasonable amount of time to allow for feedback. You gave it a mere four minutes. Where have I made any reference to your intentions? Have you not read COM:AGF either? Эlcobbola talk 20:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about my intentions. There's your critical reading skills problem. Again. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, point me to the policy that explains how long UDRs are to be left open before acting on them, since I've been away for some time. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:AGF refers to intent. I didn't reference a policy. Critical reading, indeed. Эlcobbola talk 20:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking you about assuming good faith of me. Reading skills. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentThis is getting ridiculous. It feels like we're talking over each other and I don't want to do that with you, you've put in a lot of time and work here, and I don't really have a problem with you, only the last action I disagree with. I have only recently been active again in these discussions recently and it's clear that a culture has developed around them that I need to navigate.
It's not the end of the world if we retain the picture for a deletion discussion and it's not the end of the world that it stays deleted until the user gets their ducks in a row. Truce? Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Shellenberger2024.jpg, the undeletor wrote: "conditional Keep for a limited time until the user can get the origin license straightened out either by VRT or by getting the license fixed in the source.".
To me, the undeletor is publishing a file on this website being well aware that it currently doesn't meet our requirements.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the correct process if it is very likely that we get the confirmation of the permission to upload under the license the file was uploaded under. The file should be marked with {{PP}} and if we get the free license confirmed it can be kept and if not it will be deleted after 30 days. GPSLeo (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read {{PP}} it requires "Place the following code on image pages after sending an email to VRT". So your understanding of the correct process might be mistaken.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading the photos after sending the mail is problematic as the mail should link to the photo on Commons. As I understood this thread the request to the author to confirm the license is already sent. GPSLeo (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the template doesn't support that. {{Npd}} is for requesting the author to send an email to confirm. If it doesn't happen, we don't "undelete".
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Uploader gets the message to ask the author to confirm the license. If the Uploader does this they have to replace the missing permission with permission pending template. During that process files should not be deleted. If the Uploader does not act within 7 days the file gets deleted and it is correct to not to undelete the file. If the Uploader acts the file should not be deleted within the 30 days. GPSLeo (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAWK the uploader didn't act. So deletion happened as it should.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Free for use without condition is Free for use without condition. We could upload it as CC-0 and they would have no legal recourse. The only reason I said "conditional keep" is, in fact, based on the license it was uploaded under it's evident that they do want at least attribution in the image. I think without hearing from the individual who owns the copyright, the kind thing to do is delete it, because although they've effectively released it for free, it's almost certain that isn't quite what they wanted to do. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 22:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you shouldn't consider resigning your adminship, Clearly, you haven't had much recent practice and second guessing admins who make decision based on our current processes isn't the way to go. Rather than understanding that this is problematic, you persist here.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do understand the processes, and I know a lot about copyright, and I know a lot about why more people aren't involved here in Commons and why we have such trouble communicating to the public. There are reasons the uploader didn't act on the notice, and people don't think to look for those. As far as resigning my adminship? "Second guessing admins who make decisions based on our current processes" is a gross simplification of what happened and a complete misrepresentation of my position and actions. What happened with elcobbola isn't going to happen again, but I will disagree with other administrators here from time to time, especially when their process disagrees with my interpretation of copyright. I'll just not undo anyone's actions and start with discussion first. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People on the project need to learn to be a little more self-critical. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming your good faith, I don't think your actions illustrate an understanding of the undeletion process nor "permission missing" process.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the whole thread, you'll see that I've already stated that I need to navigate it better, but if it wasn't clear, it was an admission that I don't fully understand the current processes around undeletion and was doing it as I would have done it in 2010, with the assumption that the uploader was acting in good faith, didn't themselves understand the process and give them a second chance to straighten it out. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could summarize what you gathered around the undeletion process and the permission missing process so we can assess if you should keep your adminship or not.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear you have any understanding of the adminship and de-adminship process Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand what is expected of admins for undeletions and missing permissions, I think a deadminship process should be initiated. Your adminship was reinstated mainly because people thought you knew what you are meant to do.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what is expected of admins. I don't have to "summarize" it for you. In fact, you're being rather hostile about it. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it's clear to you now that undeletion wasn't correct, that you haven't followed the undeletion process of Wikimedia Commons, and that the uploader should have emailed a permission instead of you undeleting the file until some remedy was found? Further more that reporting the correct deletion of the file by an admin isn't a "user issue" to report as an "out of process deletion"?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is bordering on sea-lioning Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 00:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Elcobbola and out of process deletion", then "Elcobbola's primary mistake", then "People on the project need to learn to be a little more self-critical", now "sea-lioning".
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you’re one of those people who compiles evidence on people you don’t like. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 00:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just summarizes what you wrote here .. at least you seem to understand that there is a problem.
I finally agree with Elcobbola about your block. Personal attacks are not ok. I suggest 1 month given that you are an admin.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please just put the stick down and walk away, this is nonsense the source site clearly states CC license without restrictions, ok its fine to seek clarity on which version and attribution but that isnt even on the site. Its freely licensed within scope no need to delete just to clarify the exact license, we've taken photos from flickr for years with similar licensing statement, we accept PD without any clarification. Gnangarra 02:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User: Norbert'sh

[edit]

Competence issues— see this deletion request. There is no logical reason whatsoever to nominate it for deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I closed the DR. Yann (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done One bad DR is not grounds for a block. Revisit if this becomes a pattern, or present additional cases if you feel this already is part of a pattern. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry?

[edit]
Timestamp File Uploader Deleted file Uploader
Oct 08 2024 04:50 PM File:表哥與兄弟.jpg Delete Google image search Zongzhang19463587 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 18 edits) File:表哥與兄弟.jpg (Und | Log) Zongzhang19463587 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Oct 08 2024 04:50 PM File:表哥與兄弟.jpg Delete Google image search Zongzhang19463587 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 18 edits) File:WendyLin5.jpg (Und | Log) Zhangzong (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Oct 08 2024 04:50 PM File:堂姐姊堂妹.jpg Delete Google image search Zongzhang19463587 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 18 edits) File:WendyLin4.jpg (Und | Log) Zhangzong (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Oct 08 2024 04:50 PM File:堂姐姊堂妹.jpg Delete Google image search Zongzhang19463587 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 18 edits) File:堂姊與堂妹.jpg (Und | Log) Zongzhang19463587 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Oct 08 2024 02:31 PM File:爸爸與玩耍.jpg Delete Google image search Zongzhang19463587 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 18 edits) File:WendyLin1.jpg (Und | Log) Zhangzong (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Oct 08 2024 02:30 PM File:兔子背雲豹.jpg Delete Google image search Zongzhang19463587 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 18 edits) File:Sdkaskdas.jpg (Und | Log) Zhangzong (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Given the very similar username and the uploading of the same files by the two accounts I suspect sockpuppetry. Master have been indefed, hence the need to create a sock. Jonteemil (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

對，兩個帳號都是我!可以讓我把這些照片放在維基共享資源嗎?如果不能放上這些很重要的照片，我真的會很想死耶.......
維基有沒有給個人專用的相簿? Zongzhang19463587 (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
對!兩個帳號都是我 Zongzhang19463587 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sockpuppetry by user themself above. Nuke all files and indef sock. Jonteemil (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Both blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Zongzhang19463587 has not been blocked yet. Or do you think the block is unnecessary? Thanks. SCP-2000 11:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, ✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re-loading deleted file

[edit]

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

Downloads many files that have been deleted. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Pater

[edit]

Andrew Pater (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads photos and logos of likely copyrighted source but declaring as his own. Furthermore, some of his uploads are reuploads of deleted items according to the names used. Pierre cb (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No activity after you warned him. Uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Misaka Eikoto

[edit]

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

Sockpuppet of 反共抗獨光復民國 (talk · contribs). Account was registered on the same day he got permabanned, phrasing is identical and so is the nature of his requests. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. I also removed [1]. Yann (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorinaio05

[edit]

Continues to upload the same deleted file after having one prior block for it. Jonteemil (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo A week again? Shouldn't a second block be longer? Jonteemil (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, that's second block. I reblocked the user for a month. Taivo (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yaboisohan

[edit]

Regarding User:Yaboisohan, I have reviewed of their several uploaded photos, and all are copyright violations. I suspect the ones I haven't checked are copyright violations too. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Handled I zapped all of their uploads except for one and left them a final warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Despite the numerous warnings the user has received for copyright issues and a specific warning for uploading Symphony of Heaven's images from Facebook, they've again uploaded an image off the band's website as their own. here. This was actually sized down version of the file that was on the band's official website of Symphony of Heaven. All these numerous warnings in the past didn't deter them from doing this. Their prolific article creation pattern at en.wiki seems to suggest they maybe editing on behalf of a promotion company which would explain why they're getting so many copyright take downs. Graywalls (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user (he was not warned previously). The upload in question is deleted as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: , I said they've been previously warned, because of these talk messages found on their page. I thought these, particularly the reminder about the exact copy from Facebook counted as a warning.
Graywalls (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:L._Beck

[edit]

No admin action necessary. Yann (talk) 11:20, 15 October 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.

The user readds speedy deletion tags to regular category discussions [2] after the speedy deletion was converted to a category discussion. I suggest they be restricted from editing category namespace.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please let the responsible admin of the relevant category decide. As far as I am informed, it is not desirable to create an empty category today for all possible topics that might even contain a file in the future. This is bad work. Then you could create the corresponding categories up to 2050. Great, nothing gained. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the user seems to force changes rather than seeking consensus, deliberately undoing redirects when they are aware that the question isn't agreed upon: [3]
It seeems there was a similar issue already in the past: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_39#h-L._Beck-20240725051600 (edit warring with User:ŠJů]),
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the personal attacks [4][5][6], I suggest a block.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel once again confirmed that you have a lousy character. Again, you start a discussion and before we can clarify an issue there, you pass people on to this place. Yes, I find your behavior impossible (and not for the first time). This should not be taken as an insult, but as a well-founded and honest opinion! Lukas Beck (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you were reported here because you replaced the discussion with speedy tags rather than participating there.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not repleased!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are just doing it wrongly.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and you couldn't clarify that on my discussion page? You had to involve tons of other people to do that? That's exactly what I mean when I say you have a bad character. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to be honest, I think I'm here because we've already clashed several times, as you've often noticed yourself constantly revising changes without discussion and instead of discussing things, you report people directly here. And the fact that you are vandalizing and trolling is not a form of insult. There are many other things that would come to mind that I won't say, as they quite rightly have no place in this project. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All edits being examined are yours. I guess it's easy to just start with personal attacks if you don't have any arguments.
Now pretending you ignore that the speedy deletion tag shouldn't be readded after it was convert to a category discussion suggests that you might not even read the deletion tags you added all over. I guess it's a competency issue I'm not sure how to address.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many times you want to repeat it; Terms like vandalism or trolling are not personal attacks.
Competency problems, to use this word, even if they existed, would probably not be the right place to discuss them here. I highly recommend getting involved in discussions on the user pages and not writing everything you can't handle on this page. This has something to do with social skills. ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are obviously free to think of yourself in these terms.
I asked you to open a discussion if you want to implement a change, but apparently, you are not interested in that.
Even when it's done for your (by me), you add speedy deletion tags to category pages and then force the conclusion of the discussion by implementing the controversial change you want to propose while it's open.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misunderstood something fundamental. I'm not going to start a discussion about it before every change I make. If you disagree with my changes for whatever reason, it is your responsibility to open a discussion. Or you can simply revert my changes without much explanation and ask me to justify my changes. The latter is not necessarily the best way. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which explains why you got into a revert war with SJU before.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings me back to your lousy character. If I may clarify this to you, this process has long since been completed with the result that no further measures against me are necessary. So what do you want from me now? Maybe you should concentrate on the current situation and heed what I just wrote to you. Otherwise, this might not be our last argument. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to assume that it's normal that you keep getting reverted.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
don't get that argument, sorry Lukas Beck (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999: We don't keep empty categories. They can be recreated as soon as they are not empty any more. Yann (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are free to create them, especially when part of series.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what reason? How sure can you be that some of the categories won't remain empty forever? And permanently empty categories are not needed here. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to participate in the discussion.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the discussion is already closed ;-). Lukas Beck (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are (rare) times when an empty category should be kept:
    1. One of very few empty categories in a mostly populated series, especially if the series has a prev/next navigation
    2. Certain maintenance categories that we hope to keep empty, but where we want them to be there if the issue in question arises again
    3. A category we expect to have content very soon (e.g. a category for the third day of a conference that is now on its first day).
  2. If someone turns a speedy deletion into a normal discussion, it is almost always correct to let it run its course. Simply reverting them without discussion is only the right thing to do if you are dealing with a vandal, and in this respect no user who is genuinely active in the project should be considered a vandal: we're talking about things like a brand new user or an IP coming along and turning a speedy into a DR with no rationale, or with a transparently absurd rationale.
  3. "you have a bad character" (from Lukas Beck) at least borders on calling for a week's block, and their general tone on this thread does nothing to make me think otherwise.
Jmabel ! talk 06:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone like Enhancing999, who is vERY often seeking conflicts on this page and elsewhere, should be able to take such comments on their behaviour easy. --A.Savin 06:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like a personal attack from user not even involved in the above discussion, but present when Lukas B. runs into conflicts.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is not the first time that this user always interprets criticism against himself, no matter how factual it may be, as a personal attack, then reports his colleagues here instead of first discussing it on the corresponding discussion page and then presents himself as the big victim . And his tone is no less unfriendly towards his colleagues. I still think it's highly problematic. That's why I stick with the factual and reasoned statement that he has a bad character. Our policy of not insulting our colleagues should not prevent us from objectively criticizing our colleagues. And this should certainly not be seen as an excuse to block users. Otherwise it will definitely be the end of a healthy debate culture here on Commons. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't reset the discussion. I haven't removed the reference to the discussion either. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[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.

Raghav 1048

[edit]

Raghav 1048 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded enough copyright violations that it probably warrants a warning. I dream of horses (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses There is nothing stopping you warning them yourself Gbawden (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden Wait, really? I'm an experienced Wikipedian but I'm new around here. It seems that admins do the warnings here. I dream of horses (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, anyone can warn. Admins block when its warranted. Take a look at COM:BP - anyone can add a warning template (or use a tool to do it) and if the behaviour persists you bring it here and admins take the appropriate action Gbawden (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden Where are the warnings? I dream of horses (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Block warning templates. Or just writing something more specific and less formal: a warning doesn't have to be templated. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mortezarahimi3rd

[edit]

Uploaded many files and claimed them to be own work, asked the user to change that to instead link to the source (for OWID files) but the user didn't do so and didn't respond. Don't know what should be done now: the files are useful but other users shouldn't be expected to fix this issue for Mortezarahimi3rd. This same problem may also exist for non-OWID uploads by Mortezarahimi3rd. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I blocked this user for uploading more files. Other edits are allowed. However Mortezarahimi3rd has not edited for several months. Yann (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancing999

[edit]

Hi, I think we have a problem with Enhancing999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

  1. First edit-warring with Lukas Beck over deletion of Category:1922 in rail transport in Switzerland (see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10/Category:1877 in rail transport in Switzerland, now recreated, and User talk:L. Beck#Vandalism accusations for changes you seek to implement).
  2. Then reporting Lukas Beck on ANU: [7].
  3. Then this discussion, of which Jim said that it was completely out of place.
  4. Also bothering me on my talk page here.
  5. Finally this discussion on the VP.
  6. And last, but not least, removing other people comments when they don't like it.

Could someone please explain to Enhancing999 that we don't keep empty categories, eventually with stronger terms? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: Your behavior in this matter is utterly unacceptable. Cut it out immediately. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enhancing999 continues here. Yann (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A block is certainly overdue. This user LOVES to report other users on COM:ANU often for void reasons, and without much attempt to discuss first. Already the fact that they didn't comment anything on this complaint is telling a lot. --A.Savin 19:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{s}} all the reasons above and my own experience with them. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Decided to withhold my opinion instead despite my encounter with this user, I've no interest in supporting a block at this time. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 14:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Uncomfortable questions can be a good thing up to a certain amount, but I've also seen Enhancing999 beyond the limit, causing disruption. --Krd 05:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose some sanction might be in order, but a block seems excessive to me. Regardless, it would be a good idea if Enhancing999 were to acknowledge that the consensus is clearly against them on where to draw the line for keeping empty categories, and that they should just plain let others (who are overwhelmingly in consensus with each other) make those decisions. - Jmabel ! talk 10:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm obviously open to discuss this (even opened the relevant CfD). I think Yann is well aware that their action isn't supported by current Commons policy as stated, at least by 17 Oct, 19:54, so it seems to me that they are using their adminship (by prematurely closing discussions, deleting categories, refusing to participate in the discussions) to force an editorial issue. Coming from an administrator that mainly works on copyright issues, this seems even more problematic.
     ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is only a small difference. It's not like @Yann clearly violated any guidelines. In fact, various administrators have pointed out to you in various places which rule you are referring to here. And there seems to be a general consensus about this decision. Why can't you submit to that? Lukas Beck (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • About point 1:
  • About 2: Admin review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:L._Beck concluded that Lukas action wasn't appropriate and their personal attacks should stop. Somehow Yann ignored that review and closed the report despite being personally involved in the matter.
  • About 3: The undeletion request followed the relevant steps. It's unclear based on what that conclusion was reached. I'm working on having that clarified. Admin view in that discussion was that they wouldn't have deleted the category.
  • About 4: I rephrased the question twice, but Yann didn't answer despite responding. It appears they can't explain which Wikimedia Commons policy their action was based on. If they feel bothered by being questioned about their admin actions, the remedy would be to not take any admin actions.
  • About 5: It's strange that Yann doesn't want a discussion on user expectations on how admin actions are explained to take place and makes it into a discussion about himself. As an admin, they aren't even particularly concerned by the question for user expectations. It would be good to have more views there.
  • About 6: As Yann restored the comment, I added a note about its off-topic nature. The comment is indeed not related to the general question asked in the discussion. I should probably have asked an admin to remove it instead. I don't think Yann's comment in that discussion is on topic either; somehow they keep repeating an answer to a question they aren't being asked. In any case, neither explained how their comments would relate to the general topic.

As much as I value Yann's knowledge on copyright, I don't think their approach to categorization discussions is sound. Admin review already deemed their closure as premature. I had the same impression with Yann's actions about Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Cross & Feather Architecture where they didn't even bother to comment and note their action. It lead even more confusion among two fairly new editors.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it is very important for me to mention again that I have never insulted or discriminated against this user. I don't have a good opinion of him, which shouldn't be surprising given his history, and I can and will express my opinion here. And the statement that the user has a bad character is a factual observation that is confirmed time and time again. And as @A.Savin said, you should be able to take criticism. A block here would send a very bad signal when you look at what it means for future communication here on Commons. Should you no longer be allowed to criticize colleagues who are obviously behaving incorrectly, no matter how objectively? If so, I see no future for this project, which thrives on mutual exchange. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About 3: You're not being completely honest here. Not every administrator agreed with you and no administrator saw the need to restore the useless categories. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Enhancing999 is referring to me, 3 is missing context: I said that I usually don't delete empty categories in a sequence, but I also did not see a need to restore it. I pointed out that the category could be recreated once it was no longer empty (or I'd be willing to undelete upon request when it is not empty). Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, we should not reopen the discussion about the deleted categories here. We conducted this in a variety of places and always came to the same result. This is about how the user deals with this situation and towards his colleagues. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From your response I do not see the you are aware of the problem. Do you understand what behaviour is problematic and do try to avoid this in the future? GPSLeo (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, point 6 was an error. I should have noted that I consider the comment off-topic and asked an admin to remove it.
As a non-admin, I can't really check if the report (point 1.) about the 1922 category is accurate or not, so maybe you can check and confirms to me (and all other non admins), if Yann's allegation is accurate or false.
If the - what I consider - continued personal attacks by Lukas Beck (also in this thread) are acceptable, I can take a note of that so that we all may feel free to do so as well. Personally, I don't think their comment even in this thread are acceptable and an admin should consider opening another thread on them.
If it's generally considered inacceptable to request undeletion of elements deleted by Yann, I'd be happy to comply with this.
If the conversion of a speedy deletion to regular discussion was correctly handled in this case, please state so, so that we can update our procedures.
BTW, can you provide a link to the policies that may back up Yann's deletion decisions.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the topic has been discussed and we have referred you to the relevant guidelines several times. Just re-read the old discussions or look at the speedy deletion guidelines. This clearly states that meaningless categories can be deleted quickly and which category is to be rated as meaningless and which is not is in the hands of the decisive administrators. And to the previous point, all I can say is that your unacceptable actions are causing counter-reactions, which are logically directed against you. Nobody should insult anyone here, but you should be able to tolerate headwinds up to a certain point. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question wasn't addressed to you, L., but I note that in this thread twice L. comments on that point without being able to provide a working wikilink.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block request 193.210.166.91

[edit]

Repeated disruptive and threatening behaviour. Here he writes "you may find your Wikipedia head on your bedroom floor". Nitraus (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dromad09

[edit]

Dromad09 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Porn user, not here to be productive Dronebogus (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cracow.Writer

[edit]

Can someone with a working knowledge of Polish please review this user's uploads? The translated descriptions seem rather irregular (repeated references to "debunking a proof of schizophrenia", a 2014 "Polish terrorist attack", etc) and often seem unrelated to the documents, but I'd appreciate a second opinion before I bring these to deletion. Omphalographer (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdy p

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC):[reply]

I posted the request, but I had not the time to complete it because while editing it, you added that and caused conflict. Given you did that work in "emergency" I had nothing to do more after your instantaneus action. You are just too hurry.' I have not ignored any instruction (and remember that instructions change over time, so I need to check them as well before continuing). Also your claim that I did not respond is wrong (including in your old request done years ago). I have not ignored them but people are not expected to reply instantly to everything, especially if they are offline at that time. Everyone should be allowed several days to post a response to any message, I am not a bot, and not a slave!
You links above show that you've done that extremely rarely: Less that once a year! I have done many other delete requests, and completed them properly, before you detected anything. So why are you complaining here? All was done correctly in appropriate time. If ever something is missing this is an omission that may have been caused by other more urgent edits needed elsewhere, or because there was a temporary network/database problem delaying any further action. You have never complained directly to me about that. Only here. Please keep your calm and be fair.
My request was valid even if it was still not complete and took action immediately on it (and made because the request was done to undo abusive edits (spreading fake facts in many places) that were done by an IP user from Asia (on multiple wikis) polluting Japanese topics everywhere (that Asian IP user uses various IP addresses using his mobile; I am checking now all what he did recepently here in Commons; but there are other wikis as well were he pushed repeated polution with fake edit comments like "love"). verdy_p (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Verdy p: I corrected your edit in this edit 10:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC), a full 71 minutes after your edit. You did not take into account the many edits I have made to user talk pages regarding incomplete deletion requests (look for the words "warning" and "reminder" in the Edit Summaries).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During those 71 minutes you did not ping me at all, did not contact me. I had a neighbour visiting me. I was gone to bring him to funerals of his father (he has no vehicle to attend there in time), so I was absent for a couple of hours to bring him and make some shopping, before eating and returning home. During these 71 minutes I did not edit anything and did not even read any page on this wiki, to get any notification (the internal logs can easily prove that, I can also prove it by my purchase ticket in a mall and at my bank to get money, and another one to buy a lunch and take a coffea, but this is my normal personal life).
Really, read above: I'm not a slave working 24/7, I'm not a bot like what you operate here for such "railed" maintenance you want to do; and if you want to do things faster, you can do that, but there was absolutely no emergency and during that time you did not even take the time to contact me. I have seen nothing when you were back, except to see that you had completed the work that required no further action from me. Also please don't mix me with other unrelated facts concerning randomly chosen other users: your justifications above are completely unfair and causes just pollution: such arguments are built for infering malicious bias).
Even if I made an error or ommission, or if this was caused by some technical reason, the delay was caused by external factors, consider I'm a human, not a device or service supposed to available nearly 100% of time. That's now the way to cooperate (even respected companies and fovernments give reasonable delays and do not warranty any action during that time or compensation after that). I have not abused the system (and my actions on this wiki are very clear, I've not ignored anything and did not act to introduce any massive "pollution", these edits were correctly followed manually one by one and in correct time; time is also always needed to allow further checks). Unlike bots (including yours), We (humans) all work incrementally by small successive steps. verdy_p (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Verdy p: You forgot to ping me. During those 71 minutes, I was busy sleeping and getting ready for my workday. I corrected your edit as soon as I noticed your edit, pinging you in the process. Then, I researched our previous interactions and determined that further contact with you about this exact issue of creating DR subpages including [[t2|delete}} would be fruitless, as I had already warned you about it nearly two years ago. Then, after more preparations for my workday (including travel and further research), I posted the above in a new section. You responded above after four minutes, before I had a chance to post {{subst:Discussion-notice}}. Note, I have created well over a thousand pages in Commons namespace, most being well-formed DR subpages.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And do so what? We were both busy duringh these 71 minutes. So what's the point for contactuig this board as the only form of "interaction"? Your own history and my own demonstrates exactly the opposite of all what you argued and invented just above, mixing me with also other people. And taking pseudo arguments that are not minutes apart, but several years apart (and then inventing your conclusion, as if I had never replied and noticed your concern if I was ever really involved) is just complete non-sense. You invent your own rules for your preferences. And the only form of "cooperation" taken here, is just a way to harass and ennoy me, and admins or other visitors of this page; adding another set of new lies and invention in your last response, scrambling the chronologies of events, and mixing unrelated people, just makes your arguments above completely pointless. verdy_p (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=946206783"