This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please don't edit logged out. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 04:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
You aren't blocked, so all that does is reveal your IP adress, as well as not helping your case. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 04:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The two active confirmed members have been in the habit of adding all sorts of copyright violating pictures here, many of which are up for deletion independently. 🇺🇦Timtrent🇺🇦talk to me🇺🇦 09:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. I think that makes a great deal of sense. Thank you. It was either going to be that out a local decision here. 🇺🇦Timtrent🇺🇦talk to me🇺🇦 10:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. The users are blocked. I deleted their contributions due to different reasons. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Obvious troll whose mass spam reverting files, has a deletion request out for my userpage for some reason. NorthTension (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I closed that DR as obviously frivolous. Abzeronow (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Done I blocked this account, VOA, probably a sock. Yann (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Why do you insist on posting pictures that do not reflect the city's character but rather distort its general image with your suspicious photos? I will file a complaint against you for defaming an Arab city inhabited by Arabs in the Ahvaz region." Honoor2 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I know about it, just this is too obvious to waste checkusers' time. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Krd, can you Handle this? All the Best -- ChuckTalk 16:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
They require evidence in the form of diffs. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. the contrib they linked is pretty damning, they literally just reverted Orijentolog. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 17:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's a waste of time. If we have a CU request, all information is in one place. Krd 19:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
fake-image uploader blocked
For the record: I've 1-year-blocked Professor Moriarty 1 (talk·contribs) for uploading at least 3 faked/manipulated images of living persons and scores of copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The subject was about the unilateral decision to declare these files superseded by the user's newly-created versions that currently stand on top of the pages of the files above.
Incidentally, some categories have been removed on the first user action (file #1, file #2) (although there was no miscategorisation, as shown by the fact that user's files have been has been properly categorised in these), which I didn't notice straight away, to me what was likely to trigger an edit-war was in first place the inclusion of the {{Superseded}} template instead of inserting the new files as other versions in a neutral way.
One can acknowledge that there has been an attempt at dialogue, for the user came to my talk page, but first with a {{Uw-vandalism2}} (diff) and then, later, with a “I don't want to be mean, but this is pretty childish behavior. Come on man.” (diff); I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of users who'd enjoy to discuss with it, but I have to admit I'm not one of them.
Eventually, should I care about the fact that some files have been unilaterally declared superseded? I don't think that stating a file as other version rather than superseding one does any harm to one or the other, whereas it would be difficult to assert the opposite while claiming to remain neutral.
Anyway I'm also here now because the subject of the decategorisation mentioned above has already been addressed in this request, among other facts, and although that's easy to fix it still hasn't been done, suggesting that the files are bound to be left as is
Of course I won't act on this for I've been warned not to edit-warring. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
It's kind of hard not to make a "unilateral decision" when other people refuse to talk to you about the issue and just continue edit warring. OddHerring (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
“Come on man” Let's keep neutral, some users may find that other files supersed yours, thus filling these as other version instead of superseding is fine for everyone. It's the same in the case some user declares your own fies superseded.. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree. @OddHerring please change "superseded" to "other version" and let the end project decide which version they prefer to use. Bastique☎ let's talk! 16:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Why? My version is more accurate. OddHerring (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The main point in heraldry is the blazonning, any design can be chosen without making the arms invalid. Thus, other versions are as valid as yours, whatever the color shades chosen or the eagle's design. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment by Alachuckthebuck: Reminder to stay civil and that rather than edit warring over versions, just create new ones. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
If your version is "more accurate" then it's incumbent upon you to convince the end projects of such. "superseded" is not appropriate here, when your version in fact, does not, supersede the others Bastique☎ let's talk! 17:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Remjeud, Chrymedia, and mass copyvios
Once again reporting the upload of a massive number of copyvios in the Indian Christian subject area. Please review the many copyright violations and intentionally false licensing tags on Remjeud's edits. Relatedly, Chrymedia has uploaded further copyvios and returned the same pool of Syro-Malabar photos previously uploaded by Sleevachan-type socks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Please file this at com:RFCU. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 02:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this here. This is long-term abuser User:Kriestovo Nysian aka User:Sibinia (the latest named sock account I've been aware of was User:Vřetíle); I've been aware of them for a couple of years now but it's very tiresome to clean up after them. Their editing is a strange mixture of sometimes being merely pedantic (e.g. creating huge amounts of over-categorization), sometimes genuinely misguided (e.g. mislabeling Greek-language artifacts as Church Slavonic because of the similarity of scripts), often tendentious, and sometimes downright vandalistic (deliberate invention of artefacts and falsification of sources). And they are quite unique among the disruptive users I've known in that their vandalism and POV-pushing rarely manifests itself in article edits, but instead in creating "walled gardens" of metadata links, creating tangled webs of Commons categories, Wikidata entries, images, image metadata, and Wikidata-driven infoboxes, all of that with a view of pushing some bizarre POV notions about ancient Slavs. They are usually at least as active on Wikidata as they are here. We'd need a simple way of radically nuking everything they do and add, across projects and namespaces, for every new IP they use. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Note that several IPs in the 2001:9E8:5400:0:0:0:0:0/40 range have been active right through yesterday. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: massrollback is not doing the job for me at present, but I rolled back these edits for you manually, going back to 1 December. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! It's unfortunately to be expected that mechanical mass rollback won't work for all cases here, because a lot of the edits are page creations (new categories or image uploads), or sequences of multiple socks/IPs editing the same page, so there'll often be no clean version to revert to. BTW, is there anything we can do about the created pages? Does Commons even have a policy that pages/files created by ban-evading socks can be speedily deleted, or would everything have to go through regular deletion requests? Fut.Perf.☼ 15:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
This falls under CSD G3All the Best -- ChuckTalk 16:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
And through new account User:Romnsrcs. Can somebody block please? Fut.Perf.☼ 07:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
83.135.190.0/24 is another stable, small range that would be worth blocking (has been used exclusively by the vandal for a year, and has been quite active throughout the last days.) Fut.Perf.☼ 19:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Update: User:Krd blocked the recent sock accounts and several of the recently active IP ranges based on the checkuser report. Thanks everybody for helping out with this! Fut.Perf.☼ 16:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
AbchyZa22(talk·contributions·Statistics·Recent activity·block log·User rights log·uploads·Global account information) (assign permissions) The user keeps uploading company logos, some of which were removed for overstepping the terms of COM:TOO (it seems he's trying to alter the conditions in Wikimedia Commons pages to keep certain controversial logos), and has been uploading some images with copyright issues, despite having been blocked several times.
The latest incident was the upload of a derivative image taken directly from a hosting service (including its watermark). Taichi (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@Taichi:A ver los logos simples que yó publique está en el Dominio Público ({{PD-textlogo}}) ,no se puede remover según COM:Copyright rules (are logos simples are OK). AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@AbchyZa22, ¿Por qué estás subiendo logos en formato jpg? Es mal formato para todos los imagines de logos porque tienen artefactos. Especialmente los logos que crees de las SVGs como asi! Por favor, no creas las JPGs de esas! Cree las PNGs! Ve a ver {{Convert to PNG}}Bastique☎ let's talk! 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@Taichi: it would help a lot if you would point at particular files you think are problematic rather than effectively saying "look through all of his uploads, some of them are bad." Also "trying to alter the conditions in Wikimedia Commons pages" is extremely vague, please provide links. - Jmabel! talk 20:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
At a quick look, about 20% of AbchyZa22's uploads have been deleted. That is a very seat-of-the-pants estimate, though. - Jmabel! talk 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: If the user continues to make 20% of uploads that conflict with copyright, even after two administrative blocks, something is not right. The user should stop uploading after his first block. Don't worry Jmabel, if you want to reject the request in your lax way, I don't object, but what the user does after this is recorded and if I see repetitions of the same problem, I will take into account your considerations, which I do not share. This my last comment. Taichi (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. @AbchyZa22 has been very active in asking questions about their uploads, seeing if these are okay or not, as you can see by several topics on my user talk page. I also think some of these nominations are edge cases. I believe they have good faith and are learning. Bastique☎ let's talk! 00:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment Well, there are some things about AbchyZa22 that are uncommon, in my interactions here in Commons. First, although they are a bit too insistent at times, they often ask when in doubt. I do think they are learning, and that is okay, but it's not okay to pretend to be always learning by making mistakes repeatedly. They should simply not upload images with dubious copyright, and then ask about them. First ask, then upload, but only when in doubt (don't ask everything! be bold but at the same time be cautious). I've had some interactions with AbchyZa22 and think they are well-spirited but I don't find acceptable their behaviour in the long-term. And the latest copyright violation warnings don't help. Bedivere (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment Buenas @AbchyZa22: . Por favor avísame si necesitas una traducción o aclaratoria sobre estos mensajes. Saludos, --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Kind regards @AbchyZa22: . Please let me know if you need a translation or clarification about these messages. Cheers,
translator: --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment not specifically on AbchyZa22: just deletion rate as such is not always a good marker of whether someone's uploads are bad. Someone uploading logos, unless they are pretty expert on TOO, is going to have a higher than average number of cases where they got it wrong. This is very different than (for example) claiming someone else's photo as your own. Similarly, in the last week or so I've uploaded a lot of photos of copyrighted art by the late Cecilia Cuțescu-Storck, which I promptly deleted and added notes in categories like Category:Undelete in 2040 because it is all still copyrighted in her native Romania. I would hope no one thinks that is a problem with my uploads, it was quite intentional.
More specifically on AbchyZa22: his judgment in terms of TOO, or whether there is some special carve-out under Venezuelan law, or whatever, could be better, but again: this is very different than claiming someone else's photo as your own. - Jmabel! talk 22:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel:Dont worry Jmabel (all humans can mistakes sometimes but its OK),With respect to Venezuelan law, any work (for example logos, flags, coats of arms, etc.) created by public sectors are in the Public Domain according to article 325 of the LOTTT (see last paragraph {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@AbchyZa22: ¿En qué sentido estás diciendo que yo he cometido un error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk•contribs) 06:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel:Nada olvidenlo no cometiste ni un error. AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Usuarioeditor9
The user Usuarioeditor9 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) received a final warning for repeatedly uploading files with copyvio on December 15, 2021. The user subsequently continued to upload files with copyvio, a few of which have since been deleted. (For example 1, 2, 3, 4, etc) On November 9, 2022, the user deleted messages from their talk page (including the warning). Much of the remaining files from this user (related to footballers) are small and low-resolution files, suggesting that they might be screenshots and clippings. (For example 1, 2, 3, 45, etc) --Ovruni (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment There is no recent edits, so a block may not be useful, but many of their uploads are indeed suspicious, so Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Usuarioeditor9. There are probably more suspicious uploads, and many useless ones, which should also be deleted. Yann (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Can someone please tell Nelsito Maduro to behave properly? For merely nominating one of their articles for copyright, they have made several attacks against me, including accusing me of socking under two other user accounts in the English Wiki, one being a veteran admin, who recently blocked them in the English Wiki for being disruptive . HistoryofIran (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Indef and RevdelAll the Best -- ChuckTalk 04:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Alachuckthebuck: Please don't use checkmarks in admin threads except to indicate something is done. Admins might see that and think that you blocked them and revdeled, and skip over this. Support would be better. Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about that! All the Best -- ChuckTalk 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment I deleted 2 uploads by Nelsito Maduro and warned them. Yann (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Done Blocked for 6 months, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
User:NoonIcarus and User:WMrapids interaction ban
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.
After reviewing the situation, I have decided to indefinitely block NoonIcarus and impose a two-way interaction ban between WMrapids and NoonIcarus. Despite prior sanctions (blocks, bans) on other projects, NoonIcarus has continued to engage in disruptive behavior, including targeting WMrapids in ways that could reasonably be interpreted as cross-wiki hounding. This aligns with concerns raised during the ArbCom case and subsequent sanctions on other projects. Similar patterns of antagonistic behavior from NoonIcarus across Wikimedia projects have been pointed out, too. Their interactions here suggest an inability or unwillingness to adapt to collaborative norms. The history between the two users, including ArbCom cases and cross-wiki disputes, demonstrates that their interactions are rarely productive and frequently disruptive. The interaction ban will prevent further conflicts here on Commons between both users, in the event that NoonIcarus is unblocked. In that event, there is ample opportunity for both users to work constructively in separate areas here on Commons. The most important reason that motivated me to take action without further discussion is that this behavior has been repeated in other wikis resulting in similar sanctions. --Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello! To avoid further conflict and disruption with users on the project, I would like to propose an interaction ban for NoonIcarus and I. This has already been successfully instituted on English and Spanish Wikipedia following lengthy disputes. Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
As NoonIcarus has said themselves, the copyright issue is unclear (for example: File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV frame 01.png) and the images were uploaded in good faith. I do not come to Commons to perform copyright violations or participate in drama, I come to contribute. NoonIcarus has made this difficult due to their consistent crosswiki hounding. It would be best for everyone if we can end this with an interaction ban for us both so that we may get on with our contributions.--WMrapids (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@NoonIcarus: certainly not a clearcut case, and if you are under an interaction ban with this user on other wikis, you probably should have stayed out of this. It is certainly not the sort of speedy deletion you tagged it as being.
Given that, and that WMrapids has requested that the interaction ban be extended to Commons, I support an interaction ban. Is there any admin who disagrees? - Jmabel! talk 22:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
If more context is needed, WMrapids is currently indefinitely banned in the English Wikipedia for sockpuppettering, and is currently banned from creating pages in the Spanish Wikipedia (CentralAuth). The first interaction restriction was enacted before this was discovered, and this should be a clue of the cross-wiki disruptive editing I'm referring to.
Besides all of that, these were not the first copyvios uploaded by WMrapids. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
All I was asking for is a simple interaction ban since I didn't want to go out into the weeds with this (my discussions can be quite lengthy), but I have to respond to accusations about my character. While I am certainly not perfect (especially not with my Spanish...), I have always edited with good faith and will continue to do so. The same cannot be said about NoonIcarus. Since I no longer can assume good faith with them, I am sincerely asking for a simple interaction ban between us and nothing more. Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
To make some clarifications left out again: WMrapids used more than two accounts and the topic restriction against me precisely was requested by them and before this was uncovered, not because of the reasons they allege.
They have repeatedly uploaded unreferenced and often controversial content, something that has continued in Commons. The most recent example is this map: File:Map of Tren de Aragua in the United States.svg, based on this map made by the Heritage Foundation: TDA Activity Monitor. They cite sources for 10 states, but the rest are unreferenced, more than half of them.
An interaction restriction would certainly prevent mudslinging from them, but the request is a way to seek these changes to remain unchecked. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree with Jmabel on that issue. These are not cut-and-dried cases as some CCTV footage is PD in the US as some cases the camera is not operated by a human, and there was no specific intent to video an image. But if there is someone controlling the camera, it would be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel and Abzeronow: I'm not opposed to an interaction ban, but I'm leaning towards a long block - maybe an indefinite block - for NoonIcarus being a better option. WMrapids and NoonIcarus have such an ugly history that they were the subject of an ArbCom case that resulted in an interaction ban between the two (among other sanctions), and then they come here to another project and target WMrapids's uploads? Excuse me? Yes, Commons is not Wikipedia, and Commons has a reputation as being a place that users banned from other projects go to show that they can be constructive editors, but this is quite the opposite of that. I have no patience for what NoonIcarus looks to be doing. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I see what @The Squirrel Conspiracy is concerned about, but I'm leaning towards trying a 2 way iban, that will be enforced with indefinite blocks if need be. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 03:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Support, although I'm not opposed to blocking NoonIcarus. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
WMrapids then got their block upgraded to arbcom block.
NoonIcarus got topic banned by the community from Latin American politics before the case.
I honestly wouldn't mind if we started inforcing EN-wiki Ibans. Commons is big enough for everyone to get along and stay away from ANI ANU
All the Best -- ChuckTalk 05:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Just a quick note that WMrapids was also topic banned in the ArbCom decision, on top of the indefinite block.
I have yet to appeal my topic restriction based on the ArbCom findings, but I'm too burnt out of the discussions. I would only ask to take into account my contributions in Commons when considering a decision. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Support iban and Support block for NoonIcarus. I am not an admin. on any project. I have long complained of NoonICarusus's (fka Jamez42's) behavior on en.Wikipedia (including mentioning edits on es.Wikipedia) up until the ArbCom proceeding mentioned, which I participated in. I had hoped the resolution of the ArbCom would have been enough for NoonIcarus to get the message to cool such behavior. But instead, he repeats the same behavior with WMRapids on es.Wikipedia--gets an interaction ban there--and now again on WikiCommons. A stronger message is necessary that he be respectful of Wikipedia/Wikimedia norms.-David Tornheim (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I sometimes look at your contributions to see if you are repeating your old behaviors. Months ago, I considered reporting you on en.Wiki for skirting your topic ban by welcoming new users who made an edit supporting a specific political view in Latin American politics, but decided against it. After I uploaded an image to WikiCommons, I looked at your contribs here and was shocked to see you are doing the same thing against WMRapids as before and had just gotten in trouble for it on es.Wiki too. Quite troubling.David Tornheim (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
In that case you're repeating the same behavior you're criticizing about me, while being lenient on WMrapids' abuse of multiple accounts, blocks and cross-wiki behavior (including the publication of false information). I have to wonder what do you think a block would accomplish that an interaction restriction wouldn't, and have to say that I'm worried about possible canvassing since said upload took place less than an hour before your comment here. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
NoonIcarus, all I asked for and still only ask for is an interaction ban. Making accusations of canvassing is serious and not helpful. I’m doing my best to start fresh and move on with my contributions. Please do the same with me. WMrapids (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@NoonIcarus: forgive me if I missed something above, but are you willing to agree to a mutual interaction ban or not? - Jmabel! talk 23:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The question should be whether to consider the circumstances in other projects or the ones here in Commons, and in the case of the latter what would the restriction seek to address that other venues haven't.
WMrapids and I have had few interactions in Commons, dating back already to at least a year ago, and despite our editorial differences they have been addressed in the appropriate venues, namely the file talk pages.
Whatever the case is, I want to stress my support towards constructive dialogue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
NoonIcarus, I'm not trying to be rude at all, but your answer to Jmabel's question still seems to be unclear. We have had many attempts at "constructive dialogue" for almost two years now and in two different projects, third parties have determined that it is best that we don't interact.
You have continuously moved the goalposts regarding your rationale to delete and tag my work in maps I uploaded:
In this process, you may have violated COM:OVERWRITE when you significantly modified my work multiple times in an upload war to support your opinion of what my work should look like.
After I provided dozens of sources, you moved the goalposts again and inaccurately claimed that for my map, that there were "sources for 10 states, but the rest are unreferenced". I responded again with showing the already exisiting Newsweek and TDA Monitor sources and detailing which individual states are covered by their maps.
You move the posts again and inaccurately say"Newsweek cites The New York Post ... the TDA Activity Monitor, which was produced by the Heritage Foundation, an unreliable source". The Newsweek map does not cite any source and seems to be Newsweek's own creation while TDA Activity Monitor does not list the Heritage Foundation as a source anywhere. This is not the first time you provided inaccurate information regarding this dispute, which makes this look like intentional manipulation and not accidental, which is detrimental towards any good faith.
Finally, after I responded to the previous point and have been in the process of writing this, you responded minutes later randomly posting "en:WP:RS/P", showing just how close you are monitoring this situation and how you ignored my response (that the New York Post nor the Heritage Foundation are used as sources).
So while I have done my best to assume good faith through all of this and have provided more and more sources to appease your ever changing demands, "constructive dialogue" between us typically results in an IBAN. You have kept me on my toes any time I perform an edit and you seem to be on your own to monitor my edits, presenting yourself as being the only one to monitor my behavior. Given all of this, I sincerely believe that an IBAN is best for the both of us so we can perform calm, healthy edits without being a burden to others.
So, can you please agree to an interaction ban? WMrapids (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The user insists on uploading the same logos that were previously deleted and now uploads protected content from the Spanish newspaper El País under a false license. He was already blocked months ago. Taichi (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Done Blocked for 3 months, all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
BCNViki Copyvios
I noticed that this image had a creative commons licence, which I found hard to believe for a contemporary artwork. I check the link and there was no mention of a CC licence. I then checked BCNViki's talkpage and found it full of notices regarding Copyvios. This seems to be a pattern of behaviour going back some years. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. Deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I blocked this user from uploading files. They have a very long record of copyright violations, and still nearly 1000 files to check. Please help. Yann (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
This user was once blocked for adding out of scope content, and I am not sure uploads and edits after that are OK. Please check. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment Blocked by The Squirrel Conspiracy exactly as I was posting here. Thanks to the Squirrel. Yann (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
There is an apparent and quite nasty personal attack penned by Im Fokus in a closed DR, diff. The report is about this quote: "Fazit: so wie die Revolutionsgarden die kleinste Haarsträhne ahnden, die unter einem Kopftuch hervorlugt, so ahnden die Bürokraten hier den kleinsten Zipfel Wahlplakat.", translating as "Résumé: as the Revolutionary Guards sanction the smallest strand of hair peeking out from below the hijab, as do the local bureaucrats sanction the smallest corner of election posters." The comparison with the human rights violating Iranian forces is totally out of place and IMHO attacking any volunteer active in German FOP related DR. I'd like to ask at least for the removal of this comment by an administrator. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I want to note that I've instated the block not because of the latest notification on possibly copyrighted files, but rather after thoughtful reflection on this thread on Yann's user talk page. "I want to consult if can upload a picture without a VRT", says Royiswariii, before including a DM from Bini's twitter saying explicitly they allow the use of their photographs but only for non-commercial uses. Very explicitly! "Just don't sell them". That makes them incompatible with Commons. Despite Yann's response that they should send a formal written permission, they did upload images based on such permission, which they apparently sent to VRT. These are obvious copyvios but I'll let them be for now because a ticket has been created. Bedivere (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore Yann gave them two final warnings which they removed. One month will suffice for now but next block will be longer. Bedivere (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
CFA1877
Category:Narrow gauge tracks in CataloniaCFA1877
This user is not complying with the criteria with speedy deletion. Keep deleting all the files second before to make the made-up case for the speedy deletion. Not to mention that the category Category:Narrow gauge tracks in Catalonia make all the sense to exist considering thah it give more especific information and follows the name criteria of the others categories on the same topic. After a warning in his talk page the user has no intention to change his procedure. It is not the first time that the user do not comply with the norms.
Crieria for speedy deletion:
C2. Unuseful empty category
If a category is empty and is obviously unusable, unlikely to be ever meaningfully used, it may be speedily deleted. Don't apply if the page is marked with an explanation of why it should be kept or if the deletion can be controversial, the category was recently unconsensually emptied, etc. Consider redirecting or renaming the category rather than deleting it.
Comment This user has a bad habit of fragmenting categories into new one subcategories just to accommodate a couple of images. It creates a category that does not exist at other levels and ends up being unnecessary. This causes unnecessary overcategorization, when there are already other categories that fulfill the functions. The user is perfectly aware of what he is doing, as he has already had clashes over the issue of categories and it is the second time in a few weeks that it has caused this problem again. CFA1877 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Every Category of Rail Tracks has his own of Narrow gauge tracks, so you would have to explain the reason to delete it. By now no convincing. This category has by now 6 images, and not a couple images as you trying to imply
(it had before you emptied all the category).
I guess you are trying to swift the topic. We can start talking how you did change official train station names erasing the local language only because it suited to you in spanish for political reasons. Your answer was: I do not understand english. So you have no credibility. We can see that with all the problem about the category. 9pm (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Another example of double standard:
In Category:Rail transport electrical substations in Spain the same user speedy deleted Category:Rail transport electrical substations in Catalonia with 3 files but the other subcategory with only 2 files was no problem. Even when the Category:Rail transport electrical substations in Catalonia matched with Category:Electrical substations in Catalonia. So you deleted useful information from another main category. I wait for any reasonable explanation 9pm (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
CFA1877: categories are not eligible for speedy deletion for the reason of being empty if you emptied them, or if someone else emptied them recently. Does that make sense? —Mdaniels5757 (talk•contribs) 02:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Mdaniels5757, if you tell me that's not the correct way for this kind of cases, I'm not going further that way. I take note. On the other hand, I have to say that the user 9pm has taken things to the extreme with this issue. I would be grateful if this person would stop creating problems by altering other users' categorization work to create his own 'space' when there are already other categories that fulfill the same functions. CFA1877 (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I made the effort again to write on your talk page to make clear that how you are using the speedy deletion for your own benefit is not correct. 10 minuts later after replying in my talk page you apply again for the third time for speedy deletion.
Even if you try to swift the topic, here is the real issue: I'm still waiting for a response why the 2 categories were delete considering that every category of rail tracks has its own narrow gauge tracks and second the rail subelectrical stations in Catalonia was stick to electrical substations in Catalonia. Not only does not make the case for speedy deletion that you are also erasing proper categorization. 9pm (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Although repeatedly removing and warning in his talk page, this user didn't stop uploading unfree horse's statue picture; File:「讚ハイセイコ一号」像.jpg. Netora (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Removing warnings is not an issue. Started a DR for the uploaded file (because the previously deleted file per DR is not the same). Else, I will leave for my fellows. Regards, Aafi (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Did you discuss this with Magnus previously? Why not? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Magnus Manske was not notified, and this particular issue could have been solved by discussing this with him. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The user also let too many notices build up on his user talk page. It is rather difficult to navigate & edit, and includes too many templates such that MediaWiki can't handle displaying it, causing inclusion in Category:User talk pages where template include size is exceeded and a situation in which templates do not not work at the bottom. Some old browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kB. I noticed this while cleaning up Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage due to his edits - see the categories I referred to at the bottom. He also seems inattentive to such notices. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
All I see from you is #invoke:Autotranslate on my talk page. The categories were accidental duplicates. I have been running a script that gets images from auction houses. This has been fine-tuned over time as initially it had many not-quite-sufficient-information files. The script has now run though, and I will only use it to "top up" occasionally (eg new yead, new public domain). --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: Hopefully, those sections should be visible there tomorrow after ArchiverBot runs (starting 07:45 UTC). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
... and they are, along with Special:Diff/974904386, in which you admitted to using a bot on your main account. Please stop that. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done No uploads since their initial warnings. Further copyvios will result in a block though. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Numerous copyright violations. I'm not asking to block the user as they have not been previously warned before but rather delete the covers as there are too many files posted at once for me to reasonably add the templates. They are likely all copyright violations. Thank you.
Does nothing but make sloppy deletion requests that are either full of snitty jokes or flat-out incomprehensible. Usually “right but for the wrong reasons”. Not here in good faith IMO. Dronebogus (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done Last and only edits were on 17 December 2024. There is no point to block it now. Yann (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
This user uploaded a bunch of random photos and categorized them into Category:2024 Magdeburg Christmas market attack with them not being directly connected to the attack and therefore misleading possible viewers. I tried to contact him on his talk page about it but haven't received any answer so far. I have tried to edit the corresponding pictures, but the user keeps reverting my changes. (ongoing deletion request with redundant pictures at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:C.Suthorn)
ich bin gerade fertig geworden einige de-kategorisierungen zurückzusetzen. Begründungen dafür in den Edit-comments. Dass ich den DR für unsinnig halte, habe ich bereits dort geschrieben. Jetzt Wochenende. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Dann sollten die Fotos aber in eine Unterkategorie Category:Magdeburg after 2024 Christmas market attack. Das erste komplette entfernen war ein Fehler, du hättest statt die alte Kategorie wieder hinzuzufügen aber die passende Unterkategorie anlegen können. GPSLeo (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes they should be recategorized, no this is not an administrative matter. - Jmabel! talk 18:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel, what would be the best way if the user resets several times for some images that have nothing to do with the attack? I don't want to get caught up in an edit war, but some images can't stay in this category. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it's a bit clumsy, but: If I drive to a city where something significant happened the day before and I take a photo of some statue in that city that had nothing to do with that event, except that maybe there was a police car there the day before drove by, then this image should not be sorted into any category or subcategory of that event at all. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Es kann sein, dass ich ein Bild versehentlich zweimal zurückgesetzt haben VECTRONATOR hat so schnell und ohne Edit-Komment editiert, das wurde sehr unübersichtlich und ich hatte - warum auch immer zu dem Zeitpunkt - nur langsames Internet. Das ganze wäre nicht nötig gewesen, wenn VECTRONATOR einfach die mehrfach erwähnte Unterkategorie angelegt hätte. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Done Blocked for 2 weeks, all copyright violations deleted. Yann (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. I deleted speedily all other uploads as fantasy maps and flags. Map of winners of beauty competition in years 2025 and 2044? Get real! Flag of en:Equestria and so on. Taivo (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone, this report is for @VNC200. He is once again back with false speedy deletion nominations. Previously too he has started DRs which were flase as can be seen here. Although both cases are not same but similar. There he was warned by @Jmabel not to do this. But he seems not to understand it. Please refer to their contribution history to see what I am talking about. Pinging @Yann who blocked them twice. First time for 1 week for Edit warring and then for 1 month for Vandalism. Thank you. ShaanSenguptaTalk 03:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
With their reply to the TP notice of this discussion, it is clear that they have not understood what Jmabel told them at the DR. They were advised that if there is some issue with file name or description or anything, it can be sorted out and DR isn't required. Also tge second part of their reply You should remove it or a strict action can be taken against this file and you. I wonder if by strict action, fo they mean just it being deleted or is this a legal threat? ShaanSenguptaTalk 03:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
And I see on his user page that instead of coming here to COM:AN/U to discuss, he threatened "strict action" against Shaan Sengupta. I think this merits a block but I don't know how long. I'd appreciate if some admin who is more involved in blocking users would take this on. I usually only get involved with blocks for blatant violations or vandalism. - Jmabel! talk 19:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I see no other admin seems interested in taking this on. I'll do a three-month block here, but won't object to any other admin modifying it in either direction. - Jmabel! talk 22:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Remjeud persistently uploads copyright violations, most recently two reuploads of previously deleted copyvios immediately following a warning not to do that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Is it me, or posts by this user are quite rude, i.e. , , , and ? Thanks for a second opinion. Yann (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Done Rather uncivil. I will block for a week, and if this resumes once they are back a longer block is in order. - Jmabel! talk 17:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Account is disruptively and destructively attempting to speedily delete images most images I've uploaded and is refusing any and all attempts to be civil about not doing this. I have no idea why they would be targeting my uploads, and none of their deletion requests have made any sense whatsoever.
album and concert art by a band that has explicitly released this content into the public domain per their bandcamp website: If anyone wants to release these albums, you’re free to do so. Here you’ll find links to audio files and cover art. Feel free to get creative with it if you like - it’s yours -The Band
I have no other alternative to the user's disruptive behavior than asking for some admins to step in. Scu ba (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that the uploader doesn't understand what a simple logo is, provides insufficient evidence of permission and removes deletion templates such as {{Logo}}, {{No permission since}} and {{Delete}} instead of discussing the problems. I didn't see File:Platon et Nouailhetas, Djibouti 1941.jpg as none of the files I included in the deletion request referred to that file.
For the record, there is one more deletion request in addition to the ongoing ones for which the uploader removed the {{Delete}} templates, Commons:Deletion requests/King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard files. I don't know if it's useful to add the {{Delete}} template if the uploader just removes it again, but it's transcluded on the daily log page and can be found from there. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Go to COM:TOO where you can see what a simple logo is. There are no complex illustrations there. You can only find simple logos on that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
it's the same file
have you looked through COM:TOO?? How is that tree outline more complicated than something like this:
The Amtrak logo is just a few lines. Compare with the Android logo which is way less complex than the tree logo yet still too complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
you're really saying that a tree is too complicated?
Why am I even arguing with you, this is for the admins to decide. Scu ba (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
If you look at COM:TOO United States, you will see that most of the logos under the text These are Not OK to upload to Commons are way more simple than the tree. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
A tree drawing is inherently based upon real world trees. Their growth is governed by several constraints, ecological and mechanical in their nature. This means that every tree has no exact twin appearance-wise. Why I'm saying this? It's because any entity working on depicting a tree is bound, is forced to make abstractions about their real-life models. Any human (and AI too, for that matter) condenses depictions of trees known to him into a new depiction this individual is working on. And: this is the quintessence of creativity and root of IP rights. One could easily argue that an ideogram like a kanji for "tree" got simplified in such a way that there's no protectable creativity left. But the drawing exemplified here is definitely in the realm of protection afforded by IP laws. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Done No wrongdoing on User:Stefan2's part. The DR notices have been restored, and I have warned Scu ba on their talk page that they are not allowed to remove DR notices from ongoing DRs. I've also deleted several of the complex logos they uploaded. No need for admin action at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
This user is trying to enforce his POV regarding the naming of sports club categories by force (see also: User talk:Mitte27#Category:FC Bayern Munich and its subcategories, Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/12/Category:FC Bayern Munich, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 98#Category:FC Bayern München/Category:FC Bayern Munich and its subcategories). The specific occasion for this report is that he started a category-move war by moving the category Category:Polonia Warszawa to the English name. This category, like all of our categories for sports clubs, was originally created under the original (in this case Polish) name Polonia Warszawa, but was moved to the English name Polonia Warsaw by Eksperto in 2019 without any discussion (). I recently reverted this because using the English name is against our common practice (I already have written that several times and proven there that our common practice here on Commons is to use the original proper name for sports clubs categories, not the English translation). And such controversial category renaming should not happen without a CfD, anyway (Mitte27 nows that, Jmabel already has told him that in the above linked first report 2,5 weeks ago). On December 15, Mitte27 then moved the category back to the undiscussed title, with the deliberately misleading comment "renamed without discussion". This is clearly vandalism. His solo efforts in the sports clubs categories case are no longer acceptable. By this he causes a lot of extra work for other users and causes a lot of damage. Please strictly warn the user and explain him that this behaviour is not welcome on Commons and will result in serious consequences.
Furthermore, I ask for this cfd to be closed now: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/12/Category:FC Bayern Munich.
Ping also to User:GPSLeo, User:Jeff G., User:Jmabel. -- Chaddy (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
To rename a controversial name, a discussion must first take place. You yourself insisted on this in the case of FC Bayern Munich. Mitte27 (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Correct. Exactly that is what I have explained in my above report. If you want to move the category to the English title, you have to discuss it first. Please read my report first before commenting or even starting another edit-war. -- Chaddy (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Категория называлась так в течение 5 лет. Если вы хотите переименовать категорию, то вам нужно начать обсуждение. Mitte27 (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The renaming in 2019 also was undiscussed. That no one had noticed this for five years does not legitimate Eksperto's undiscussed renaming.
I really don't know why you try to spread as much chaos as possible in this case. That behaviour is very unconstructive. Why can't you just work together in a cooperative manner? It's really sad that we got into this deadlock. -- Chaddy (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Поэтому Вам нужно было открыть обсуждение. И никаких проблем в этом нет. Mitte27 (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Both of you are edit warring and blaming each other here. I am blocking both of you from moving pages for two weeks. If you are not able to find a solution during this time I will extend this. Bypassing the moving block will result in a complete block. GPSLeo (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I just want to add that the block can be lifted anytime when you pledge not to make any controversial category moves including all category moves changing the language. GPSLeo (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Ок. Снимите с меня блокировку. Обещаю не делать переименования в ближайшие две недели, затрагивающие подобные изменения. Mitte27 (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, wenn jetzt alle in ihrer Muttersprache kommunizieren tu ich das eben auch: Wo genau hab ich denn einen Edit-War geführt? Ich habe ein einziges Mal verschoben, dabei habe ich die regelwidrige Verschiebung von 2019 rückgängig gemacht. Das ist nun wirklich kein Edit-War.
Mitte27 hat das dann völlig regelwidrig rückgängig gemacht. Und dafür bekomme ich nun eine Sanktion? Das verstehe ich jetzt wirklich nicht. Und was ist mit der regelwidrigen Verschiebung von Category:Polonia Warszawa? Bleibt die jetzt einfach so? Und wieso? Bei der FC-Bayern-Kategorie wurde das - von dir selbst - anders gehandhabt. Wieso werden hier andere Maßstäbe angesetzt? -- Chaddy (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Du hast einen Schnelllöschantrag gestellt um die Kategorie zurückverschieben zu können. Als das mit dem berechtigten Einwand, dass das nicht ohne Diskussion geschehen kann, rückgängig gemacht wurde hast du das wieder rückgängig gemacht. Das geschah nachdem du dich hier schon bewert und die Bewertung des Falls damit eigentlich abgegeben hattest. Eine Diskussion mit der anderen Person hast du zu keinem Zeitpunkt versucht. Als dann von Mitte27 eine Diskussion geöffnet wurde hast du dich darüber beschwert, dass jetzt darüber diskutiert und eine konsensuelle Lösung gefunden werden soll. Wenn dich der Begriff Edit-War stört, kann ich es auch unkonstuktives Verhalten nennen. GPSLeo (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Einen SLA zu stellen ist doch kein Edit-War. Mitte27s anschließende Entfernung des SLAs war zudem klar regelwidrig - als Nichtadmin kann er nicht einfach eigenmächtig SLAs entfernen. Dazu sind die Regeln hier auf Commons doch sicher nicht so grundlegend anders als auf de-WP, oder?
Und selbstverständlich habe ich versucht, mit Mitte27 zu diskutieren. Ich habe doch oben in meiner Meldung alle Links angegeben. Es wurde längst ausführlichst diskutiert. An einer dieser Diskussionen warst du auch selbst beteiligt. Das hier ist kein isolierter Einzelfall, es ist Teil des umfassenden Streits bzgl. der Benennung von Kats von Sportvereinen. Mitte27 weiß, dass er eine nicht konsensfähige Minderposition vertritt (lies doch mal die verlinkten Dikussionen, die sind schon ziemlich klar gegen seine Position). Dennoch handelt er, wie er handelt - das lässt nur den Schluss zu, dass er offensichtlich mit der Brechstange seine Position durchsetzen will. Das kannst du doch nicht gleichsetzem mit meinem Handeln. Ich habe lediglich versucht, das angerichtete Chaos aufzuräumen. Ich verstehe, dass das alles unübersichtlich ist, da wie immer die Diskussionen natürlich wortreich in die Länge gezogen werden. Aber bitte, lies dich da mal ein. Dann siehst du, dass du hier eine falsche Bewertung der Sachlage vorgenommen hast. Im Anschluss bitte dann meine Verschiebesperre aufheben, die ist nämlich nun wirklich unberechtigt. Ich habe keinen Editwar begangen und ich habe auch keine kontroversen Verschiebungen durchgeführt.
Auf den Rest bist du leider nicht eingegangen: Auch schon Mitte27s Verschiebung war klar regelwidrig - wie du ja selbst schreibst, dazu ist erst eine Diskussion nötig. Wieso bleibt seine Verschiebung aber nun bestehen? Wieso bewertest du das hier anders als vor kurzem bei der FCB-Kat? Es kann doch nicht sein, dass er für seinen Regelbruch letztlich belohnt wird? Dass er eine Kat-Diskussion eröffnet hat ist sein gutes Recht. Aber zuerst bereits Fakten schaffen geht nicht. Und ja, die Kat lag 5 Jahre unter dem falschen Lemma, weil sie bereits 2019 regelwidrig verschoben wurde. Durch diese fünf Jahre wird die Regelwidrigkeit aber nicht "geheilt". Andernfalls könnte man allerhand Unsinn anstellen in wenig beobachteten Bereichen und sich Jahre später, wenn es dann doch auffliegt, darauf berufen, dass es ja Jahre lang so Bestand hatte (es also jahrelang einfach niemandem aufgefallen ist). Da sind wir uns doch einig, oder? -- Chaddy (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Diese unfaire Sperre ist übrigens auch deshalb schon ärgerlich, weil ich nun die Wikipedia Library nicht mehr nutzen kann. -- Chaddy (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
GPSLeo, а можно пояснить за что на меня было наложено ограничение сегодня, если я не переименовывал никакие категории в течение послендних дней и сам открыл тему для обсуждения? Без каких либо предупреждений. Снимите с меня блокировку как необоснованную. --Mitte27 (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
From what you wrote on the different discussions I am not convinced that you would not make a new controversial renaming without prior discussion. GPSLeo (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@GPSLeo Я не делал никаких переименований в течение последних недель. Ваша блокировка необоснованна и без каких либо предупреждений. Я не нанёс никакого вреда проекту и всегда готов обсудить спорный вопрос для чего дважды открывал темы для обсуждений в отличие от участника Chaddy. Прошу снять блокировку с меня, а я в свою очередь обещаю не делать никакие переименование в течение последующих двух недель. Mitte27 (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I will unblock you if you pledge that you do not do controversial category renames including all language changes until further notice (not just for two weeks). If you do so you will be infinitly blocked from renaming or even entirely. Same for @Chaddy from now on you need to aks the person who moved the category to move it back or you have start a CfD even if the category was moved against the guideline. GPSLeo (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Please write if you accept these conditions. GPSLeo (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I accept that. -- Chaddy (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
GPSLeo, Спасибо за снятие блокировки. Также прошу удалить из моего журнала блокировок ошибочную блокировку. --Mitte27 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@Mitte27: Block log entries are permanent. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Разве ошибочные блокировки не должны удаляться? Во всяком случае я привык, что так делается в Русской и Украинской Википедии. Mitte27 (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
GPSLeo, Sorry to bother you, but you have not responded in the last three days. Since the block was determined to be in error, please remove it from my block log. The block makes me the top offender on Commons, despite my many years of contributing to the Commons. --Mitte27 (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I do not see that the block was determined to be against some policy. I still think it was needed to prevent potential further damage. But as you wish I hereby ask some other admins to look at this case and decide if that was justified or not. GPSLeo (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Please tell me where I can challenge your blocking? Mitte27 (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
With this request this is done. @ Other Amdins please have a look at this case and give a statement if the partial block was justified or not. If the block was not justified add a comment to the block log with this decision. GPSLeo (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Please tell me if I can state my point of view on the events, since the request was submitted by the user Chaddy, and I actually did not express myself about the essence of the request? Mitte27 (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Please be aware that such an examination by another admin also could lead to a more severe sanction, also to a full block. -- Chaddy (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
There is no technical possibility to remove such log entries. The only possibility is another very short block (1 second or so) that generates another log entry in whose comment line an annotation can be added that the last block was wrong or something similar. -- Chaddy (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a technical possibility to hide them. Well very well (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, since when? If so, it is a special Commons feature. On de-WP we don't have this feature. -- Chaddy (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
At least on ru-WP and uk-WP I know multiple cases where it was used. Well very well (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
It is possible to hide the log entry from non admins and it is technically possible to even oversight the hole log entry and therefore making it entirely invisible even to admins. But I think this would not be a good idea to do this here for transparency reasons. Therefore it would need a 1 second block or an block with immediate unblock to add a comment with the decision to the log. GPSLeo (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The Pen Pusher uploading OR fringe theory content
User @The Pen Pusher is uploading images for a personal fringe theory to commons and attempting to insert them as new articles or new content to major articles on Wikipedia. All of the images are patent nonsense and can never be used on Wikipedia or any other project, and their multiple attempts to shoehorn them into places where others may see it (a stated goal of theirs on their talk page on wikipedia) probably means that uploading privileges should be revoked before it becomes an even bigger mess of nonsense files to deal with.
Warrenmck (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Done I deleted all files and the user page, and sent 2 warnings. This user should be blocked if this behavior continues. Yann (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Jeff G.
This user reverted all my edits from today, including two talk page comments, without providing any reason. Things unfold as follows: 1) I made report about abuse filter not allowing me to add a category, but my report got reverted, 2) I asked about the revert in user talk, and got got reverted again, 3) I find out that I'm globally blocked as right after first revert a report linking me with LTA case had been made without providing any evidence (fortunately the steward was willing to relook the report and lifted my block), 4) finally I find out that all my recent edits are reverted, e.g. here.
I don't think that I or anyone else should prove that they are not a camel, but nonetheless, here it goes: as anyone can check from editing history of my IP range, I haven't engaged in any activities similar to that of this LTA user. Usually I don't even work on topic areas associated to this LTA user, with the seldom exceptions like disallowed edit to File:Moka 4-OlariPilnik.jpg (an uncategorized image that I wanted to add into a category containing words "road" and "signs"). Also, this LTA user is documented to be from Australia. As you can easily check, my IP address in not Australian.
To me it doesn't seem healthy at all to consider that anyone is this LTA only as long as they make an edit that includes words "road" and/or "signs" (which the abuse filter that I initially reported seems to target). I don't know how much trouble the LTA user in question is causing. If at the end you really must have as restrictive abuse filter then I'm willing to accept that there are a few categories that I can't add. But I don't think that this kind of conduct by Jeff G. should be tolerated.
I believe all my edits from today were legitimate and hence I ask them to be reinstated. I also believe Jeff G. should have their revert right revoked after this obvious misuse of this right. Additionally I'd consider blocking Jeff G. (or any user) who makes this kind of nasty global block requests without any evidence against others users. 2001:7D0:81F8:9A80:AC7F:1A0E:A016:9A84 19:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. everything else aside, if you don't have access to the content of the relevant abuse log details, you generally shouldn't be responding to those false positive reports unless it is very obvious. Note also that IPv6 users often float around their /64 range, so the fact that the IP changed is not a sign of any intentional (let alone negative) behavior. Is there evidence that this is Jermboy27, especially given EPIC's doubts? —Mdaniels5757 (talk•contribs) 22:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757: Just the filter hits. I usually interact with Эlcobbola regarding these filter hits, but that user has been out of action since October. I'm sorry I overreacted to those filter hits, but it seemed no one else was watching such filter hits. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. I have Commons talk:Abuse filter watchlisted. You usually get to the reports before I do, but I do look at that page often. I mostly don't patrol filter hits without reports unless I'm looking for something in particular. But please don't respond to people about private hits that you can't see: then it's not possible to determine whether there's an issue or not. —Mdaniels5757 (talk•contribs) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757: Ok, I will not respond there about private hits that I can't see. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Although receiving copyvio deletions and warn, this user continues uploading the same actress' copyvio portraits. Netora (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I have come here directly without trying to contact HmpxX on their TP. Something needs to be done about this user. They just seem to try to get Confirmed tag anyhow without knowing anything about it. Please see this revision at COM:RFR#Confirmed. They marked their request as done trying to show it as if @Achim55 did it. Ping to @The Squirrel Conspiracy, since you too are involved in that thread. Thank you. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure if it is a troll or if the user mixed E-Mail confirmation in the registration process and confirmed user rights. GPSLeo (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
if I want to know more about the subject because the user will auto-confirm that his account has been created HmpxX (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@HmpxX and Hidmanp: That is tough to read. Perhaps you could write in your native language? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I created the account which was automatically confirmed Thanks for the comment. @jeff G HmpxX (talk);) 14:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@HmpxX it looks like you are entering your signature manually. When you are done writing whatever you want to, just put four tidles ~~~~ at the end. It will put your signature there. Or use the reply button, to pass this too. Thank you. Shaan SenguptaTalk 15:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there is any malice here or anything that requires administrator action. HmpxX just needs to be explained on their talk page about the functioning of the wiki and that of user rights. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I think I have a problem with the reply! 17:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)HmpxX (talk)
Something happened with {{Wales photographs taken on navbox|2024|04|06}} template. Could someone fix this, please? Thanks in advance -- Wieralee (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Fixed in Template:Country label/T. May take a while to sync as it should, but any given page can be purged if this is a problem for that page.
@Sbb1413: I'm pretty sure you introduced this with a few days ago. You might want to review your edits that day on this file and see if you missed anything else. - Jmabel! talk 19:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Oops, I mistakenly deleted the "s" in "Wales" while editing the template, mainly to alter the labels for Indian states to introduce locator maps. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Trade: you might consider first explaining to the on their talk page why this is a problem, rather than presume they are familiar with copyright law. - Jmabel! talk 21:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Seems like others have already tried that without getting an response Trade (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, what could possibly have given you the impression that people "tried" to explain anything to me? This thread here, and Trade posting onto my WP's user talk a few minutes ago, are the first times in regards to this topic that someone has written me a non-template message. None of the messages posted on my user board have veered away from an unhelpful copy/paste, and what questions I asked people directly went unanswered. I'd love to get an understanding of the issue, if only someone could actually provide a custom explanation. It's quite misleading to be depicted as someone who is not giving a "response" when no one has bothered to talk to me or guide me at all.
For context, I started this trend of uploading logos after looking at the practices of other video game logo uploaders on fr-WP. For example, we have this file for The Witcher 3 and this one for Hollow Knight. Not only have those logos never been challenged by WP contributors, but I've been able to raise these specific articles to Featured Article quality with those logos in the infobox. So, what gives? I'm certainly not denying that I need a refresher on what criteria make something too complex for the originality threshold, but please give me a hand here and don't leave me in a vacuum. --Alecto Chardon (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@Alecto Chardon: I strongly recommend that you read Commons:Threshold of originality, especially the sections relevant to countries from which you are uploading logos. If, after reading that, you still need a "custom explanation," please indicate one or more of the logos you uploaded that were deleted that you think should possibly not have been. - Jmabel! talk 00:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the reading material @Jmabel: . Looking at the approved logo examples in Threshold of originality#United States, there are several deletion proposals that I cannot understand. To name a few:
What is the issue with the Flintlock logo? I imagine that it has something to do with the triangle, but as per the examples of LG or Chrome in Threshold of originality#Logos and flags, triangles seem to be usually considered too trivial to warrant a deletion.
In the Thirsty Suitors logo, I surmise that what has been deemed problematic is the dot on top of the "i", and the swirled "o". But why would that be more problematic than the arrows of the Subway logo, which the US Copyright Office has deemed OK?
Why are Metal Hellsinger or Ori and the Will of the Wisps causing concerns? If it's because of the coloring of the letters, the US Copyright Office rule that the similar-looking is OK.
Side note: it's difficult for me to understand the risks or provide counter-arguments, when it's not communicated which arguments apply to each file. I'm also concerned that tackling the 32 problematic logos as a single deletion talk won't leave room for analysis of each of them separately. Best, --Alecto Chardon (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Alecto Chardon: much as 32 logos is a lot in one DR, this is a long list of questions about individual files. I personally am not that interested in getting involved in the substance of the DR here, that is not an admin issue. If you have not yet raised the above issues on the relevant DR(s), please do so. If there is a long list of logos most of which you agree probably are problematic, but some of which you think are fine, there are a few ways to go, all within the DR process. (1) If there seems to be a clear-cut case that a nomination is just wrong, you can ask (on the relevant DR page) to have that file struck from the list in the DR. If the original nominator agrees, then that's simple. Otherwise this becomes more like the second option here. Do remember to ping them to try to get their consent on this. (2) If the case is not clear-cut (either in your opinion or the original nominator's), but the issues are not the same issues as the others in the DR, you can ask to have that file moved out of the mass DR to a DR of its own. (Pinging @Trade: I would hope that if Alecto wants to handle some of them this way, you'll be willing to make the separate nomination, since you are clearly much more familiar with the process than Alecto.) It can be struck from the existing DR, and a new DR can be started for that file alone. (3) You can handle it all within the DR; you can start a subsection to discuss a particular file. If there are only one or two in a mass DR, that is often easier than starting more DRs.
I hope that helps.
In any case, this is clearly not a matter that calls for any administrative sanctions at this time. - Jmabel! talk 19:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
"I would hope that if Alecto wants to handle some of them this way, you'll be willing to make the separate nomination, since you are clearly much more familiar with the process than Alecto" Sure, if he tells me which files he wants moved and why. Realistically speaking splitting the DR up into 32 seperate pages is likely gonna reduce the number of users wanting to participate in the discussion tho. Trade (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, though I see you've already gone ahead. I understand that splitting the DR into 32 pages would be a pain, and I don't think it has to come to that, but perhaps the files could be grouped by which type of liability you think they present (e.g. their font, or their shape), to make it clearer where you think the risks of infringement to COM:TOO lie. Anyway, that's a discussion for the DR page.
(It's she, by the way. Not sure why you would assume I'm a man?) --Alecto Chardon (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
This editor today uploaded several images which are all likely copyright violations. I looked at the last two uploads, and tagged both. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Done Most of their uploads are either now deleted or in a DR. The user has given up on Commons, which may honestly be for the best considering this reply to one of the early deletion alerts. No new uploads since the wave of warnings. I don't see a block achieving anything. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Mdaniels5757 thank you. The last upload, Abdellatif Hammouchi.jpg, was on 14th November 2024, and it's clear that the image was not taken by him. Isn't this a recent edit? and its occured after several warnings and a previous block. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
2024-11-14 was more than a month and a half ago. —Mdaniels5757 (talk•contribs) 22:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Reporting people for no reason
Personal attack
Hi wikipedia users,just to explain the reason why the owner the acount (@Riad Salih) representing algeria,is chasing my contributions around all Wikimedia's projects. This contributor brings the agenda spreading hate against all things about Morocco to Wikipedia, which is used by his country'sgovernment.
A special message to the administrators:
Please don't be speedy on handling the requests of blocking membres until you verify its sources.
Thanks Marokistorique (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Not doneMarokistorique - That's a personal attack - you would need to demonstrate that any of his actions were incorrect, which you haven't' done. You have a history of uploads with insufficient sourcing. It's reasonable for any editor to question your uploads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that none of this is in fact the users own work, but rather the copyrighted works of their disclosed employer who is paying them to edit at en.wp. I assume they've made the classic mistake of thinking since they work there, they can just release all this material as own work here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
That said, the files look generally in scope. @Grace at ZKH: we do need to distinguish who actually authored these and who owns the copyright of these files. I have no idea how much you understand about copyright law, but unless you are the photographer, what you stated here is not accurate. Copyright would normally belong initially to the photographer and may or may not have been transferred to the company. At this point we'll need the copyright-owner (or a company representative if the copyright belongs to a company) to go through the process outlined at COM:VRT, and we'd also greatly appreciate it if you could change author information to be accurate. In the circumstances, we need the VRT process even if you are the photographer, because I think the suspicion is reasonable. - Jmabel! talk 00:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like a response is forthcoming. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: then feel more than free to nominate for deletion. I suggest using a wording (maybe echoing what I said above) that makes it clear that they can still "cure" these, if they bother to try. - 03:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I may do that tomorrow, it's late here and I should be asleep already. I am also going to check on what became of the en-wp discussion aimed at stopping cross-wiki uploads by very new users. Last I looked it was trending heavily in favor of stopping the practice, but clearly nothing has been enacted. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@Incall Have you tried to leave a message in their talk page explaining what is the problem? If the behaviour continues after that, we can consider a block. Ruthven(msg) 11:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, can you give me a template for the warning? Please. I'll keep it in mind. All the best Incalltalk 11:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I've already nominated two of these for deletion. This user appears to be creating maps of dubious value, without giving any indication of what the source for their data is. These are therefore of no real educational value, as it is unclear in some cases what the intent is, and unclear in all cases what the source of the data used to formulate the maps is. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
They haven't edited after the first notice to their talk page. No action should be taken unless they continue to edit without responding,I have no opinion on deletion in the meantime. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 05:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I have not suggested a block or anything of the sort. I'm suggesting these maps should not be here and the user should be gently educated as to the scope and purpose of Commons, perhaps by an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say you recommended a block or any other sanction, I'm advising that no action (other than possibly deletion) should be taken unless they edit again. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Can you give examples of violations? As far as I can see, it only crops and improves photos uploaded by someone else. Mitte27 (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I did not commit violations with malicious intent. I usually didn't know that some photos had a problematic status. Actually, I haven't been particularly active here lately, and these warnings are relates to my old activity, even before the first warning. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I also want to say that, in the past, I have actually uploaded great many files here from different sources. I admitted that there might have been problems with some of uploaded files, but I was sure that if something like that would be discovered, the other users would correct or delete that files. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
For example, I have uploaded some early photos of Luke Voyno-Yasenetsky, moreover, all these photos were taken more than 70 years ago. However, despite this, these photos were published only in the 1990s or later. Accordingly, they were not free. But I did not dig into these issues at that time. Recently user PereslavlFoto found it and suggested for deletion. And all suggested photos of Luke Voyno-Yasenetsky were deleted. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Not done El usuario ha sido avisado. Sus últimas contribuciones son del 20 de diciembre 2024 y aparentemente se ha detenido. Ruthven(msg) 13:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Despite a two week block in 2021 for uploading files without appropriate licensing, this editor continues to repeatedly upload copyrighted work as "own work." See examples from just this week, December 2024, November 2024. The user has also uploaded photos via Flickr license washing (discussion, discussion). Despite many talk page warnings (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, and more) that provide information about Commons' copyright policy, the user almost never responds to talk page messages and has continued to upload copyright violations as "own work." Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. In my opinion 6 months is proper length of the block. Taivo (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: This user definitely needs an administrative approach, maybe even a warning ban. Don't stop uploading duplicates just because he doesn't like the old file names and such other things. See also: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 23#Pal-lon-cin
I always use licenses for uploaded files. The latest is no exception. The uploaded files from 2020 will not change my decision to add new files according to the Commons rules. Yousiphh (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@Yousiphh: You were unresponsive when you were asked: Which criterion in {{PD-Azerbaijan}} does it meet? How may we verify that? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi. As I mentioned in my Talk Page - I have a original scan from the Institute archives. They said it's old enough to ben in public domain. Yousiphh (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Reasones of reporting: After being blocked, he continues to upload copyrighted material, and has even taken a screenshot of a video that was most likely uploaded illegally on YouTube.
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jim the Troll Fortress Character Lore.png for an example. I don't know who this user is, but they're an IP troll with dynamic IPs that decided for whatever reason that they had it in for me and continually makes idiotic remarks about me without provocation, and also when they get no response, because they probably have the satisfaction of assuming I see their trolling when I scroll through deletion requests. We wouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior on Wikivoyage, and would block every IP that continued going after a user. (They know I'm a musician, so derogatory remarks about musicians in general from them, as well as by using the initials IK, are directed at me.) You folks need to do the same thing, and the technical people among you should see if you can figure out how to block the range of IPs used by this troll. If you don't, would you fault me for unilaterally deleting abusive DRs from this troll? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
By the way, this troll also posts rot about unemployed people and suggests I'm unemployed. You all need to start paying attention to their pattern of behavior, because it's become a long-term campaign of harassment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
"idiotic remarks without provocation"?! How many times did you call those IPs "Troll" before they said anything about you? (I don't have enough time to count, sorry.) Idiotic remarks?! Personal attack. (Permitted when "you" make them.) See you never again. 186.173.218.127 23:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The reference to Ivan in that DR is completely without context, and is blockable. If you're going to insult him, please limit it to discussions where he is insulting you as well. This is a warning. Bastique☎ let's talk! 23:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I understand. Merci beaucoup. 186.173.218.127 00:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Wait, the only thing I wanted was to delete my user page. I don’t understand why I’m being reported as a malicious user. Honestly, I don’t get it. As I mentioned before, I just wanted to delete my user page to unify it with Meta, which is why I used the U1 parameter, as I read in the speedy deletion policies. That was all, really. I don’t know why I’m being reported as a malicious user. I apologize in advance for not knowing the procedure. In cases like this, my sincerest apologies, but that’s not the case. Mαrti (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I am getting really tired of you bringing malformed deletion requests to this noticeboard. You've been told repeatedly, but I'll say it a final time: unless there is a high volume of malformed requests, including after the person in question has been told what they're doing wrong and how to fix it, malformed requests are not a blockable offense. And considering that the copyvios in question were a month ago, it's clear to me that you're just reaching to try to make this malformed request more of a big deal. Stop bringing these frivolous requests to this noticeboard. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
What? I never said they weren't policy. I said malformed DRs aren't a blockable offense unless there's a high enough volume of them to actually disrupt the DR process, and the problem has continued after the user has been told they're doing it wrong and how to do it correctly. Those are very different things. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: COM:CSD#COM1 is a criteria for speedy-deletion, not for blocking someone. Feel free to CSD' tag any such DRs that "are corrupted or incorrect and cannot be fixed, or redundant DRs for pages that are eligible for speedy deletion" as the guideline says. Simply deletion policy is all about the processes - and guides what should be deleted and how. At COM:BP#Use is the guide to what merits a block. Give this a read. It nowhere says "malformed DRs are an offense". Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Done Mαrti's local user page and the malformed request page are deleted. No further action needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Günther Frager: That link is now hidden. I notified that user for you. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. User is indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Unblock Sir
User:RAMKRIPALYADAVGO
Please sir unblock Please forgive my mistake, I will be careful in future, I am new here. Yohhh (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Obviously not. You hare at least two years old and are playing the sock game. But even your newer accounts are also engaged in all sorts of inappropriate edits themselves. You are wasting our time. DMacks (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked this account. You still have talk page access on your main account to make an unblock request. Creating a new account for making unblock requests is not needed and will result in immediate block of the account. GPSLeo (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. User is indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
rolledback edits to FPC, I can rollback your talk if you want, not much else I can do other than ping @Krd. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 05:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocking the user, perhaps? I've filled a CU request. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
DoneBasile Morin: Alachuckthebuck isn't an admin and can't block accounts. I, however, can. And did. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, The Squirrel Conspiracy, for the notification and useful maintenance. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Simotissir
Every single one of Simotissir (talk·contribs)'s uploads is unencyclopaedic and low-quality, and most of them bear a title with no relation with the subject. That user simply misuses Commons as a blog. Edelseider (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Done final scope warning given —Matrix(!)ping onewhen replying{user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 22:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Matrix: @Jmabel: Simotissir has not understood the warning, or is giving us the finger, because he has uploaded obvious nonsense/copyvio today (January 12). Edelseider (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Can this User's block be reviewed again, given these new actions? Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd say let them go. Extending the block would not help and I've still a bit AGF in stock. I think they've learned their lesson regarding copyright. I blocked several IPs not primarily because of their edits on cats, files or galleries but because of their persistent canvassing. A user from Malaysia who has only one topic: Mahathir Mohamad (see history, also of Category:Mahathir Mohamad and subcats). If there will appear copyvios again, User:Baginda 480 could be blocked again, but my belly says that it won't be necessary, hopefully. --Achim55 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I respect your view. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the voluteers here. I hope your "belly" is correct! Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I've started a few DRs. The photographs could be public domain but that's a matter that requires due diligence. Abzeronow (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. What is a DR?
At first I thought they could have been included in the application to list the school on NRHP, but they would have been black and white, so the photos don't belong the the National Park Service. Ktkvtsh (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Deletion Request. I see now. Thank you. Ktkvtsh (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@Ktkvtsh: I just wanted to direct your attention to COM:Glossary, which I find very useful, especially for abbreviations and jargon. Whenever I run across one that is new to me (or that I notice is undocumented) I try to add it. - Jmabel! talk 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Perfect! Thank you so much. I'm going to add it to my Useful Stuff list. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Done Blocked for a week. All files already deleted. Yann (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
FireBreathMan
FireBreathMan (talk·contribs) has spent a few months making deep reverts (many files they are editing have not been edited since the 2000s) to maps that contain Serbia/Kosovo, disrupting all the improvements that have occurred in between. Even for files where the specific change they want might make sense, their specific fixation creates much more significant issues. They have twice edited File:Europe polar stereographic Caucasus Urals boundary.svg in a way that shifts the boundary away from the Caucasus, which is per the title the entire point of the image. They reverted File:European Union Serbia Locator (with internal borders).svg and File:European Union Kosovo Locator.svg for reasons that are apparently so minor I can't see them, but by doing so readded the United Kingdom to the EU map. This is after a previous series of similar edits, which I raised on their talkpage in December. CMD (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
ru:24 декабря User:Blackcat заменил Category:Romania national football team редиректом (сейчас изначальная категория является редиректом) и обвинил вернувшего в изначальное расположение категории User:YarikUkraine в вандализме. После моей просьбы показать на каком конкретно решении сообщества было принято решение о переименовании Blackcat начал другие переименования. Я попросил участника открыть обсуждение для возможного переименования подобных категорий, однако после этого начал ещё более масштабные переименования без каких либо обсуждений. Прошу сообщества Викисклада вернуть исходные названия для этих категорий и начать обсуждение вопроса о наименовании. Mitte27 (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Renaming is an user's feature, not admin's. That apart, the name scheme is consistent with "association football". I don't undersstand what the user is complaining about, since their behaviour is disruptive. -- Blackcat 12:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Where was the renaming of national teams discussed? Mitte27 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Protecting a page is an admin's feature. Well very well (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mitte27: , so what? It's 7 years that these categories are consistent with the principal name scheme "association football". Now can we safely assume you stop with this complaining? -- Blackcat 13:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
A significant portion of these categories were named without the word "association". I have already asked you twice to open the renaming procedure to reach a consensus... Mitte27 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
No, it is not. At least three different users have explicitly shown their disagreement with your actions, so you must no longer consider your actions consensual. Well very well (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
It's years that is the scheme. If you want to change open a CfD . -- Blackcat 01:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
If half of the categories used one scheme and other half another that means there was no explicit consensus at that moment. You should've opened a discussion to find out whether there is one still. Well very well (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Pointless. It's not "half", more thqan 90% use the term Association football, and just because the switch was slow. The main category is association football, and in the past 7-8 years the names have been switched by several users to give consistency in all the subcategories (also here, here, here. and so on). So, deal with it, association football is the way it is for now. The renaming will go on. If you think it must be changed, open a CfD and discuss it. -- Blackcat 00:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think myself that "football" is better than "association football" ― I just think you shouldn't have done these renames without a discussion.It's not "half", more thqan 90% use the term Association football Half in the category of national teams. Well very well (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Please, don't attempt to fool me because I am as intelligent as you. You know well that categories must be consistent, thus the name of the topic must be the same in the whole category tree. -- Blackcat 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Blackcat has also protected the Romania redirect page immediately after undoing YarikUkraine's rename — in 7 months after that rename has happened. Well very well (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I see no admin issue here, but it would be good to have consistency on "national football team" vs. "national association football team". Right now the members of Category:National association football teams are quite inconsistent on this.
As an involved party, Blackcat might not have been the best person to protect this one way or another and head off a wheel war, but it should be discussed, a consensus should be reached, and until that happens there is no point to people moving it back and forth between two roughly equally valid names. - Jmabel! talk 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: , I protected the cat for the strictly needed time to cool down the issue, then I quickly removed the protection. For the rest, I simply ensured consistency of the category tree, a path started almost six or seven years ago, and not by me. Thus this controversy is pointless in my eyes. -- Blackcat 19:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I protected the cat for the strictly needed time to cool down the issue Haven't it cooled down in those 7 months before? Well very well (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Nelsito Maduro, revenge DRs after their own copyrighted maps got deleted
Can someone please stop this madness? Nelsito Maduro is a on a hefty DR revenge spree after they were caught in uploading copyrighted maps, still continuing despite these great and helpful comments by User:Enyavar on their talk page . Here is the previous ANI thread about Nelsito Maduro, in which they kept attacking me for nominating their copyrighted maps for deletion HistoryofIran (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Done three day block, will be extended to 1 month if they continue —Matrix(!)ping onewhen replying{user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Their responses on their talk page are not encouraging. I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up indeffed before this is all over. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Three days is very lenient. I would have blocked this user for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@Yann: I wanted to see if the user would change/reflect after the block. Seems like they haven't, if they continue I would block for 1-2 months. —Matrix(!)ping onewhen replying{user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
RenatoGar
RenatoGar (talk·contribs) has been making attacks and false accusations against me in the Village pump (see here), also spreading falsehoods and seeking to involve other users into a conflict against me. Until now I had avoided intervening in the Village pump discussion because I did't want to fuel [more] the conflict and because of how conflictive this user is being, but I'm tired to see that he maintains public defamation against me.
He is accusing me of having falsely made an arbitrary transfer, when I clearly explained him the circumstances in my discussion to clear up misunderstandings. I explained that the editing summary was not saved and I explained what source I was using. In this case use an official heritage source (here). But the user RenatoGar told me that the main name in the source was not correct, and provided other official sources (as you can see here). I realized my mistake, and I corrected it, acording to those sources provided by him. I did not like his bad manners and I warned him not to write to me again on any topic. Far from leaving me alone, he went to village pump to defame me, accusing me of ignoring him and other things that have nothing to do with the issue.
I would like to point out that this user has had virtually no activity on Commons until a few days ago, and that he is clearly bringing up conflicts he has had with other persons outside Commons and turning this into a kind of crusade (see this and this). Even user @Jmabel: tried to reason with him, without success. CFA1877 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Taking this to ANU is a needless escalation of a conflict that appears to be coming to its natural conclusion. Nothing has been said as far as I can tell that warrants disciplinary action. Taking the discussion to the Village Pump after getting nowhere on your talk page is a pretty normal and (depending on the nature of the conflict) appropriate move, in this case it was to ask for community input on a change you had made that they wanted to revert. That's what the Village Pump is for. And regardless how you feel about their attitude, they haven't taken any actions on their own that they haven't gotten support for from other Commoners. The category name is still in Spanish.
Their first edit(s) on Commons were to make a category for an Aragonese church using its Aragonese name, which you then changed to Spanish, which was the source of the conflict. They have a lengthy edit history on other Wikiprojects (Special:CentralAuth/RenatoGar), noting his lack of an edit history on Commons without any of that other context strikes me as an attempt to undermine his credibility. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@ReneeWrites, dont use that template on any admin noticeboard unless a user has ben blocked at AN/V or AN/U. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 22:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Removed the template and switched it for a regular comment one. Saw other people use it in the past so I figured it was appropriate in that context. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Don't worry. I will never edit or upload an image to a place where my language is persecuted and prohibited, and I will take all necessary measures to denounce this abuse and harassment. Never say that this is a multilingual project, from the moment this persecution and aggression against the only category existing in this project in the Aragonese language is generated, created by an Aragonese to complement an article in the Biquipedia in Aragonese and which deals with an Aragonese church. How it bothers the Spanish neo-Nazis that there are 10,000 of us who speak Aragonese and that we have created a Wikipedia with nearly 50,000 articles. Goodbye. RenatoGar (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Bye. In English, "multilingual" means multiple languages, so we will continue to call Commons "multilingual". There's a relatively tiny number of people from Spain here, and the Spanish speakers are at best a large minority. You seem to have come here with a chip on your shoulder and antagonized all the people who have no ball in the game.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure about who is "you" in Prosfilaes' comment, but what his comment describes doesn't seem to match Special:Contributions/RenatoGar. I only can see that RenatoGar did a single edit in Commons and that edit was the creation of a new category. After that edit, that category was renamed unilaterally by other user and the other edits of RenatoGear have been just discussing that arbitrary renaming, first with the other user and then in the Village Pump. Even this thread wasn't started by @RenatoGar.
And I agree with Prosfilaes that Commons is a multilingual site, but the edit that undermined Commons' multilingualism wasn't RenatoGar's creation of the category, but its renaming to another language without discussion - and latter with the argument that there is an official source in another language. In addition, that renaming without previous discussion was clearly biting a newcomer, and RenatoGar's just show that newcomers get hurt when being bitten. Pere prlpz (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Attacks by Charlesjsharp
Per #Discussion of block length/alternative measures, it is clear consensus is for Charlesjsharp to be unblocked. This is further strengthened by #Response from Charles J Sharp, i.e. Charlesjsharp's apology and commitment to change. I also do not see the need to impose a formal IBAN since both Charlesjsharp and Giles Laurent agree to (mostly) stay out of each other's way. Furthermore, blocks are preventative and not punitive, therefore I will lift the block. —Matrix(!)ping onewhen replying{user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
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.
It is with deep regret that I bring forward this case but I feel that I today have no other alternative anymore.
Since my very first day on FPC up to this day, I have been subject to multiple attacks by Charlesjsharp. Many of these attacks may look insignificant at first glance but the accumulation of these attacks shows an agressive pattern that this user adopted against me. Moreover, things escalated recently and I have the feeling that this user is also trying to tarnish my reputation. I can no longer accept this and I am therefore forced to open this ANU thread.
Here are multiple examples of these attacks on my FPC nominations:
Example 1: basically saying he thinks his pictures are better than mine.
Example 2: basically calling me a liar and saying I am inventing bird behavior and that I should go delete my comment.
Example 3: opposing my nomination on the ground that he thinks that his pictures are better than mine.
Example 4: opposing my nomination on the ground that he thinks his pictures are better than mine and also saying that my nomination "can't even compare" with his picture.
Example 5: responding in a unpolite way, giving more links to pictures made by him that he thinks are better than mine.
Example 7: opposing on the ground that he thinks that his picture is better than mine. Also, he is publicly calling me as a liar (his claim is completely false). This is absolutely unacceptable to me. Featured pictures are made to comment on the picture and not to try to publicly tarnish another's person reputation. This is an important escalation of the attacks.
Example 8: inviting people to boycott or to oppose to my picture on the ground that I would have too many flamingo featured pictures. Not commenting on the picture, only commenting on the photographer.
Here are also examples on my VIC nominations:
Example 1: accusing me of having written a false description.
Example 2: ungrounded oppose where he says a picture of extremely low resolution of 458x604 pixels (0.2 MP), 60 times less than the nomination, would be better than mine.
These attacks against me have not gone unnoticed and I received this e-mail from a user that also saw them. I will not reveal the name of this user to respect his/her privacy (and because that message wasn't public) so the following screenshot has it's username censored: screenshot link.
I tried reaching out to Charlesjsharp on his talk page to tell him that I feel attacked by his behavior and I asked him to not do it anymore. I also warned him that I considered the situation serious enough to justify an ANU thread in case of new behavior. Instead of apologizing he putted all the blame on me by saying that I would be unable to accept criticism. I accept, welcome and thank constructive criticism but I can't accept childish behavior like "my pictures are better than yours" and publicly calling me a liar as he did multiple times. This latter behaviour is particularly unacceptable to me. Also he publicly accused me of insulting him, which I never did (see my response in previous link). This is again an absolutely unacceptable new attack against me that I will not tolerate and constitutes a new escalation. This has to stop.
Attacks against other users
I have not been the only person attacked by this users and many other people also got targeted by him. Here are some examples:
El Golli Mohamed also went under attacks by Charlesjsharp: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 . Unfortunately El Golli Mohamed responded in an inappropriate way and was sanctioned for it. After that, Charlesjsharp kept reminding everyone on FPC and VIC that El Golli Mohamed was temporaroy banned, tarnishing the reputation of El Golli Mohamed: 1, 2, 3, 4
I think this behavior is disruptive and very inappropriate as instead of focusing on the image Charlesjsharp tried to destroy El Golli Mohamed's reputation.
ArionStar was recently banned from Wikimedia Commons and found a new home in the en wiki version of FPC. Eventhough ArionStar behavior on Wikimedia Commons was inappropriate, he didn't deserve to be constantly reminded on his nominations that he was banned from Wikimedia Commons. 1, 2, 3 Here again, Charlesjsharp tried to tarnish another user reputation instead of judging the nomination as it's supposed to be on FPC.
Many users also testified or commented on Charlesjsharp attacks and disruptive behavior:
Written testimony from another FPC user: "I just want to say that I really admire how you endure Charles’ attacks on the Featured picture candidates (FPC) page with endless patience and always with constructive answers. For a long time Charles has dominated wildlife photography on the FPC page with his shots, tolerating only the photos by Ivar and JJ Harrison with a forced smile. When Poco a Poco started to nominate diving photos in 2021 (or so), Charles fought against them fiercely; they got better, but in the end Poco turned again to other subjects. But now you are seriously endangering Charles’ dominance, and this seems to drive him crazy. At least this is my explanation for his recent very patronizing, often odd and always negative comments on any wildlife FP nominations.";
Written testimony from Wolverine XI: "This conduct is typical of Charlesjsharp, who has a lengthy history of getting into arguments with many users over remarks like the ones above. He is quick to refer individuals to ANU for trivial issues while failing to see his own flaws. Sure, he may be a valuable contributor to the Wikimedia project, but he should really take more care when posting here. Accusations of legal malpractice are a serious matter that should not be made or taken lightly. I believe it's about time that this behavior is finally dealt with";
Complaint from Jeff G.: Reasons for reporting: Long history of argumentative tone, as seen and mentioned above in #User:A.Savin.";
Complaint from El Golli Mohamed: "Support A block for two weeks. Charlesjsharp attacked me on a lot of my nominations on FPC to try to push me down";
Complaint from Bodhisattwa: complaint about Charlesjsharp trying to rally many users to vote against his picture for presumably misleading votes, which was not at all the case;
Yann testimony: "Your reviews go much beyond "criticisms of images". While you may not cross the limit, they are often borderline. Even negative criticism should make the receiver feel that something has to be learnt from the critics. But your critics often create bad feelings. If you make them without that intent, then you have a problem";
Chris.sherlock2 also testified of the problematic behavior of Charlesjsharp: "You might like to consider why a page worth of pithy comments about yourself is considered an attack on yourself. If you are offended by this page, then you might want to seriously think about your own pithy comments and how they would potentially be seen as attacks on those your comments are directed towards. You might open yourself to scrutiny. Obviously the page should be deleted, but a bit of self reflection might show your own behaviour is at times problematic.";
W.carter testimony: "Yes, you are a true expert at keeping your acidic reviews just on the right side of what is possible without getting yourself reported, but your reviews and comments nevertheless create a toxic atmosphere on FPC. I'm not surprised that someone finally had enough. Unfortunately, when someone has "had enough" it's easy to get carried away by that emotion, and it will blow back at them instead";
And there are also many ANU complaints against this user. Here are some:
The attacks against me and against other users creates a toxic atmosphere that is disruptive to the Wikimedia Commons project. There were times where I considered stopping contributing on Wikimedia Commons because of this. I wouldn't be surprised if other users stopped contributing because of that. This might actually be the case for the talented photographer El Golli Mohamed that stopped contributing after his issue with Charlesjsharp.
Wikimedia Commons needs to have a welcoming and friendly atmosphere free of personal attacks or agressivity.
Charlesjsharp has been warned for years by many users that his behavior was considered as attacks (see quotes above). He was invited to self reflect on his behavior but never changed acting like he did for many years.
Despite all this - and in violation of the formal warning he received -, he recently attacked me again by calling me a liar and accused me of insulting him, which is completely false.
Comments, warnings and even an admin formal warning have proven to be insufficient to stop this user's behavior. I think that only a proper sanction might allow this user to reflect on his behavior and to stop his aggressive attitude that is damageable to the Wikimedia project and to new users.
In view of the above I kindly request the following admin actions:
1) Temporary Block this user for the time you see fit.
I suggest a period of 1 to 3 months. This should give him time to consider his past behavior and motivate him to not repeat that behavior.
2) Forbid him to interact for a period of 1 year on my nominations and on files by me nominated by other users.
I will of course do the same as long that he keeps doing it too. Only exception: if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on a page then I reserve the possibility to answer.
Thank you for your understanding.
-- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Support the admin actions required -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would like to understand more on the topic. So far, in the links provided, I saw 1. an user's subpage created to criticize Charles's behaviour which was deleted because it bordered the personal attack and 2. an user problem discussion in which seemingly the attacked one is Charlie. And I guess I am not the only one to not understand the issue. -- Blackcat 23:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit: I think you might have only read the "Admin actions requested" section. Please read the sections Attacks against me and Attacks against other users first before reading the "Admin actions requested" section to understand the case. Thank you in advance for your time! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Support Not tired to say again and again. Toxic users we don't need here, no matter their contentual contribution. --A.Savin 03:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Support I don't care what you do on commons, but if you are not civil with other users, I will happily support showing them the door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alachuckthebuck (talk•contribs) 04:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment To avoid a punitive action, I suggest a mutual agreement to refrain from reviewing each others' nominations and images nominated by others for one year. If they can't agree on that, then a more coercive action may be needed. Yann (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer Yann. I already requested this to Charlesjsharp and he responded with a new unfounded attack putting all the blame on me, saying I would be unable to hear criticism from another user and he falsly accused me of insulting him, which I never did. Please check my answer to his answer on the previous link. Thank you -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Excuse me, @Charlesjsharp: , not sure to understand your point, would you be so kind to help me understand better? -- Blackcat 18:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Done I have imposed a one-year block on Charlesjsharp as requested to address repeated behavioral concerns. They may, however, have the chance to appeal it. I will leave the discussion open for further comments if needed. --Bedivere (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Don't you think it was premature to close this so quickly? Wouldn't it be better to wait a little before taking any action? Wilfredor (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I think action needed to be taken. However, if there is consensus for an interaction ban I would not oppose lessening the block. I have to note, however, that a sanction was much warranted. It is not the first time Charles is reported here for bad behavior. Bedivere (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bedivere: , I am not aprioristically for / against blocks but wouldn't be better to wait for the end of the discussion, in your opinion? -- Blackcat 18:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the length of this response... Maybe my bar for "attack" is too high from spending time in the swamps of enwiki's politics talk pages, but I do not see many attacks above. Saying an image is "horribly overexposed", for example, or "I took this photo that's better" are frustrating when they come from the same person repeatedly, but squarely in "commenting on content, not contributors" territory and thus permitted and often even encouraged here. Pointing out that a user has other FPs of the same species/subject, or talking about how many FPs we already have of the subject, or about the similarity between FPs are all reasonably common at FPC. Would it have been an attack if it were me who had said it instead? (To be clear, I would not have felt the need to say such a thing and agree with other participants there -- just making a point). My sense is it probably feels worse coming from Charles not because of the content of the remark but because, well, Charles has been grating on you and at this point it probably feels personal (maybe it is -- hard to tell if it would be different for anyone else nominating a bunch of wildlife photos). That makes the complaint harder to evaluate, as most of the diffs don't seem to point to anything especially objectionable taken one-by-one. Bedivere, I'm curious which you looked at that seemed worth action. The incidents with e.g. A.savin and W.carter were unacceptable, but those took place years ago, and I'm having trouble seeing any diffs that would call for a one-year block. The situation, as I see it is this: Charles dedicates a huge amount of time, energy, and money to take wildlife photos and indeed produces a large quantity of very high quality work. This experience has given him a very clear, and not very flexible, idea about what makes photos good/bad. He has become a bit of a gatekeeper -- by intention, if not always in practice -- and several other users seem to value his judgment and defer to it (that may be more true on enwiki). I get frustrated by this myself. I feel like Charles frequently applies different standards to other people's photos than to his own, and presents his opinions not as opinions but as plain facts (though, and this is important, he is not the only one at FPC to do these things). Some time ago -- perhaps after the last ANU thread -- it seemed like Charles switched to mostly commenting rather than voting. That felt like a constructive step for someone who has received feedback about abrasive votes. I will say that, since then, while I can understand some frustration when disagreeing with his criticisms (and the "not as good as mine" comments), he also frequently has a decent point. I have a much bigger problem with the e.g. no-information "Oppose - Nothing special" kind of votes some other folks rely on. So I frankly don't know what to do here. It's clear there's still a lot of friction among multiple users, probably owing to mostly minor issues accumulating into resentment, and it's well documented in research that conflict can lead to burnout. I don't want to see either Giles or Charles burnout/banned, as they both contribute a lot of amazing work. But I'm also not sure what remedy would make sense. An IBAN would be hard for people who participate in a process like FPC, and I'm reluctant to support it when most of the evidence is about criticism of photos rather than attacks on people. It would be easy if the two just agreed to avoid each other, but it sounds like that wasn't agreeable? I don't understand the one-year block, but it's possible I've missed some of the recent diffs. —Rhododendritestalk| 14:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) In case it's not clear from my comments here and below, I Oppose the one-year block, and endorse the voluntary avoidance both Giles and Charles have expressed consent for previously. —Rhododendritestalk| 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment Rhododendrites. As I said at the beginning of my thread, many of the attacks may look insignificant at first glance but it is the accumulation of them and the increase in aggressiveness over time that created a feeling of an aggressive pattern against me. Comparing an image to another is something, but opposing many images and solely linking his own images and saying he thinks hiw own images are better is something else. Saying an image is "horribly overexposed" is unnecessary aggressiveness. Simply saying that an image is "too much overexposed" gives the same information but in a respectful way. Yes each of these aggressive comments alone would not be enough to justify sanctions, but repeated aggressivity against someone should not be tolerated. Charlesjsharp was warned for years by many users and even recently (see quotes and links above; example from only 10 months ago) that his behavior can be seen as attacks and was invited to change his behavior and to self reflect on it. Instead of taking in consideration the amount of feedback about his behavior, he continued it and received a formal warning by an administratorjust 4 months ago. Later a thread was even opened against him where four users requested sanctions against Charlesjsharp and even that was not a wake-up call for him to consider changing his behavior. Moreover the problem I had with him is not only his agressivity but his repetitive occasions where he publicly called me a liar (1, 2, 3), which is something I feel tarnishes someone's reputation. That is unacceptable.
I tried reaching out to Charlesjsharp on his talk page to tell him that I feel attacked by his behavior and I asked him to not do it anymore. I also warned him that I considered the situation serious enough to justify an ANU thread in case of new behavior. Instead of apologizing he putted all the blame on me by saying that I would be unable to accept criticism. I accept, welcome and thank constructive criticism but I can't accept childish behavior like "my pictures are better than yours" (as I said above, he almost only linked his own images) and I can't accept him publicly calling me a liar as he did multiple times. Also he publicly accused me of insulting him, which I never did (see my response). This is again an absolutely unacceptable new attack against me that I can not tolerate and constituted a new escalation.
The A.Savin incident was not years ago, it was just 4 months ago because of a comment in the green section of this page that constituted a new unacceptable attack.
It is just days ago that Charlesjsharp attacked ArionStar: 1, 2, 3.
It was just days and hours ago that I was again attacked.
I agree with your statement (and also noted myself) that Charlesjsharp applies stricter standards to other people's photos than his own photos and that he presents his opinions not as opinions but as plain facts. I personally don't think that's normal and I hope he doesn't do that anymore on other people when his block expires.
I did say on his talk page and here that if he would agree to stop editing pages of my nominations or pages of images by me nominated by others I would agree to do the same (with an exception if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on such page) but I didn't agree for him to attack me again on his talk page by putting all the blame on me, saying I would be unable to hear criticism and falsly pretending that I would have insulted him. These are unacceptable to me and he has to stop any form of attack, wherever it is.
Moreover it was under a voluntary basis that I made that offer but I'm against an "IBAN" because you described such as a something imposed and I would personally feel sanctioned to have that officially imposed on me when all I asked for was to not have attacks anymore against me. Charlesjsharp was warned for years that his behavior was problematic, received a formal administrator warning for it, four people requested sanctions against him 4 months ago. I don't have that history and I would feel it as extremely unfair to have any sort of "measure" against me.
Once the ban expires I would do what I proposed but only on a voluntary basis and not on an imposed basis, and as long that he respects it, as long that he doesn't do new attacks and with the above mentioned exception. There is no reason to believe that I would not stand to my word. So I'm strictly against an IBAN imposed against me. But an IBAN solely addressed to Charles that I can accept and was admin action number 2 that I requested. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
even that was not a wake-up call for him to consider changing his behavior - This would be determined by evidence of a problem since then. You've put about 30k of text in this section so far, which is more than any one person can reasonably evaluate carefully, but here's what I say about the recent stuff:
publicly called me a liar There is a difference between challenging/questioning and "calling a liar". These may skirt the line, but people frequently interpret an image or its context incorrectly. We correct them and move on. Here and elsewhere you also say that Charles says this "falsely", etc., which is also "calling him a liar" by that definition.
The A.Savin incident was not years ago. It was years ago. 2021. A.savin was right to be upset at the original incident, but there was no need to re-inflame that conflict out of the blue. But yes, sure enough Charles responded indignantly and opened a foolish ANU thread rather than just letting it roll off his shoulder.
Example text I'm just not seeing it. In the second diff, Charles highlights a couple comments from you that are, to my eyes, exactly the same kind of unintentionally offensive criticism that Charles has become known for (e.g. boring and easy to get with bird photography in my opinion. When he points that out, you say I absolutely never insulted you as you falsely pretend (i.e. calling him a liar), then you open this thread saying that it's an entirely one-way street of Charles attacking you and calling you a liar, supported by diffs that do not sufficiently support those claims and in fact include instances of you criticizing Charles and calling him a liar (at least according to the same definition of "calling a liar"). Avoiding both such comments would make for a happier place at FPC, and Charles is certainly better known for that style than you, but I find you weaken your argument every time you frame something as "attack" when it looks to an outsider like two opinionated people pointing the finger at the other, with neither party willing to let things go. Let me be clear: I'm not trying to say you and Charles are the same -- Charles does have a long-term pattern of making sometimes harsh criticisms, and while I do get the sense that you don't like to back down, I can't say I've ever read anything you've written and thought "ouch" (unlike sometimes when I read what Charles writes). What I am saying today is that I do not find your recent evidence persuasive enough for a one-way IBAN, tban from FPC, or a block.
I'm against an "IBAN" - Me too. You should be subject to that kind of pressure/stigma/whatnot. I think you two should voluntarily avoid each other, and that such a commitment should be enough to resolve all of this. If Charles agrees to that and violates it without a prompt apology/fix, ping me to the next thread and I'd support something stronger. Lest you think this is some sort of partiality towards Charles (contrary to history at FPC:) ), I'm pretty reliably a fan of the narrowest possible intervention that will reduce harm and retain productive contributors (we don't have any to spare IMO).:) —Rhododendritestalk| 01:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Charles, Arion, and I... there's a clear intention to create a toxic environment, almost like a witch's den. The real issue isn't the users themselves, but the section, which has turned into a breeding ground for negativity. Charles endured constant mistreatment and baseless accusations; no one can remain passive when faced with such hostility. This pattern keeps repeating itself. FPC used to be much more peaceful before certain users joined. When the roles of victims and perpetrators reverse, it's as if the world itself has been turned upside down. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
"Baseless accusations", interesting. If you don't like baseless accusations, how would you evaluate then this baseless accusation (by Sharp) and this baseless accusation (by yourself)? Long live double standards? Just like at Putin's, "for myself & friends - everything, for all others - laws"? Wow --A.Savin 15:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Wilfredor I respectfully ask you to either stop posting on this topic or to switch to a gentler tone because you are the only other user who's behavior I also find at times prolematic.
These behaviors of you in the past raises questions or sometimes could be seen as attacks:
Examples
this comment was never clear to who it was addressed and I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed good faith of you and that it would not be directed against me. But if you are, I absolutely never insulted Charlesjsharp and if you said that then it is a severe accusation that I will not accept. The rest of that comment is also inappropriate and an attack on the photographer/reviewers instead of keeping FPC focused on the image;
on this comment you confused someone else's picture with me and ungroundlessly accused me of narcissism which I find unacceptable. Here again this is attacking a photographer/other user instead of focusing on the picture.
Also:
You are now saying that the accusations against Charlesjsharp are baseless without giving any explanation on why they would be baseless. Worse, you are even saying that the roles of victims and perpretrators were reversed, which is again a serious accusation, since that is an insinuation that I would myself be attacking Charlesjsharp which is not the case. All I want is to defend myself from his attacks and I was forced to bring this to ANU as despite several warnings he received from the community, from an administrator and from me asking him on his talk page to stop he continued attacking me.
On this comment you are explicitly accusing me of creating a hostile environment because I opened this thread. Once again, all I wanted was for Charlesjsharp attacks against me to stop. When asked on his talk page he responded with a new attack.
On this comment you are accusing me of just wanting to collect FP, which is untrue and I consider as an attack.
Here you are talking about "ego masturbators" which I think is inappropriate.
So please stop or switch to a gentler tone. I hope you will understand -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Stop reading when you accuse me of calling you a narcissist, my comment was not directed at you, I think you have a great ability to write huge texts and collect "evidence", but no, you are not the one I was referring to. I'm going to retire to do productive things, I'll leave you with your discussion, I've already made my point clearly. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if I can and if it is still possible to participate, but please look at this comment of Charlesjsharp about himself. He is strict, but honest. Maybe, he uses the same approach when talks to others, and it is not the best here, but imho he sure lacks of harassment intent. This may be an opportunity to change in part this way of approaching others in the FPC nominations, but honestly I don't think that the one-year block is necessary. --Harlock81 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with you; Charles's comments may be harsh, but they're exactly the kind of feedback that helps the section grow. In the past, there were other users with a similar level of critical insight—like Colin—who also left due to the same ego-stroking spirit that seems to dominate FPC Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose to the block. I think that it is a great loss for Commons if Charles remains blocked for such a long time. I am very rarely active at FPC and I find the mostly quite low level that is considered to be an attack on FPC quite intimidating. That said, I wonder whether a ban to vote or comment on each other's images would be a much better solution, enforcable by a block only if the quarrel does not stop. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
On my number 1 admin action that I requested, I asked for a block for a period of time that an admin sees fit and suggested a period of time of 1 to 3 months so I wasn’t expecting a full year either.
The full year I asked for was in regards to an IBAN imposed to Charlesjsharp solely (while I would also avoid commenting his nominations but on a voluntary basis) on my number 2 admin action that I requested.
However, Charlesjsharp was warned for many years that his behavior could be considered as attacks. He was invited to stop them and reflect on them. He even received 4 months ago a formal warning from an administrator. I personally asked him to stop on his talk page and he responded with a new attack. I am sorry but that is an extremely high bar to reach and I can think of no other user that has such history and that avoided sanctions for so many years. So a sanction in the form of a block was definitely needed because the user has proven to not want to change his behavior even after a formal administrator warning.
The question of the length of the block is another. I personally leave that question in the hands of administrators. I note that so far four administrators have expressed that they think that a 1 year block is appropriate: the administrator that blocked, admin 2 (who even said he might have done an indefinite in this case), admin 3, admin 4.
Charlesjsharp was warned for years that his behavior was problematic, received a formal administrator warning for it, four people requested sanctions against him 4 months ago. I don't have that history and I would feel it as extremely unfair to have any sort of "measure" against me when all I wanted is to stop receiving attacks. Once the ban expires I would do what I already proposed on his talk page but only on a voluntary basis and not on an imposed basis, and as long that he respects it, as long that he doesn't do new attacks and with the above mentioned exception. There is no reason to believe that I would not stand to my word. So I'm strictly against an IBAN imposed against me. But an IBAN solely addressed to Charles that I can accept and was admin action number 2 that I requested.
That being said, my goal is not to have Charles blocked for a long period. I just want him to have enough time to reflect on his past behavior and to realize it is time to change that behavior. I would support an early unblock after a minimal period of 1 to 3 months on the following conditions:
He expresses that he realizes that his past behavior was at times problematic;
He sincerely apologizes for it;
He promises to do his best to avoid any sort of attacks against anyone;
He promises to especially avoid any sort of attack against me given our relationship;
He promises to stop editing pages of images that I nominate or of images by me nominated by others.
As I already said I would in return avoid editing his nominations or images by him nominated by others (only exception: if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on such page then I reserve the possibility to answer), and as long that he respects his promise and as long that he doesn't do new attacks.
Oppose I don't think this is fair. Many of these accusations seem to relate to Charlesjsharp making harsh criticisms of others' photos. I agree that he is a harsh critic but I do not think he is an unfair one. He also frequently supports the work of other photographers in the wildlife genre such as JJ Harrison, Poco a poco, and Iifar. I have frequently seen him change his vote when criticisms are addressed, or, as in this case, where authors pointed out something he didn't know. With respect to Giles Laurent who I think is a great wildlife photographer, I'm not sure why it's inappropriate for Charles to point out when he thinks his own pictures are better. FP is about promoting the best images on the project and Charles usually phrases it as 'I'm biased but I think mine is superior because...'; I'm honestly not sure how else he could phrase it if this is what he sincerely believes. I am sad that this has been pushed through without any consensus having been reached. As for Charles pointing out ArionStar's actions on English Wikipedia FP, I think this is merely warning another similar project that Arion has caused severe disruption, which is an important consideration when voting on his work; and I don't think it can fairly be construed as harassment (ArionStar is already being warned by other users for continuing his poor behaviour on EnWiki FPC, so it's not like Charles's warning was unfair, he is already being vindicated). Charles is a great photographer and an asset to this project. He has provided a huge amount of high quality work to Commons and although his comments can be terse and others may find them abrasive, I have never seen any intent to hurt or wound. I have learnt a great deal from his critiques of photography and believe I am a better judge of the quality of images because of interacting with him. I am disappointed by this decision. Charles has already agreed to avoid commenting on Giles Laurent's pictures in future and I do not think there is any need for further punitive action. If this decision stands Commons has committed a grave self-inflicted wound. Cmao20 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
To "point out [that] own pictures are better" is also possible without personal attacks and libelous accusations... You know? --A.Savin 16:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Dear Cmao20, I wish I had time to respond in detail to everyone but it already took me many hours to answer to a few comments so I kindly ask you to read my above answers to Rhododendrites and to Flogaus-Faust -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment A one-year block seems excessive, I think a shorter duration, like a week or a month, might have been enough to get the message across of treating others with respect, regardless of the quality of your or their work. It's also worth noting that addressing similar behavior earlier might have avoided the need for such a significant measure. Allowing someone to repeatedly push the boundaries of acceptable behavior because of the quality of their contributions can give the impression of favoritism and leads to simmering resentment that then explodes on ANU like this. To this effect, I appreciate Bedivere for taking decisive action after years of apparent inaction. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
thanks for bringing it here, I thought I was the only person who had noticed this Wilfredor (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
In this thread, Giles proposed mutual avoidance. In Charles' response, he effectively agreed, but some other part of that response led to a tangent. Let's regroup here: Giles and Charles, are you both content to avoid each other's nominations/comments on Commons (it would be best if this were a straight yes/no option, without additional commentary on whose comments were/weren't attacks). If so, perhaps that resolves this issue and we can move on without losing any contributors here. —Rhododendritestalk| 16:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment A one-year ban is an extraordinarily severe measure and, in my opinion, should only ever be used as a last resort. I believe that a shorter period of time - such as a week or a month - would have been sufficient to send a clear message about the importance of respectful behavior. Taking such drastic action risks permanently losing a valuable voice, and I believe we should always strive for de-escalation and reconciliation before resorting to such measures.
It is unfortunate that tensions were allowed to simmer for so long without being addressed, ultimately leading to this escalation. Earlier intervention with clear boundaries may have helped to avoid reaching this point. I appreciate the efforts to maintain a constructive environment at FPC, but I believe that proportionality is key to ensuring that decisions are both fair and effective.
I find myself agreeing with Yann's suggestion that the parties involved simply avoid each other to move forward. This approach feels practical and gives everyone a chance to continue contributing without further conflict. It seems like a step toward restoring balance without resorting to unnecessarily harsh punishment unnecessary sanctions.
On a personal note, FPC has been a place where I've sharpened my perspective on photography and learned to appreciate the diversity of viewpoints. What I truly long for is a forum where we can engage in respectful dialogue, even in the midst of disagreement. A place where a shared passion for photography fosters understanding and collaboration rather than division. Despite the challenges, I remain hopeful that we can work together to create an atmosphere of mutual respect and peaceful coexistence for all concerned. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Addendum: Since participating on FPC, I have been aware of the challenges posed by the sometimes tense and toxic atmosphere. I understand how difficult it can be for everyone involved, and I have tried to respond with calm, objectivity, and kindness, hoping to set an example of constructive and respectful interaction. For this reason, I believe it would have been better if we as a community had reached a collective and democratic consensus before making a decision as significant as a one-year block. Fair and consistent treatment, in accordance with established policies, should apply equally to all. I believe this is the foundation of a just and democratic process. I value the contributions and perspectives of all participants in this discussion and hope that we can use this situation as an opportunity to reflect and improve together as a community. With sincerest regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not see a problem with the duration of the ban I might even have blocked infinitely in this case. Blocks are not to punish someone. Blocks are to prevent further damage to the project. Blocked user can request to be unblocked when they convince us that they understood what the problematic behavior was and that they will change this in the future. GPSLeo (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I would like someone arguing that this avoids disruption to point to specific diffs of disruption that would be avoided (diffs in the time since the last ANU preferably). —Rhododendritestalk| 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: Thank you for the clarification and the perspectives shared. While I now better understand the reasoning behind the ban, it still feels significant to me. I remain hopeful that respectful dialogue and understanding can guide us as a community. Despite conflicts, I tend to focus on the good in people. It's not always easy, but I believe it's possible. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Comment Thanks Bedivere for taking action. While I see the points the opposes are bringing up, I think a block is in order to prevent further disruption to commons. Weather the block needs to be a year long i'm unsure, but at least we now have something to work from. Rhododendrites, I'm assuming you have an en-wiki style 2way IBAN in mind? Commons is so much bigger than en-wiki that IBANs can be useful to allow 2 contributors to work on commons without butting heads (at FPC). All the Best -- ChuckTalk 16:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
No, I have a voluntary measure in mind without some formal sanction (typically an IBAN is something imposed, not voluntary). These are two users with a lot of talent and experience who don't like each other, but I do not see any particularly problematic disruption/attacks that aren't years old. Most importantly, I don't see anything being solved by a block that couldn't be better solved by these two simply doing what they both already said they wanted to do and avoiding each other. —Rhododendritestalk| 17:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with GPSLeo above. But honestly... Charlesjsharp and self-reflection? Charlesjsharp and apology? Not in my wildest dreams I can imagine something like that --A.Savin 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
When I see an extensive text filled with countless "evidences" and links, a red flag immediately goes up. It seems that when there isn’t enough evidence or when the intent is to punish a user, a convoluted theory is often crafted. I’ve experienced this myself and have seen it happen to others. Are we photographers here to support each other, or are we collectors of evidence trying to create a hostile environment? What is the real purpose of this space? Charles has been openly critical of everyone, but in the same way, he is often self-critical. He is a serious photographer who isn’t swayed by the opinions of others like a sheep; he has his own perspective. On FPC, if you don’t vote in alignment with the majority or dare to vote negatively, you are often punished. As a result, many users avoid leaving critical feedback, which ultimately hinders growth and progress. I don’t believe Charles’ behavior warrants a block, as prematurely enforced by an admin. On the contrary, his contributions should be appreciated. He has dared to question and provide constructive criticism without fear, unlike others who merely flatter. Is this a beauty contest, a race to collect medals, or a section aimed at improving technical quality? --Wilfredor (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Please release the current block. Could we hear the defense's voice first? I feel like the user was blocked abruptly, at least without any consensus established, at this point. Just on the basis of accusations, probably sincere, but not necessarily balanced, compared to the sanction. Some of us have barely had time to read or study the request. Wikimedia is an American project and it seems to me that in the United States we have the right to express ourselves at the time of our trial. The lawyers on both sides speak, each side is free to apologize if they wish (which generally has the effect of calming things down), and then, in the end, the judges decide. Charles is not the kind of vandal who deserves to be blocked on a whim. We have read a lot of very constructive opinions from Charles. And some tinged with humor, which is valuable. example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4,... I think Charles can also be both critical and complimentary, as for example two days ago. -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
If he wants to comment, I'm happy to transclude his comments from his talk page to here. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 18:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk page of a blocked user should be used to ask for unblock and not for amswer comments Wilfredor (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I'm sort of with Rhododendrites here. Yes, Charles is one of the users who excels in creating a toxic atmosphere at FPC and elsewhere. I've been at the receiving end of some rather crude lies and accusations from him, I find his behavior toffish and often unbearable. He uses a sort of language that is perfectly natural for arguing on the floor of the Houses of Parliament, but not on Commons. I do wish he would learn the difference! But like I said in the part where I'm quoted above, he knows exactly where the legal line is, so the whole thing is tricky. He is as limber in his outrageous behavior as a UK or US politician, and keeps just on the right side of the rules. He keeps his toes on the right side of the line while leaning over with his whole body. Arion was another thing, since he deliberately broke rules and created new ones for himself. That block was a blessing. Here I don't see that we have grounds for such a drastic measure. We can't punish people just because they can't even spell 'diplomacy'. Charles is too old to ever change his ways or learn how to behave now. A block will not reform him in any way. I think it might be better if he wasn't blocked, but was restricted from voting and commenting (on/about anything!) on FPC. From what I can tell, he doesn't vote on FPC anymore these days anyway. He could still upload photos and nominate, but at least we would be spared his lack of tact. A block is too much here. --Cart(talk) 18:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this situation isn’t as simple as a "good side" versus a "bad side." I don’t see how your comment helps to ease tensions or deepen our understanding of what’s happening. While Charles’ critiques may come across as harsh, they show a straightforwardness from a time when communication was less restrained—perhaps blunt, but often more sincera. Arion, Charles, and I share the experience of addressing issues with the same usuario, though I am not referring to the individual who made this report here. Currently, FPC has lost much of its productivity, and I believe this is a point where we can find common ground. Wilfredor (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I've never mentioned good vs bad sides, only within or outside the rules of the site. And I'm explaining why someone with the bad history I have with Charles, still thinks a one year block is too severe here when other measures can be taken. I'm sure there are those who probably think I would jump at any chance to get rid of him, but I believe in treating everybody fairly, even people I don't get along with. --Cart(talk) 21:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Cart for being a voice of reason, sense, and decency. I agree that Charles has needled you in the past but I don't think there's really anything wrong in the recent diffs here. As you say he doesn't vote on FPC anymore these days, just nominates his own pictures and comments on others. Anyway, regardless of whether his behaviour has at times been rude, this whole process seems utterly arbitrary to me. There is not much logic to blocking him for these specific edits. Cmao20 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I am sorry to all of those who I had not time to respond, I wish I could respond to everyone individually but that would just make the page very long and have things repeated many times so I kindly ask you all to read:
Oppose overreaction. The initial eight examples show no "attacks" worthy of a block, see #My analysis of the evidence below. Huge focus on "tarnishing reputation" which is not something any Wikimedia project cares about. Then a lot of duplication. A few diffs of "testimony" which are probably worse "tarnishing reputation attacks" than any of the original eight examples. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion of block length/alternative measures
Hi, let's discuss block length/alternative measures here instead of cluttering the !votes. I see a few options:
Extend to indef block
Keep at 1 year
Reduce to 3 months
Reduce to 1 month
Reduce to 1 month with IBAN between them and Giles Laurent
Unblock and have IBAN between them and Giles Laurent
@Matrix, I think you forgot me, but here's IMHO, the minimum regarless of block status:
2-way Iban between Charles and Giles,
Indefinite ban from FPC (appealable only to the community after 6 months)
As to the block itself, convert to indef to require them to request an unblock recognizing their mistakes. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 18:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
We should not do anything as long as we do not have a statement from Charlesjsharp. We could lift the technical block and allow him to place the statement here or keep the block and look at the statement on the talk page, but this is irrelevant for the final decision. GPSLeo (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
If no further statement from Charles on his UTP is to come, then I support Keep at 1 year. Should there be sufficient apology for past incivilities and libel, I reserve the option to support reducing the duration or even lifting the block; but I don't believe it will ever come. Should there be unnecessary, inflammatory and/or further libelous comments by him on his UTP, I would support an immediate extend to indef block, preferrably with talk page block. --A.Savin 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Unblock and have IBAN between Charles and Giles Laurent, per Rhododendrites' 'I do not see any particularly problematic disruption/attacks that aren't years old.' Charles's net contribution to Commons, and to FPC, is clearly positive. I agree with Wilfredor that 'Charles has been openly critical of everyone, but in the same way, he is often self-critical.' The fact that an editor often speaks bluntly should not be enough to ban them. Cmao20 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
No amount of useful contributions justifies harassment. The complain by Giles Laurent is justified, so something has to be done. I don't know how long a block is necessary, but future will tell us. Now if Charles apologizes, I could agree to lift the block. Yann (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't accept the characterisation of this behaviour as harassment. All I can see is two users who don't get on. Charles is a harsh critic and always has been but he has already stopped voting on nominations presumably because people were upset by the tone of his opposing votes. Tone is easy to misunderstand on the internet where words have to stand on their own without any vocal cues to help interpret them. Charles has already promised not to comment further on Giles Laurent's FPC nominations so I don't think anything further needs to be done. Cmao20 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@Cmao20, Please look at the case of Davey2010. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 18:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) striking as probably the second worse comment I have made on commons. sorry about that. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 18:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
??? As someone who's followed both the Charlesjsharp and the Davey2010 cases over the years, they are not remotely alike. Davey would repeatedly, for years, fly off the handle into profanity-laden personal attacks, calling people "fucking idiot" and whatnot. Please link to the diff in the "attacks on me" section above that's at all similar. The challenging thing with Davey was he'd typically come to his senses after a few days and deliver a good apology. The challenging thing with Charles is that, with a handful of years-old exceptions, there's far from consensus that his criticisms, which are nearly always about the content rather than the contributor, are attacks at all (clearly some feel that way, and far more would characterize some of his comments as hypocritical, nitpicky, or self-serving, but I'd argue what we're talking about with the more recent diffs are within the realm of what should be expected in a forum like FPC where criticism is encouraged). —Rhododendritestalk| 18:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree entirely with Rhododendrites. Some of Charles' comments particularly to W.carter and A.Savin in the past have in my opinion gone too far. His comments more recently to Giles Laurent seem to be entirely within the paradigm of reasonable criticism. You can find another user making very similar criticisms of a picture here, but of course no one is talking about banning him. Let's not turn FPC into a place where we have to tread on eggshells around criticism. Cmao20 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites and @Cmao20, You're right, the situation is completely different, but even valid negative criticism can be phrased in a friendly tone that doesn't cause AN threads. (I don't really have a comparison here thats appropriate, so we're going to be making prescient here. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree, and when I cast oppose votes on FPC I usually first try to acknowledge what I like about a picture before discussing my criticisms. But I don't think this should be mandated. I don't see anything in the recent diffs that is outside the boundaries of reasonable criticism. This is achieving nothing other than driving one of the most productive photographers on Commons away, and exerting a chilling effect against criticism on FPC that will eventually lead to the decline of standards. Cmao20 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Toxic and agressive atmosphere also drives away good photographers and I wouldn't be surprised if El Golli Mohammed has not been active anymore because of his issue with Charlesjsharp. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that #6 would be the best solution in this case. --Rbrechko (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Unblock for now (option 6 or 7) More time needed to find an intelligent and efficient solution. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
6, per my comments above, but a voluntary restriction rather than imposed for now. —Rhododendritestalk| 18:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Charles is a bit prickly, but I don't think malicious. He is prone to extreme bluntness, and can go too far sometimes, but a year block feels far too much. As far as I can tell, he never even received a warning before being blocked for a year.
This is not the way to get behavioural improvement, this is how you drive someone off the site. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Adam. I would not blame Charles for leaving after this. Cmao20 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
If he does apologize, let's lift the block with a 1 month probation on FPC and a agreement to not interact with Giles. But as A.Slavin said above, he's probably just going to wait it out. Let the block stand. All the Best -- ChuckTalk 18:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Apologize because I criticize the photos in an objective way with the same harshness with which he criticizes himself? Isn't criticism what makes us better photographers? Or is it just a matter of accumulating FPs? Wilfredor (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Honestly good contributions are not a free pass for bad behavior. Bedivere (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 6: Unblock and have IBAN Charlesjsharp can be challenging to deal with at times, and I’ve personally had issues with his comments. I do think he needs to work on his tone and communication style, as his remarks often create unnecessary tension. However, he is an incredibly valuable contributor to Commons, and it would be a significant loss to ban him from the project. The decision to block him feels rushed, particularly given that he has already committed to refraining from commenting on Giles Laurent’s nominations. Additionally, I believe it’s crucial to foster an environment where people feel free to voice their honest opinions about photos. At the moment, it seems like some prefer to remain silent rather than risk raising even justified criticism. For these reasons, I believe Charles deserves another chance. -- Jakubhal 20:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep at 1 year I agree with GPSLeo and A. Savin on this. Abzeronow (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I strongly oppose any option with an «IBAN» against me.
I did say on Charlesjsharp's talk page and on my request for admin action that if Charlesjsharp would agree to stop editing pages of my nominations or pages of images by me nominated by others I would agree to do the same (with an exception if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on such page) but I didn't agree for him to attack me again on his talk page by putting all the blame on me, saying I would be unable to hear criticism and falsly pretending that I would have insulted him. These are unacceptable to me and he has to stop any form of attack, wherever it is.
Moreover it was under a voluntary basis that I made that offer but I'm against an "IBAN" because Rhododendrites described such as a something imposed and I would personally feel sanctioned to have that officially imposed on me when all I asked for was to not have attacks anymore against me. Charlesjsharp was warned for years that his behavior was problematic, received a formal administrator warning for it, four users already requested sanctions against him 4 months ago. I don't have that history and I would feel it as extremely unfair to have any sort of "measure" against me.
Once the ban expires I would do what I proposed but only on a voluntary basis and not on an imposed basis, and as long that he respects it, as long that he doesn't do new attacks and with the above mentioned exception. There is no reason to believe that I would not stand to my word. So I'm strictly against an IBAN imposed against me. But an IBAN solely addressed to Charles that I can accept and was admin action number 2 that I requested.
Moreover on my number 1 admin action that I requested, I asked for a block for a period of time that an admin sees fit and suggested a period of time of 1 to 3 months so I wasn’t expecting a full year.
The full year I asked for was in regards to an IBAN imposed to Charlesjsharp solely (while I would also avoid commenting his nominations but on a voluntary basis) on my number 2 admin action that I requested.
However, Charlesjsharp was warned for many years that his behavior could be considered as attacks. He was invited to stop them and reflect on them. He even received 4 months ago a formal warning from an administrator. I personally asked him to stop on his talk page and he responded with a new attack. I think that is an extremely high bar to reach and I can think of no other user that has such history and that avoided sanctions for so many years. So a sanction in the form of a block was definitely needed because the user has proven to not want to change his behavior even after a formal administrator warning.
The question of the length of the block is another. I personally leave that question in the hands of administrators, whose judgment I trust. I note that so far four administrators have expressed that they think that a 1 year block is appropriate: the administrator that blocked, admin 2 (who even said he might have done an indefinite in this case), admin 3, admin 4
That being said, my goal is not to have Charles blocked for a long period. I just want him to have enough time to reflect on his past behavior and to realize it is time to change that behavior. I would support an early unblock after a minimal period of 1 to 3 months on the following conditions:
He expresses that he realizes that his past behavior was at times problematic;
He sincerely apologizes for it;
He promises to do his best to avoid any sort of attacks against anyone;
He promises to especially avoid any sort of attack against me given our relationship;
He promises to stop editing pages of images that I nominate or of images by me nominated by others.
As I already said I would in return avoid editing his nominations or images by him nominated by others (only exception: if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on such page then I reserve the possibility to answer), and as long that he respects his promise and as long that he doesn't do new attacks.
I think an IBAN should always be on both quarrelling parties. Otherwise one of the two would be free to attack and abuse the other who is prohibited to defend themselves. Such a temptation should be avoided. An IBAN here works about the same way a restraining order works in real life. --Cart(talk) 00:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
According to this page there can be a one-way interaction ban. I think it would be justified in this case as I did not attack him and don't have his attacks history against other users (he was invited multiple times to stop, he received a formal administrator warning four months ago and four users already requested sanctions four months ago). I would feel sanctioned to have a sword above my head when all I asked was for attacks to stop and am strongly against an IBAN against me.
In case an IBAN would only be possible on both parties (which is not the case according to the previous link) then, as already said at the end of my previous message, a solution might eventually be found in the form of a voluntary agreement and promise under the above given conditions. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
In this case though, if an IBAN is put in place, I think a sturdy two-way IBAN "wall" between the two of you would be best for the sake of peace on this site. Looking at the enormous amount of text you have produced here, does not give me much confidence that you would be able to uphold a one-way IBAN and refrain from quipping stuff in Charles' general direction. --Cart(talk) 03:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I am a man of my word and respect my promises and terms given (as long that the other party respects theirs as well). Contrary to Charlesjsharp that opened 11 ANU complaints here, this is my only one and I hope the last one. I have no intention in participating in other ANU threads just as I've never done it before. I'll only do it if I feel forced to or asked to respond to something. I tried avoiding this ANU complaint by a request on his talk page but as he just "agreed" he directly attacked me again which demonstrated to me that he was not willing to calm things down and that I needed help from administrators. I don't hold grudges and can accept sincere apologies with promise to not reiterate but such apologies have to exist.
So far
11 users recently said some sort of sanction were necessary/justified (but with multiple different appreciations on the length): 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
4 administrators said a long block is necessary (1 year or indefinite): 1, 2, 3, 4 and 2 other administrators said the block can stay in place but be lifted in case of apology 1, 2.
For now I will stop commenting on here as you've said I write too much text.
My offer made above is still on the table and I could support the block being reduced to 1 month if the apology is sincere.
Let's all give space to Charlesjsharp to apologize if he is ready to -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Support indefinite block, appealable after 12 months. Many of Charles' comments have been rather out of line with civility standards and no way can I ever support reducing the block of someone who has repeatedly attacked many users and been toxic. What Charles did was pretty indefensible; too bad we lose some good photos, but sucks for him I suppose. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I also oppose an IBAN on Giles Laurent – Charles' poor behaviour is not limited to Giles and we have nothing to gain by also punishing the victim. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I totally agree with that, except for the length of the block, and I also agree with Giles Laurent's comments above. Charles was not blocked before, so a few weeks block might be sufficient to make the community decision clear. Yann (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Yann, could you please reconsider and lift the block? I believe it was excessive and not particularly constructive. You’re the only one with the authority to address this, and no one else here is in a position to resolve it but you. Given that the other admin refuses to acknowledge anything and is ignoring all the comments already made here. Wilfredor (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Support option 6, per note above. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 6 and review after 3 months how things go should be enough. Yes, Charles's comments are often harsh but afaik fair and his work is exceptional. Poco a poco (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to review Giles' listed problematic things.
FPC
Example 1: "basically saying he thinks his pictures are better than mine." - I'd say that a fairer assessment is saying that his weaver bird pictures are better than the specific weaver picture under discussion.
Example 2: "basically calling me a liar and saying I am inventing bird behavior and that I should go delete my comment." I think this is more challenging Giles' statement that the nest was intentionally made to conceal it from predators. Now, Charles is doing this based on a fairly off-hand comment by Giles about what he likes about the image.
Example 3: "opposing my nomination on the ground that he thinks that his pictures are better than mine." Again, this is him comparing Giles' image of a young gorilla to his own. Now, on COM:FPC, there's no real limit to how many images of one general subject can be promoted, so I get how it would annoy Giles, but it's well within the grounds of how one would judge an FPC.
Example 4: "opposing my nomination on the ground that he thinks his pictures are better than mine and also saying that my nomination "can't even compare" with his picture." - Charles: "You have also possibly not noticed that when I opposed this nomination it was horribly overexposed; there was also a distracting twig. I am now neutral about it."
Example 5: responding in a unpolite way, giving more links to pictures made by him that he thinks are better than mine.
Same as 4. He said it was "overexposed", which Giles fixed.
Example 7: opposing on the ground that he thinks that his picture is better than mine. Also, he is publicly calling me as a liar (his claim is completely false). This is absolutely unacceptable to me. Featured pictures are made to comment on the picture and not to try to publicly tarnish another's person reputation. This is an important escalation of the attacks.
This is probably the worst behaviour of Charles. It also was off-Commons.
Example 8: inviting people to boycott or to oppose to my picture on the ground that I would have too many flamingo featured pictures. Not commenting on the picture, only commenting on the photographer.
A little uncharitable, but I get why Giles would be uncharitable at this point.
I'll review the rest later, but it feels like Charles and Giles should definately not interact - an IBAN is appropriate - but I don't think this is a year block offense. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see anything out of the ordinary, other users make similar comments, now is criticizing a photo something that merits a block? To what extent are we going to transform FPC into a section of photo flatterers and ego masturbators? Wilfredor (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Basically, out of 8 examples, I see (If I'm wrong correct me):
in 6 cases he judges negatively a photo (no, I don't see him calling anyone "liar" for the case of the bird's nest, he simply asked to not infere conclusion from things we don't know. Maybe I wouldn't have written "It's not good to invent bird behaviour" but "It's not good to assume bird behaviour", but I don't see attacks on it.
in 1 case he judges negatively a photo telling that it's the n-th photo with flamingos. I might find such a rationale bizarre or flawed but just don't see how it can be read as "inviting s.o. to boycott or to oppose to one's picture".
finally in one case there's something which can be read as personal attack. But it's too late. Assuming that it falls into the policy that forbids personal attacks, It should have been reported and, in case, sanctioned at that time. Now it's even pointless to mention it. The ban is not - and must not be intended as - a cold-case-style punishment for past misbehaviour, but a measure for preventing the project from an immediate and solid disruption hazard.
All these examples only suggest me, and I agree with @Wilfredor: on this, that the two users simply have mutual issues, thus should not interact, for a decent amount of time should not propose their own photos as FPC (say, one year each) and at the most let that some other user does it without participating at the discussion. -- Blackcat 00:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Please see my response to Rhododendrites. Many people oppose everyday at FPC. There's disagreements between users everyday. But I can't think of another user who's been told many times by many different users that his behavior can be considered as attacks. He received a formal administrator warning for it only four months ago. Shortly after four users requested sanctions against him. Despite all that, he continued. I'm sorry but this shows that something with this user reviews/comments is sometimes considered problematic. Please also don't forget I wasn't the only one he attacked -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I am quite perplexed by the content of the accusations of so-called "attacks". Let's look at the new diffs (rather than those from 2015). Here I see mostly divergent points of view, and interpretations of attacks, which is extremely different from "attacks". The most blatant example is in my opinion this one: "I prefer the previous Wikipedia lead image". => What's the problem, seriously? It's unbelievable that this harmless and even downright innocuous comment could be perceived as a "personal attack", and added to the list. There must be a biased view of the situation, I mean a subjective interpretation of reality. That's why I would really like to hear the voice of the accused. Because for the moment he is deprived of the right to speak. I have the impression that there are "interpretations of attacks" in both directions, and I would like to discover the other point of view, to compare.
Also, Charles is accused of being "aggressive" because he reports users at COM:ANU. I would like to know if Giles Laurent is also an "aggressive" person because he's reporting Charles at COM:ANU?
A huge number of accusations are, in my opinion, highly controversial. We can't go into everything in detail, it would take too much time, but it's important to be aware of that.
Example 1: Giles says "basically saying he thinks his pictures are better than mine." => No, Charles writes "I cannot claim to be unbiased." It's different.
Please consider everything. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Without saying anything in regards to the rest, producing good content is not a get out of jail free card and doesn't exempt Charles from following civility standards. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
True, however, there is an undeniable difference between forgetting to smile when saying hello and hitting someone with a baseball bat. In one case I lecture or ignore, in the other I call the police. -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The case of Charles is way above "forgetting to smile". There is a long history of uncivil behavior towards quite a number of users, usually when they are competing on FPC or having different views about FPC. Yann (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
To discuss this with Charlesjsharp and his buddies is useless; hypocricy and double standards is the only answer they have. --A.Savin 13:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
How many (really) problematic cases out of how many standard ones in total? Please send the diffs. There is "attack" and "lack of courtesy". I agree with many other users here, especially Cmao20. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I said earlier that I would for now not comment anymore but as this long message adresses many direct questions to me I feel obliged to answer. But I please ask others to not do that as, like Basile, I think it's time to hear Charlesjsharp answer.
A general conclusion of this page is that many different people have different understandings/definition of what they call "attacks". As I already said twice, each of most of the attacks taken on its own doesn't reach the threshold of a sanction. But it's the repetiton of them that is problematic. It makes the person feel targeted as if the attacker tries to find unfounded excuses to oppose (feeling that I had with the VIC you linked, because of the person previous behavior). Moreover Charlesjsharp couldn't ignore that many users told him in the past that they consider his past behavior as attacks. Also, some attacks are by themself unacceptable to my eyes and the worse ones are the ones where he pretends that I lie or when he accuses me of having insulted him, which I never did.
The difference is that out of the 11 ANU complaints by him, only 2 or 3 of them resulted in an admin action. Wolverine XI wrote (see above): "This conduct is typical of Charlesjsharp, who has a lengthy history of getting into arguments with many users over remarks like the ones above. He is quick to refer individuals to ANU for trivial issues while failing to see his own flaws". I only made 1 ANU thread and it resulted in an admin action. I don't have any intention in participating in other ANU threads except if forced or asked to. So yes there is a big difference.
That is just 1 out of 11.
Yes that user in your link was uncivil/inappropriate but that doesn't justify making the same mistake against others users.
I said in my initial message that El Golli Mohamed was inadequate. But I still think that it was inadequate for Charlesjsharp to post on 4 occasions that El Golli Mohamed is a previously banned user. If users would post on Charlesjsharp future nominations that he is a previously banned user he would hate that and feel it as an attack and I would also be against it.
The image can't be considered added on 10th of August because it was reverted shortly afterwards. I used the visual editor instead of the source editor so I didn't see that HTML hidden comment. Charlesjsharp comment is obviously talking about the edit of 10th September because he directly referred to the summary of my edit. There is no quorum for the consensus of adding that picture and everyone had more than enough time to speak. Claiming that my edit would have been made under a lie is inacceptable because that is not true.
Yes as I've said in number 1, many people have a different definition of an attack. But Charlesjsharp couldn't ignore that many users told him in the past that they consider his past behavior as attacks and he was invited to stop them by many users but still continued. As SHB2000 rightfully said, there is a civility standards code of conduct and Charlesjsharp didn't respect it on many occasions.
That was the beginning of his comparisons but he kept comparing on later occasions solely/mostly to his own pictures and claiming that they were better than my image and that my image can't compare with it, which I think is not constructive criticism and inadequate. Also if there were only these comparisons I would never had open this ANU thread. As I already said, besides the fact that the repetition of such behavior is problematic, the most serious and unacceptable attacks to me are the fact of publicly pretending I lie and publicly pretending that I insulted him, which I never did.
If you look at my message there's absolutely no reference by me to Charlesjsharp, I'm solely speaking of the picture. Also what I say is a problematic behavior is going on other's people nomination and opposing on the sole ground that one thinks his own image are better than the one nominated and doing it a multiple amount of times. Simply responding to a comment from another user and keeping the review to the picture and personal taste/opinion like I did is in no way an attack.
As Yann, SHB2000, Bedivere, A.Savin, Alachuckthebuck and other's said, any amount of contributions can't justify immunity or long time violation of civility standards.
Again, like Basile, I also think it's time for Charles to speak so please let him space. As announced earlier, I won't comment anymore on this page for now so please don't ask direct questions to me except if absolutely necessary.
At this point, I'm taking bets on how long this "man of his word" will refrain from commenting here. --Cart(talk) 14:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
He has a harsh aproximation to critiquing photos because he applies the same level of criticism to his own work—it’s a whole other standard. It’s nothing personal against you; he has also been highly critical of my photos, and I think I only received negative votes from him. However, instead of punishing him, we should be grateful, as these critiques help us grow as photographers. It’s normal for some photographers to be more sensitive than others, but trust me, in the past, there were users whose critiques were even harsher than Charles's. Wilfredor (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Anyway, Charles is now back for comment on his talk page. It was as I suspected: he just didn't know he could edit while being blocked. --Cart(talk) 20:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
This situation did not need immediate action
I think I do need to say Bedivere's actions in blocking Charles were inappropriate. Not in the "strip him of administratorship" way - we really don't need another hasty action in response to a hasty action, people need to be able to make mistakes - but:
The discussion was less than a day old.
A temporary block (a week, say) might have been appropriate, had Charles done anything between this being posted and the block. He hadn't, he hadn't even actually responded to any allegations. Jumping straight to a year block both keeps him out of discussions and has a very chilling effect - This is how you drive contributors off Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, this administrator has a long list of quick actions, and as was commented by another user above, his action in this case raises many suspicions. I sincerely hope that he can reverse this extremely reckless action. Wilfredor (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the block was warranted and Charles has a history of bad behavior, yet unsanctioned to this point. If the community believes another solution is better, I'm fine with that. The block came as a result of their pointless pinging of several other users. Despite a reasonable effort was made by Giles, they did not respond to it. Shows no respect. @Wilfredor Just because you don't like my actions does not make them "extremely reckless" Bedivere (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Bedivere, how can pinging other users and not responding within 16 hours possibly warrant a block, let alone a 12-month one? And if the driver was Charles' past behaviour, shouldn't one put specific examples up for consideration - as Giles has done for recent comments - before a sanction is considered? Julesvernex2 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I did not find Charles's decision to ping me to be pointless. As a regular reviewer and nominator at FPC it is important to me to know that one of the most productive contributors has been blocked. I would not have known about it if Charles did not ping me. It is reasonable for him to want the people he interacts with most regularly to have their say. As for 'Despite a reasonable effort was made by Giles, they did not respond to it', it is very easy to write a long list of diffs that you believe are problematic in Charles's behaviour, and very difficult to respond comprehensively to so many different points, each of which have a lot of context Charles might want to explain, without being accused of bludgeoning the process. So I can understand why he preferred not to write what would have doubtless become an extremely long and involved reply. Cmao20 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps my words were not clear enough. I take that mass-pinging as an evasion of a proper response to an appropriate report -no less- in the administrators' noticeboard. My action is further reasoned in their poor behavior. I would much have preferred them to write "an extremely long and involved reply", for example apologizing, rather than avoiding it all together and leaving it to others to defend them. Bedivere (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
O.k., but then why not just answer the mass ping mentioning that you expect them to answer, not other users? Blocking the user complicates and reduces the blocked user's ability to respond to the complaints. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
This is not about personal feelings or disliking your actions; it’s about recognizing that this was a hasty and irresponsible decision. Many users here have tried to communicate this to you in different ways. I’ve already reported similar behavior from you on other occasions, as it continues to be problematic. While I’m skeptical about whether you’ll change, I urge you to at least listen to the feedback from others. Please don’t take this personally—own up to this mistake and take responsibility for your actions Wilfredor (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not a mistake. Sorry to tell you. And I have no idea what are you talking about (re. "reported similar behavior" i. e. not liking or agreeing with my actions) Bedivere (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I kindly and respectfully ask you to reconsider and reverse your action. Allow the user to speak and let the conversation run its course; if you wish, you can block them indefinitely afterward. This isn’t an accusation, nor is it personal—it has nothing to do with you. However, your responses have been rather vague and somewhat irresponsible. This will be my final request for you to lift what seems to be a hasty and overly harsh decision Wilfredor (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
How is he not allowed to speak? --A.Savin 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Exactly, he is entitled to request an unblock and point out their arguments against those in this thread. Bedivere (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I think you need to explain to Charles in some way exactly how and where he can appeal a block and reply to this. He is not the most code and procedure-savvy user we have here. This might also explain why he just 'pinged' a lot of users when this occurred rather than dealing with this himself. --Cart(talk) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
A user shouldn't have to request an unblock half a day or so into a discussion about him. A ban kind of needs consent. It's a very ambiguous discussion. You're being a terrible, capricious admin. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: This would justify maybe a 1-3 days block, never ever an indefinite one. Please undo this nonsense a.s.a.p. --A.Savin 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this direct attack justifies a block until there is a request to apologize. If there is an appropriate comment I would even unblock after one hour. GPSLeo (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
But I also would not veto if you really want to change the duration. GPSLeo (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bedivere as you are the one who was attacked here are you fine with setting to block duration to tree days or even lifting the block? GPSLeo (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I would not mind getting it lifted or reduced, but I appreciate the reasoning behind the block. I think too Adam has a reason to criticise me, even though with some rude words. But you know, insulting or disrespecting each other will not solve anything, and this goes for everyone in this thread. Things have gone nuts certainly, some users defend and avoid scrutiny on Charles' actions. I think some compromise needs to be accomplished but it is not possible when there is no will. Bedivere (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Addendum: It is not in the best interest of the community that from time to time users come here with lengthy reports against others, because of their poor behaviour or communication skills, sarcasm, irony, and whatsoever goes on at FPC. You all do good work and should know better, should certainly have some better behaviour. Bedivere (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that there is far too much drama at FPC but this does not entitle you to just block the person the accusation is made about without consensus or considering the facts of the case. Just because someone has come here with a 'lengthy report about others' doesn't mean the lengthy report is accurate or fair. Blocking policy says that a block is a 'last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons.' It should be 'a preventative measure and not a punitive one', yet it is hard to escape the conclusion that Charles is being punished for everything harsh he's ever said on Commons (viz. massive list of diffs stretching back years and discussing completely different situations) rather than this block being to prevent further negative interactions between him and Giles Laurent (whom he has already agreed voluntarily not to interact with). Cmao20 (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not the first time Charlesjsharp's behavior is questioned here, Cmao20. It's been reported before. A block was in order this time. Bedivere (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
This block is terrible, reverse this immediately. 1989 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I will simply go ahead and make it a 24-hours block. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't agree with Adam about Charles, but I don't see the need for blocking Adam either. Please call down, and try to find a peaceful outcome. Yann (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree It feels like shooting first and asking later. Poco a poco (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree, and it is even more appalling that Adam Cuerden has been blocked merely for questioning the decision of an admin. He said nothing rude or impolite. Of course ‘You're being a terrible, capricious admin’ is not a ‘direct attack.’ How absurd. Cmao20 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
That could also be language misunderstanding. I did not know what "capricious" means and looked for the translation into German and calling someone "schrecklicher, launischer Admin" is a very rude harassment in German. With a slight change (just leaving out the comma) it would in German mean "schrecklich launischer Admin" what could be considered more in humorous way. GPSLeo (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not a 'harassment' at all, even in the German translation provided. If you think it is harassment then you should report it to the police because 'online harassment' is illegal and a serious offence (and a serious accusation to make). But I'm sure you don't. 'You're being a terrible, capricious admin' = 'this is a terrible decision with no logic behind it and is unbecoming of an admin.' Didn't know the admins were suddenly above criticism on this project so you can jump straight to the block as soon as anyone disagrees with them. Cmao20 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The English 'capricious' in that sentence, is closer to 'wunderlich' and 'unbeständig' than 'launischer'. --Cart(talk) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree in accordance with other users. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree This action was way too fast and severe. Even though I'm waiting in the tall grass for Charles to really botch things and get indef blocked, this was not that time. Fair treatment should be for everyone. --Cart(talk) 20:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I had previously reduced the block issued by GPSLeo to a period of 24 hours, but have revisited my action again - and reversed the entire block. Blocks should never be punitive. Let's discuss the issues here and see what we have at the end? Regards, Aafi (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment This is regarding Adam Cuerden, not Charlesjsharp. 1989 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment This is now getting even more confusing because some of the 'agree' votes here including mine, Poco's and Cart's are pretty explicitly about Charles but others seem to be about the decision to block Adam Cuerden (which I would hope nearly everyone thinks is patently ridiculous). Cmao20 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
True, I was under the impression I was agreeing with Adam's initial statement here: This situation did not need immediate action. Luckily this is not an official vote, and Adam's block has been removed now. --Cart(talk) 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
My apologies, I was confused by the amount of text on a mobile device and was referring to the fact that I find Adam's block very questionable. I have changed my vote comment accordingly. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I... Wow. Okay. It's clear that the entire procedure for blocking people on Commons is broken if criticising a single action as capricious and terrible is enough to get an indefinite (!!!!!) block. I've been out all day, so I came back to after I was unblocked, but this is ridiculous. I'm not calling for any admin to be punished, but this is clearly not how blocks are meant to work. If they're happening, then the whole system for blocking needs fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I will also point out there is a huge difference in English between "you are" and "you are being" in this case. "You are being" means that your current actions are causing you to fall into a classification. Bedivere blocking Charles less than 24 hours into a discussion makes him, in that moment alone, a terrible and capricious admin, but outside of that very specific moment, he may well not be. Also, "capricious" means "acting on a whim".
What we can say is that the Commons blocking policy is utterly broken, and causes admins to be terrible and capricious. Like, I fail to see how, even if I had meant it as an attack on Bedivere and not his actions, a single insult of that level could possibly justify an indefinite block. I'm not out for admin blood, though: If multiple admins are making bad decisions about blocking, that's probably more of a problem with the policy on blocking, not the admins. That said, I think I'm going to take some time off Commons, because this is just broken. I've said before: this kind of action is how you drive people off Commons. I'm not going permanently, but it's killed my current bout of enthusiasm. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel this way Adam. I hope you don't take too long off but I completely understand this. You have been treated very poorly and falsely accused of 'harassment', which is a very serious accusation, and I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving the project entirely after this. I am deeply uncomfortable with this entire process and I think it shows that Commons blocking policy is being applied very inconsistently, that the rules are basically being made up as we go along - first Charles was punitively blocked for a combination of recent edits that don't seem very objectionable and older edits that don't seem very relevant, and then you were blocked arbitrarily for no reason at all other than daring to question an admin. I have lost a lot of confidence in Commons because of this. Cmao20 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't envy the job of admins in these cases. On one hand, there's so much discourse around [Wikipedia, mainly] about long-time abusive users getting away with chronic abuse because of high-quality content. On the other hand, we do need a clear explanation of exactly what the block was based on and why. Which of the recent diffs were egregious enough to compound with past events to justify a block? My worry is less the fast action and more that it's in response to a long report + past indiscretions, without looking closely at the merit of the more recent complaints. As I've said elsewhere, the recent diffs don't look like attacks to me, but there's room to disagree -- could you specify which led to the block? —Rhododendritestalk| 04:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Allowing Charlesjsharp to participate in this discussion
Rather than playing Marco Polo across the user talk page and here, I think it's easier just to unblock Charlesjsharp and let them comment here, providing they don't edit anything else. There also seems to be consensus above that Bedivere's block was too early. We can decide whether they should be blocked and the duration after we come to a consensus, not preemtively. Therefore I will unblock Charlesjsharp under the condition they only participate in this discussion (will partially enforce with partial blocks). It's clear this discussion is very controversial and what Charlesjsharp says is definitely important. —Matrix(!)ping onewhen replying{user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough Bedivere (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I would agree, but the block should quickly be reinstated if he ever edits anything else. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it's safe. If you look at Charles block log you'll see that he is still blocked from most of the site. --Cart(talk) 00:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask for someone to think logically and reasonably enough to unblock the user until this issue is resolved? I understand that admins might deal with vandalism or frequent reports, making blocking seem like the easiest solution, but I'm making a true effort to look at this in good faith. I can't help but wonder if there's a mature and responsible adult managing this situation. Wilfredor (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
What difference will it make Wilfredor, other than not solving the issue that started the thread, that is, poor behavior from Charles? I am yet to see a statement/apology/whatever from Charles. Bedivere (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
It's in the middle of the night here in Europe (where Charles lives) and most people are asleep. Well obviously my back is keeping me awake, but you gotta allow for time difference. Jeez... --Cart(talk) 02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Was just typing this thank you Cart - Charles was unblocked at 9:45pm UK time and it's now 3 in the morning in the UK - it would be unusual for him to have made a statement/apology yet and we could honestly do without the needlessly hostile tone here that makes it appear that the admins, who really ought to be impartial, have already made up their minds. But hey, they are blocking people for literally no reason at all other than criticising their decisions now so I expect my own block will be coming soon... Cmao20 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
A lot of immaturity, plenty of "flying monkeys", and a noticeable lack of empathy/good faith. Just as staying uncritical in FPC keeps you out of trouble (most critical users are no longer there Colin, Charles and I), the same applies to dealing with the admins—agree with them, and you won’t face any issues Wilfredor (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Speaking of good faith there. Before, during and after the block, no comment from Charles and the span of time has been more than a day. Charles has a history of getting reported and getting away with it afterwards. They've been warned more than once, only to just disregard such warnings. IMO a block was long overdue, not as a punitive measure as some of you conveniently have called it, but rather as a preventative one because they have not stopped such disruptive actions. Then with one user, now with another, the cycle goes on and on. Bedivere (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Point of order. If you look at his talk page you will notice that he thought he couldn't edit anywhere while being blocked. This is the first time he's being blocked, and he didn't really know how things worked. It wasn't until I requested that someone should tell him how things were done, and Matrix informed him, that he responded. Yes, he's been here before, but like you said, things did not get this far then. He is not someone who hangs out on ANU just for the fun of absorbing procedure knowledge. You keep bringing up the timeline over and over again, but you can't come down on someone just for being ignorant and not being as fast in his actions as you are. Of course his behavior should be thoroughly scrutinized, but I don't see why there is such a rush with getting down to business. I'm not just speaking on behalf of this case, I now dread how I would be treated here since I have a life outside Commons and may be too busy to answer promptly if I was reported here. This is after all a site where most users edit as a hobby. --Cart(talk) 04:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll admit that blocking on such short notice was probably not the wisest course of action. I should have allowed the discussion to remain open longer or waited for someone else to take action, which may have been the better approach. That said, I stand by my decision, as I believe the behavior in question would likely have led to a block eventually. While my approach could have been more measured, I acted with the intention of addressing the issue promptly. I take your comments (and others') seriously and will keep them in mind. Bedivere (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Bedivere. I had many interactions with CJS in the past, so his behaviour towards other users meanwhile is kind of predictable to me. Remaining silent, not answering to relevant comments or questions, seems part of his strategy. He has lots of photographic knowledge, lots of money to travel around, and invested in Wikipedia and sister projects this normally would be a great gift for all who benefits from Free Knowledge, including myself and all of us. What he on the other hand seems not to have at all: a) sensibility for other important processes on Commons such as categories; b) tolerance towards those who happens to have a differing opinion; c) empathy. And this, sadly, makes this actually great gift a "tainted gift". --A.Savin 06:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
a) true, b) true, c) true. Trust me, with all the bad things he's said to me and called me over the years, I'm no fan at all! I am however a stickler for correct procedure and setting the right precedent for future cases. This is an accumulative offence, with each of the components not being serious enough for a big block here. Tricky. I'd say we muzzle him and keep the gifts, hoping they will not be as tainted in the future. Give him a two week block to make a point of the seriousness of the situation and to placiate the hardliners here, and have him keep his word about being quiet at FPC, QIC, VIC and only nominate. And since Giles has indeed not added any more text here, let's do a one-way IBAN for Charles' interactions with Giles, making what Charles says he will do anyway more official (again for the hardliners). --Cart(talk) 11:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Cart, fair enough IMO. --A.Savin 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Response from Charles J Sharp
It has taken me a long time to read everything on the thread.
I read some of it on my mobile phone the day before yesterday but as I was blocked I assumed I could not do anything. Thank you to Cart for her helpful contributions and to Matrix(!) for intervening yesterday evening.
I was blocked for 12 months within half an hour of my pinging users currently active on FPC. I felt justified in doing this as a partial list of interested users had already been pinged by Giles.
I am truly bewildered by the Commons process that blocked me from contributing while everybody else could post.
I am very grateful to all those users who have taken the time to respond to the accusations - some in great detail; some supportive yet critical. They have written most of what I would have written, but in a more diplomatic tone. I salute Adam Cuerden who got blocked for his troubles. I’m sorry, Adam, but thank you; Basile Morin for his detailed analysis; Wilfredor who has been tireless, Rhododendrites and Cmao20.
All that being said, I have clearly annoyed a lot of people with my criticisms of image nominations. I apologise unreservedly for this. It has never been my intention to be offensive or rude. I have high standards and, yes, I do look at my own images with a kinder eye.
I accept the criticisms that have been made of me and consider most of them constructive. After the last ANU, I stopped voting at FPC, except on a couple of manipulated images. I will now stop even pointing out flaws. I will not comment at all at FPC. I have already said I would avoid any comments etc. related to Giles’ images.
I may nominate images at FPC, VIC and QIC in the future, but will not do so while Adam takes ‘some time off Commons’. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks Charles for your post. It is the first time I see that you understand and accept the criticisms against you. I hope that interactions with other FPC participants will be smoother in the future. I find a pity that your skills as photographer are downgraded because of communication issues with other people. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Charles, for your understanding -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I would also like to express special gratitude to Cart, who, despite her own reluctance, took on the role of "devil's advocate" to defend you, particularly against the bad faith that seems to prevail among certain administrators. Without her, you would undoubtedly have been blocked. It's refreshing to have a woman with a different perspective and greater stability amidst all the compulsive chaos and immature battles fueled by testosterone-driven egos. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Bad faith? Come on Wilfredor, you can do better Bedivere (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Charles. I think you have answered in the best possible way. I thank you for your apology that I accept as I have the feeling that it is sincere and like Yann it is the first time I see you understand and accept the criticisms against you so I salute that because that is not something easy to do and it is a big step forward.
Like I said above, I now support Charlesjsharp 1 year block being reduced to 1 month. Moreover I am someone that believes in second chances and I think sincere apologies should be rewarded so I accept the block being reduced to only 2 weeks if admins accept.
I also believe in sincere promises so I have faith in Charles promise and I withdraw the one-way IBAN request and we can keep it as a simple promise.
I also promise to not edit pages having a picture of Charlesjsharp nominated (with the exception I stated above: if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on a page then I reserve the possibility to answer).
If after 1 year all goes well I invite Charlesjsharp to contact me on my talk page or on his talk page to adapt/delete our promises if he wants to -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocking solves nothing. Is it really so hard to resist being carried away by emotions? When we see a comment that feels offensive, why not pause, take a deep breath, and approach it with the most positive and good-faith perspective possible? You're new to FPC, but trust me, years ago, people like Charles were the norm, not the exception, and no one was taking these things to heart. Wilfredor (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@Wilfredor: It is not because once upon a time things were different that they should stay that way. Some toxic users who were not able to change left Commons, either forcibly or on their own will, and hopefully atmosphere on Commons improves over the years. Yann (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, in the old days FPC was different in the best sense, it was a considerably less toxic environment. Wilfredor (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
If I'm being honest, this message exceeded my expectations. But here is my problem with this whole thread: We're still this far into the discussion and, as far as I can tell, nobody has looked at the opening report and said "yes, those 'attacks on me' are attacks worthy of intervention". Instead, all of the support for sanctions came almost entirely from Charles' past misdeeds. There are a couple people who, I think, would show up at any thread about Charles and support intervention because of the past, irrespective of what's happened recently. ...And I get it. When we believe someone is a toxic menace, we take opportunities to show them the door. But I'd like to think we leave room for people to improve, too. That's the problem with ignoring the fact that the recent diffs are not convincing. Even the blocking admin does not seem inclined to try to justify the block with any recent behavior. The closest we have is I think the block was warranted and Charles has a history of bad behavior, yet unsanctioned to this point. [...] The block came as a result of their pointless pinging of several other users. In other words, [old stuff] plus ... pinging a bunch of FPC regulars to a thread about discussions at FPC (which is still a bizarre justification to me). A few years ago I might've been right there calling for some kind of sanction, but here's the thing: I've noticed a difference in Charles' approach since the last ANU, and find it disappointing to me that we reward that with a pile-on ... based almost entirely on what happened in the past. While I commend Charles for the self-reflection and peace offering, I don't know that FPC is better off for this. But yes, we'll avoid such "attacks" as "Comment: I like this photo that I took better", and will likely motivate some folks to oppose with generic rationales like "no wow" rather than risk "the image is horribly exposed" being framed as an personal attack. Anyway, with that I'm feeling like I've clicked "publish changes" too many times already in this thread, so will take my leave. —Rhododendritestalk| 14:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
It's true that this issue has changed from what it was in the opening report, but that is the nature of any COM or WP thing, they change depending on who gets involved or what new or old issues are brought forward. This brought out a lot of pent-up emotions, and here we are. Being adaptable, and at the same time not get carried away, is the only way to survive here. --Cart(talk) 15:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
It's certainly a FPC problem that needs addressing. Either folks don't take some comments so personal or hard, or another system needs to be thought Bedivere (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
It's a problem we've been addressing again and again for years. But users come and go, so discussions are forgotten or ignored. FPC is one of the most vulnerable projects on Commons, because it's the only place that peoples' personal work get critiqued. A lot of folks come there with no clues and a lot of hope, and not everyone can handle rejection or a multi-lingual environment where most users speak incomplete English. It's a hotbed for clashes. Plus the long-time regulars get tired and bored after reviewing tens of thousands of photos, and fall into old habits. Add to that that it is an almost all male project, with the testosterone that goes with such a territory. --Cart(talk) 17:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
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.
Done. The users are blocked. I deleted their contributions due to different reasons. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree. @OddHerring please change "superseded" to "other version" and let the end project decide which version they prefer to use. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 16:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment by Alachuckthebuck: Reminder to stay civil and that rather than edit warring over versions, just create new ones. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. @AbchyZa22 has been very active in asking questions about their uploads, seeing if these are okay or not, as you can see by several topics on my user talk page. I also think some of these nominations are edge cases. I believe they have good faith and are learning. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Support would be better. Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Question @David Tornheim: I see that you didn't edit in Commons for over four years until now. Could you kindly mention how did you learn about this thread? Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done No uploads since their initial warnings. Further copyvios will result in a block though. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Info Mitte27 has opened another construction site: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/12/Category:Polonia Warszawa. It is getting annoying. -- Chaddy (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
12:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Unblock for now (option 6 or 7) More time needed to find an intelligent and efficient solution. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello 
530 FPs that Charles photographed and uploaded
4'117 QIs that Charles photographed and uploaded
3'139 VIs that Charles photographed and uploaded
An example of "Pictures of the Year" that Charles photographed and uploaded (among other ones).
Thank you. Charles, for your understanding -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_cosplay_Bocchi_-_Bocchi_The_Rock_(26).jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Cover.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
,_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-25,_DD_47.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Common_Sergeant_(4)_WLB.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_eating_a_frog.jpg){kind=link}
_drinking_Kruger.jpg){kind=link}
_on_a_leaf.jpg){kind=link}
_Finca_El_Pilar.jpg){kind=link}
_Kruger.jpg){kind=link}
_on_impala_(Aepyceros_melampus).jpg){kind=link}
