Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Note

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

User:Yann, violation of Commons:File renaming, threatening by block and other issues with abusing the admin rights[edit]

I skipped several months of contributing here (I did my last edit on September 6th) since I faced a very disappointing situation about clearly not-following Commons:Policies and guidelines by User:Yann. This user made a renaming of File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg to File:Flag of the Slonim County (1764-1792).jpg without providing any valid reason for it [1], and providing the reason for renaming is obviously required by Commons:File renaming. When I asked politely about the renaming reason the user called me a troll and threatened to block (everyone can read this conversation here: User talk:Yann/archives 51#Renaming File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg. In the meantime, I can't find any direct problem statement about the original filename by any user. This name was in Belarusian language (as a depiction of Belarusian historical emblem, took from the book of Belarusian professional heraldist) and the file is still in use in the correspondent article be-tarask:Пагоня in the Belarusian Wikipedia. On the other hand, the new file name is totally misleading since it is based on some amateurish original research, not on the reliable sources or some sound and clear evidence, which is quite clear from uninvolved user's comments in this discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Files with clearly misleading names. I have also been informed about some other issues with administrative actions by User:Yann (like selective blocking of just one side of the edit war conflict and this blocked side wasn't an initiator of the edit war), that don't concern me directly, but I believe should also be discussed here. But first I would like to make sure, that the Commons:Policies and guidelines are not just a nice declaration and such requests are not wasting of my time. Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is part of a large ongoing dispute regarding many files. There is also many people involved. The DR speaks for itself. Pinging other people involved: @Pofka, Лобачев Владимир, Adamant1, and Marcelus: . Yann (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you took an admin action here, I would like to see you exploration of renaming the file (according to Commons:File renaming) as well as calling me a troll and threatening to block me. The mentioned disruptive DR (the only purpose of which as well as many similar ones was harassments of the users with long constructive contribution history) has nothing to do directly with your clear abusing the admin rights. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that we should name the files as in the source from which the image is taken. Questions about how to properly name an image should be on Wikipedia. Renaming disputed files contrary to the source, only guided by the opinion of one user, is wrong. This can lead to edit wars, which has already happened. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting, an administrator is involved within an ongoing edit war, as I mentioned via Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Dont remove warnings, is that panorama dynamically happened? if so then I'd love to seek whether opening a de-adminship request for Yann. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Please finally permanently block Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев Владимир to end this constant trolling mess. These two users have caused enough chaos here and continues to do so. Users @Ke an: , @Cukrakalnis: also noticed their malicious activity in Lithuanian affairs. I have requested this many times already and when finally they were rightfully warned and even blocked for trolling in Lithuania-related affairs – they now request to take sanctions against administrator Yann who rightfully taken actions against their malicious activity. Yann has done nothing wrong and should not be persecuted for taking actions against aggressive Russian/Belarusian trolls (Russia and Belarus are waging aggressive information war against NATO/Western countries and Ukraine). The mentioned file was rightfully renamed with support by other users in a well-motivated nomination (e.g. see arguments by @Guido den Broeder: ). The only strictly opposing users were Kazimier Lachnovič (who call Lithuanians as rubbish, see: 1, 2, 3, so as already mentioned many times – he is not a trustworthy person in Lithuanian affairs as he demonstrates enormous nationalistic hatred towards Lithuania and Lithuanians) and Лобачев Владимир (he was recently blocked for trolling in Lithuanian affairs and continues trolling immediately after his return). They closely collaborate as they together participate in discussions and seek trolling-related goals and now they even try to mislead other users to take actions against an administrator who rightfully taken actions against their malicious activity. They were warned already to stop trolling and misleading other users, but since they are becoming even more aggressive – I cannot see any other solutions than applying even stricter sanctions against them (preferably, permanent block as clearly they will not learn and they are here to troll). As you can see, they are trolling and seeking their goals even during the biggest festivities of the year (likely they are paid trolls). So merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you! Don't feed the trolls – block them. -- Pofka (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1. Nothing to add. Yann (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1, per Pofka. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1, agree with Pofka -- Ke an (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, blocked 6 months for Kazimier Lachnovič, and indef for Лобачев Владимир (because he was recently blocked 3 months on Commons, and is blocked indef on Russian Wikipedia for vandalism/trolling). --A.Savin 02:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A.Savin: Thanks for taking actions against trolling. I noticed that user Kazimier Lachnovič currently has filemover rights in Wikimedia Commons, but I believe such privilege should be reserved only for users with unquestionable reputation as it allows access to quite sensitive actions. Since Kazimier Lachnovič's behaviour is problematic in a long-term maybe this privilege should be revoked? What's your opinion, A.Savin and @Yann: ? -- Pofka (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1. I agree. Yann (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, probably should be revoked too. --A.Savin 14:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What the hell is going on here? Almost half of all articles are on my watchlist in the Belarusian section. And so when the file name changes, I almost always see it. Kazimier has done a titanic job of renaming Belarusian-related files over a long period of time, doing it with responsible use of sources, a unitary approach and the simultaneous use of both the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets, which is typical of the Belarusian language. I never wrote this to him, but I have always been grateful for his professionalism in this matter and for his painstaking improvement of Wikipedia and Commons. There is a long overdue problem in Wikimedia Commons when the transliteration of Belarusian names is done from Russian, although according to Belarusian law this must be done from Belarusian. And yes, I understand that Belarusian laws are not a decree here, but the conditional Pahonja (Belarusian transliteration) is in Belarusian sources, but Pogonya (Russian transliteration) is unlikely to be found. Because of this problem and the preponderance of Russian-oriented users, constant conflicts arise that lead to some incomprehensible grievances and accusations of pro-Belarusian participants in trolling. I am severely disappointed by the blocking of such an experienced and hardworking participant without proper discussion, clarification of the opinion of interested users, and even for such a completely barbaric period. This is disgusting and undermines the credibility of the adequacy of the administrators of this place. I demand a trial of non-affiliated administrators, unblocking and making a public apology to Kazimier. Where has it been seen that a person asked for help, he definitely wanted the situation to be sorted out objectively and accurately (typical behavior of a troll, yeah), and he was blocked for half a year for this !!! I have seen everything in fifteen years on Wikipedia, but this has not yet come across ...--Хомелка (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are admin on another project why do not you login and sign your reply properly? Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't sign just out of inattention, corrected--Хомелка (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And btw a Belatusian law is a law of a criminal terrorist state. Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not bring to the point of absurdity. I do not urge to act according to Belarusian laws. I just note that the transliteration of proper names in Belarus is done in this way. And they are used in authoritative sources. Yes, people will be able to use the search normally.--Хомелка (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How relevant are such statements to discussed problem? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not relevant, but they should not have brought here as an argument at all. Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm "non-affiliated" here too. But I'm watchlisting ANU and know both users as "permanent guests" here since months, so definitely someday something had to be done to stop this. --A.Savin 17:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP 178.124.160.120 is located in Minsk (and it is the first edit from this IP in Commons), so it is located in the same place as Kazimier Lachnovič (according to his English Wikipedia's userpage). Consequently, it is likely that he is abusing sockpuppetry to whitewash himself here... -- Pofka (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I was in in Minsk, where, by the way, the population is almost 2 million people,and did not see that I was not logged in. We, you know, in Minsk sometimes have to do this, because we live "under the hood", but here I am correcting myself and signing all my messages, including this one.--Хомелка (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to the topic. The dispute is weather the Russian oder Belarusian transliteration of places in Belarus should be used? And the currently banned user moved the files from the Russian to the Belarusian transliteration?

If this is the case I do not see a problem here because we generally name places by how to majority of people living there call them. Or if existing by the English name. GPSLeo (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the problem is long-term seriously problematic behavior which includes unlimited edit-warring, personal attacks, and trolling. Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, and what with renaming of File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg to File:Flag of the Slonim County (1764-1792).jpg without providing any valid reason for it [2]?--Хомелка (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a deletion request which is linked to in the first message of this thread and which was closed as rename. You can disagree with the decision, but saying "no valid reason" is a misrepresentation of the situation. Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Benlisquare for cross-wiki harassment, Islamophobia, and other policy violations[edit]

The question on blocking the user was solved. If you want to constituent discussing in a proper form do this at the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Benlisquare or the at the policy draft Commons:AI generated media but not here. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

CW: Sexual content

Benlisquare has uploaded many images over the last six months that are ostensibly oriented towards demonstrating AI image creation platforms such as Stable Diffusion. However, after it became evident that almost all such images were of an inherently sexual nature and that these images were insufficient for illustrating the technology on English Wikipedia, editors there encouraged Benlisquare to create suitable alternatives. Their response was to create a misogynistic and Islamophobic edits of a pre-existing series. The images were used with a harassing and further inflammatory message on enWiki, resulting in an indefinite block there. Additional policy violations are semi-exclusive to the Commons and can be seen in their repeated violations of COM:PORN (primarily this image which was apparently only created to be "smut" for its own sake) and COM:NOTHOST with many other images that serve no educational purposes besides to adorn their user page on other Wiki sites. Additionally, while I don't believe the images themselves constitute child pornography, many were designed to mimic it with prompts such as "busty young girl". I am fully aware of the permissiveness we follow for sexually explicit images, but using the Commons for hate speech and the unwillingness to address what one administrator on enWiki called "ridiculous" conduct should be enough to warrant action here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pbritti's request has been examined,

1- It has been observed that Benlisquare has made cross-wiki violations and hate speeches.

2- When the user's violations are evaluated, it is clear that he is not intended to contribute.

3- For these reasons, the user has been blocked indefinitely. And, decided to delete the pictures as well. Kadı Message 18:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global lock requested. Kadı Message 18:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kadı: I see that you have removed the talk page block, but your global lock request is still outstanding. Note that if you do wish to leave open the possibility for them to make an appeal, then a global lock would not make sense as it would prevent them from logging into their account at all. Also, in general we don't do global locks on long-term established users unless they have been community banned in multiple communities. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@King of Hearts, thank you for reminding, I was planning to withdraw the request. Kadı Message 07:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pbritti, King of Hearts, and Kadı: Given the speed of this block, the user did not have a chance to reply here, but did reply on their talk page. (But no unblock request yet.) Brianjd (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw his reply. Kadı Message 13:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pbritti Additionally, while I don't believe the images themselves constitute child pornography, many were designed to mimic it with prompts such as "busty young girl". At en:User talk:Benlisquare, another user suggested that the term ‘young girl’ is reflective of pedophilia. I have posted a rebuttal there. Brianjd (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brianjd, @King of Hearts and @Pbritti, I replied him in his talk page. Kadı Message 13:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock, and look very seriously at the fitness of Kadı to have an admin mop.

These images are puerile. But on a project that has NOTCENSORED and Wikipetan (and our ever-expanding multiplicity of COM:PENIS), they are emphatically not reasons for immediate indef blocks. I see no Islamophobia here and the fact that these images are haram, or even downright offensive, to some editors here (and presumably the admin Kadı) is not any reason to block a user, or even (of itself) to delete them. I'd support their deletion (same as for Wikipetan) because I see the subject choice as having zero valuable overlap with the notable topic they're supposed to be here to illustrate, and Wikipedia in general has plenty of problems with creepy editors and imagery leering towards the hentai. But, given our clearly established and long-tolerated policies on just what is accepted here, these are not part of anything justifying the reactions here, or on en:WP (and I stopped editing WP myself a couple of years ago because of that same admin).

Nor are blocks on en:WP of any weight on Commons. You might not like that, but it's how Commons has vehemently defended its independence for years.

I regret supporting Kadı's recent RfA and would certainly not do that again. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy Dingley I don’t think I fully understand the issues here, but I can say that Kadı’s haste in blocking the user, removing talk page access and requesting a global lock, all with no discussion beyond the initial post, is worrying. Especially when the last two actions were quickly reversed.

I would also call out the CSD F10 deletions (some of which have since converted to regular DRs – see the user’s talk page), particularly the two that I just voted to keep as user page images. F10 was never appropriate for a user who is apparently active and in good standing on another project. Of course, the ‘halal edition’ series was also deleted under F10; this should be reviewed. Brianjd (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Since the RfA has been mentioned already, inappropriate speedy deletion nominations were a big issue there.) Brianjd (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(But I kind of regret posting that last comment. We really shouldn’t be discussing the RfA here, at least until there’s a consensus that this admin has a current problem.) Brianjd (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy Dingley and @Brianjd, this is not the right place for discussion about my RFA. I withdrawn the global lock request and gave back talk page access quickly. I examined carefully the whole incident, @Pbritti's arguments aren't wrong and he proved the user's harrassive behaviour with links. Users can not use Commons in order to harrass people in various Wikis. Regards, Kadı Message 15:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your actions can be questioned in this discussion, since the actions taken may have been unbecoming of an administrator. Bidgee (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find myself repeatedly agreeing with Andy Dingley in the discussion above (pretty much on all accounts), but there’s a searing question in my mind I didn’t saw addressed so far: Why did Benlisquare pick this specific theme for his demonstration of A.I. image generation techniques? Would’t a landscape work as well instead, or indeed anything else? Was Benlisquare unaware this theme would garner discussion unrelated to the matter of A.I. image generation techniques? Was Benlisquare interested on discussing the latter or indeed on the said garnering? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm grateful to Benlisquare for their contributions here, because it's a very current topic and clearly they have more knowledge of it than I do. But as you highlight: the two things are separable. We could have illustrative images here (even portraits) that didn't have to be so gratuitous. A far better discussion could have tried to get Benlisquare to agree that, and then to have provided some less controversial alternative.

Instead we just saw this massively confrontational response (culminating in indef blocks) and a disappointing response by Benlisquare. Now maybe they were genuinely trying to provide a halal version of these images (as we're evidently not allowed to see them whilst discussing them, that's hard to know). Maybe the sarcasm in their reply went unappreciated. This could all have gone so much better. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy Dingley: No Islamophobia in the images, you say? When they were explicitly made exclusively so that Benlisquare could make this horrific post in flagrant violation of COM:EDUSE. And the issue here is the editor's misuse of the Commons to not only harass people on enWiki but also upload images that run contrary to COM:PORN. And, c'mon, you don't expect us to seriously believe "busty young girl" is innocuous when the editor themselves prefaces their actions with "I'm not ashamed". And Brianjd, I'd just recommend striking that comment about the adminiship; I'm glad you measured your comment almost immediately afterword. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"No Islamophobia in the images, you say?" and then you cite a text post, on a different project. This is Commons, not Wikipedia. If you have an issue about behaviour on Wikipedia, then raise it on Wikipedia, or even Meta if you consider it to be that serious. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy Dingley, Can users upload inappropriate images to Commons in order to use them for harrassment in Wikipedia? Kadı Message 15:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hypothetical whataboutery. What relevance does that have here?

Ask instead did Benlisquare upload anything inappropriate, not "might" someone do such a thing.

In particular, are the uploaded images inappropriate? Why? Which Commons policy do they breach? (you are on a project where Category:Caricatures of Muhammad exists and won't be going away) We cannot see these images, conveniently you deleted them immediately and without discussion. So now we're only left with your word to go on to judge whether their uploading justified both their deletion and an immediate indefinite block of a user. I will remind you, COM:SPEEDY does not mean "I want to do this quickly, because I am angry", it only applies in the circumstance where an admin action is assumed to "have broad consensus support", and so discussion is not necessary. Given the extent of the discussion since, it's now obvious (and was almost certainly obvious beforehand) that discussion of them would have been necessary, and would have been facilitated by leaving the images visible during that. Because these are so obviously outside COM:SPEEDY you were then forced to choose a rationale of "Personal photo by non-contributors (F10)", which is ludicrously untrue. You should have your admin rights questioned just for that, because past experience tells us that we have no need of such an admin.

If users use an image for harassment, then that's an issue for where they do their harassment. Even an innocuous image is frequently usable for harassment, like turnips in an article on British footballers. Its use for harassment doesn't alone make it an unsuitable image. Only in an extreme case would we extend any measures from the harassment back to the images (such as an image that is only usable for harassment). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly: the "halal" images were only usable for harassment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy Dingley, The images were showing a woman which wore a scarf. Also, these images have one purpose: Harrassment. That's why I deleted the images and blocked the user. In Muhammad's caricatures, they are used for encyclopedic articles, not used for harrassing people. In deleting process, I agree your comments about F10 criteria, the correct one is G3. In deleting process, I accidentally press to F10 and really sorry for that. But this does not affect to the block. Kadı Message 16:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, don't treat us as fools. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please assume good faith. Kadı Message 01:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you need to think hard if you wish to stay as an admin. Andy’s comment is not bad faith, he questioned your comment to the actions you did. Bidgee (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bidgee and @Andy Dingley, the correct criteria is G3. As I said before, this does not affect to the block. The main subject is harrassment. Kadı Message 02:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the deletion isn’t valid. As I said I would like an uninvolved admin to review it (ensuring it is something that should be F10). I’m not sure I trust you with the sysop tools. Bidgee (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bidgee, you can ping another admin for evaluating the deleted images. Kadı Message 05:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kadı Is it necessary to ping another admin? This is the admins’ noticeboard. Brianjd (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brianjd No but if someone wants to ping other admin, it is not a problem for me. Bidgee said that he/she does not trust me. Therefore he/she can request another evaluation from another admin. Kadı Message 11:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I presume it's fairly easy to accidentally use the wrong rationale as a fault of memory. If your best criticism is a set of relatively inconsequential errors by an admin, then you're quite off topic in this discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock the user as time served, since the user was given zero warning, regardless of being a long term contributor. Actions on other Wikipedias can be considered from time to time but not in this case.

The halal series might needed to be deleted (can an uninvolved admin review) but all the speedy deletions done by the blocking admin were incorrect done (incorrect speedy reasons, and some images didn’t warrant speedy deletion but only a DR). Bidgee (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not this case, as the harassment was through their actions on both the Commons and enWiki? And what about the litany of policy violations directly related to their actions on the Commons? You have given a preferred outcome without any basis for why this should be the case beyond critiquing a separate editor's actions—actions done, unlike Benlisquare's, without malice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You’ve only pointed to guidelines not policies, guidelines are to give guidance but they aren’t something you can block someone and even then they have to be warned first and that has not been done in this case. In only extreme cases (compromised accounts, accounts uploading illegal content, sock puppets of long term abuse accounts) that blocks without warning should be done, in this case the actions on Wikipedia aren’t enforceable here.

If they upload content that is clearly content that is aimed at intimidating/harassing then they can be reblocked. Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive. Bidgee (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They violated multiple guidelines, the EDUSE policy, and proposed CIVILITY policy/guideline, and were only stopped from perpetrating further harassment by the block. By your own standard, the action was preventative. Additionally, certain blocks—including those for serious harassment—can be performed without a warning. The editor in question can have their block reviewed (it looks like the timeline is set for three months). By then they should have had plenty of time to review their actions and resolve to not repeat them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The block is excessive, even if one was warranted. Again guidelines are not policies and proposed policies aren’t enforceable. EDUSE is something they should have been given a warning for. Time for you to drop the stick. Bidgee (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just explaining the policy and guidelines that were broken since your initial comment neglected to acknowledge these. Additionally, your comment towards Kadı was plainly excessive. Your willingness to defend an editor who engaged in harassment while not assuming good faith of a responding admin is unfortunate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh. No way am I defending them. The block on English Wikipedia was likely warranted but this isn’t English Wikipedia. This is the last comment I’m making, as this is getting repetitive and you clearly have POV that you want to force onto me but sorry, move along. Bidgee (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy Dingley and @Bidgee, I corrected the deleting reason, and I am very sorry for clicking the wrong reason.

From now on, if you have more question marks in your heads, I would want to answer them. I always prioritize justice in my adminship, I do not want to upset anyone unintentionally. I have received these rights to serve our community, so serving the community in the best possible way is my primary purpose.

Best regards, Kadı Message 10:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Benlisquare uploaded questionable content, but I am not sure an indef. block is needed at this time. So either, the block length can be reduced, or unblocking can be granted after some message from Benlisquare. Yann (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann What is questionable content? I am looking for specific policy violations that occurred on Commons, and having trouble finding any based on the discussion above. Do you think G3 was appropriate for the ‘halal series’? Brianjd (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several files were deleted, as they are clearly not educational content. See Special:DeletedContributions/Benlisquare for the list. More files may require deletions. Yann (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann Is that comment addressed to me? The link is useless to me, as a non-admin. I noticed that you recently deleted some files, including at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated art of a French maid teasing the viewer.png. Unlike some other DRs, this one had no copyright concerns and a decent amount of support for keeping the file. Also, you were involved, having !voted. The DR had been open for less than 58 hours. I would like to see the file undeleted and the DR closed by an uninvolved admin after being open for at least the standard timeframe (7 days). Brianjd (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, Benlisquare agrees with the deletion. IMO this can be considered an "attack image", and can therefore be speedy deleted. Other recently deleted content includes Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated AI artwork of Rumia.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated portrait art of a young woman with long purple hair.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated portrait art of a young woman with long blonde hair.png. I also find File:Tarrant genderbender artwork.jpg objectionable (deleted in 2019). Yann (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann Benlisquare didn’t oppose deletion, but didn’t really give a reason for deletion either. I don’t think it’s necessary to mention that here.

Even experienced, competent users make copyright mistakes: I don’t think it’s necessary to mention Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated AI artwork of Rumia.png here. At some of the other DRs, perhaps, but not here.

The other two DRs are better examples, but the last one (blonde hair) was also closed after less than 58 hours by you, despite the incomplete discussion. Brianjd (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kadı and Yann: Where was this used as an ‘attack image’? I didn’t see it being used in this way. In any case, I think the support for keeping the file at the DR should override any poor use this file might have previously had. I intend to take this to COM:UDR, but will wait a bit to avoid forking the discussion. Brianjd (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image doesn't need to be used to be considered an “attack image”. Such content would be OK if it were historical or from a notable artist. For historical documents, or documents from notable people have an educational value in themselves. Offensive content created by AI does not. Yann (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In what way are these offensive?

(I would also note, as an unrelated digression, that we've come to a very strange doorway through the Chinese Room if we can talk about humans now being "offended" by AIs.) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DR is now open again. I have commented there. Brianjd (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann, I wrote here about the length of the block, if we can have a chance to read his opinions about his/her attitude, I can evaluate and reduce the block length. Understanding the mistakes is the most important thing for me, he has lots of contributions, I am not happy for blocking @Benlisquare, so if we can read a message from him, this would be better. (CC: @Andy Dingley, @Bidgee, @King of Hearts, @Pbritti, @Tuvalkin) Kadı Message 15:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was pinged here, but I haven’t anything to add others didn’t (or wont) say better. To summarize, the subject matter of AI generated images is interesting and clearly in scope; it can be argued that there are some copyright concerns; Benlisquare obviously is knowledgeable about this stuff, and that’s good for Commons, but seems to love to cause a stirr, which is not; the contents of these images are certainly objectifying but then again in the same way art has been since the first Neolithic Venus figurine; the textual prompts used are creepy a.f. (as the father of a young woman I have been two decades trying to be neither too vigilant nor too laidback about possible leerers and gazers) and seem to have been designed to trigger human viewers more than affect algorithms (which is really bad); on the other hand lurid female portraits are only a fraction of this user’s output (how big, though?); the word choice to tag censored versions (adding "halal" to the filename — instead of, say, "SFW" or even "for prudes") in a context thitherto unrelated to Islam or to religion in general seems to be Benlisquare trying (sucessfully) to stoke flames; and Kadı’s swift and severe admin action looks like Kadı was easily baited by said word use, which is not good. This is all too complicated for me, and I don’t log in to Commons to deal with this kind of messes. Good luck to all, I’ll be categorizing >100-year old rolling stock diagrams in the room next door. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I don't see a mention above, but Commons:Deletion requests/Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare is worth a read, although the issue seems to be more copyright than content related (there are content arguments for deletions too). Yann (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't usually participate here on Commons, but I posted a version of the following on Ben's user talk page at enwiki, and wanted to post it here as well. "The first ever high-resolution AI-generated smut uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. No, I don't feel ashamed creating this, it's the 21st Century and the wheels of technology must perpetually turn." is the beginning of User:Benlisquare's description for File:Stable Diffusion AI-generated painting of nude woman.png. There is no doubt that Ben has been intentionally using the AI to create "smut" (his own word) to upload to Commons. Let's look at some of the prompts he's used to create images to upload here:

"cute...short skirt...Choker...Evocative pose...heels, shy" - Apparently, demonstrating AI art requires the subject to be cute, wearing a short skirt, choker and heels, and striking an "evocative pose"
"cute (((perfect face))) (Evocative pose) (Seductive Smirk) ... slender ((girly hips)) (((thick_thighs)) ... ((exposed midriff)), young maiden ((busty)) ((sheer tight sundress))...sex appeal." - The parens () are used for emphasis, so we can see what he wanted the AI to emphasize when generating this image.
"...young woman...cute (((perfect face))) (Evocative pose)...young maiden" - notice a theme?
"...attractive, ((visibly aroused))..."
"Eighteen years old, a woman full-grown" What the hell kind of AI prompt is that, and who in their right mind thinks an 18-year-old is fully grown?
"busty young girl"
"busty young girl" - a different image, same prompt
"busty young girl" - a third image, same prompt
"busty young girl" - a fourth image, same prompt
"busty young girl" - a fifth image, same prompt
"19-year-old blonde busty girl" - at least she's older than 18 this time?
"((beautiful face)), perfect hands, perky breasts"
"attractive girl, cleavage, wide hips, thick thighs, full body shot, dynamic posing, soft skin, beautiful"
"cute face, beautiful face, (full body), a portrait of a young japanese dryad girl nude (intricate), ((sexy))"
"...cute face, beautiful face, (full body), a portrait of a young japanese dryad girl wearing metal fantasy armor bikini, metal bikini"
"...a teenage Japanese geisha girl..."
"attractive young girl"

I can't believe that anyone would want this person unblocked. This isn't about censorship, this is about the use of AI image generation to objectify women. I hope Commons, as a project, can effectively self-regulate this sort of abuse. My thanks to Kadı for doing the right thing. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Levivich An 18-year-old is fully grown for all medical purposes that I know of, and almost all legal purposes. There is nothing objectifying about that description. The uploader replied at enwiki, elaborating on the point in my previous sentence and referring to the file description.

Here is the relevant part of the file description: The above prompt was written to imitate the style of a typical cringey Facebook post written by an old man, in order to fully exploit the quirks of how the model was originally trained, as the training data was collated from public web content scraped by web crawlers and then organised into captioned pairs. Imitating the posting style of a particular demographic within the text prompt will provide better image generation samples of the typical kind of photography such a demographic would post online.

There is much more discussion at enwiki about the prompts being quirks of the training data. We can have a debate about whether this interpretation of the training process is correct (I have no particular knowledge here), but that is a different debate to the one we are having now.

Nothing that I wrote above is a defence of their other prompts, but I still fail to see any policy-based justification for a block (let alone an indefinite block). Brianjd (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brianjd Reviewing Commons:Blocking policy, we can argue whether "Insertion of gratuitous vulgarity" applies but reviewing essays, en:WP:NOTHERE I think summarizes the issue. The uploads have a questionable at best copyright status and based on their nonsense prompts seem to be of very little encyclopedic value. The user spends all their time arguing for the sole purpose of spamming their images and nothing more. Maybe there is a slight academic argument here but any serious adult who wanted to improve the stable diffusion article would then come back with a moderate alternative set of images based on more regular prompts. In the end, is this a good use of anyone's time? Ricky81682 (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ricky81682 As I have pointed out at Commons:Deletion requests/Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare, Commons is not Wikipedia. It certainly isn’t enwiki (the user is, or at least was, also active at zhwiki). So whether they are here to build an encylcopedia or their uploads are of encyclopedic value are irrelevant.

We could argue about whether Insertion of gratuitous vulgarity applies. Indeed, there have been arguments over some of the user’s uploads, and it seems to be largely a Wikipedia issue anyway. Since the situation is not clear, why is a block justified?

As for the copyright issue, did the uploader persist in uploading copyright violations despite relevant warnings? I see no clear indication of this. Therefore, this does not warrant a block either. Brianjd (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted the nominated files due to the unclear copyright status per COM:PCP and nominated the remaining files for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Benlisquare. Only one generated file is okay because it is based on free licensed photos from Commons. The two audio files also might be problematic but for now I did not nominate them. GPSLeo (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I said it summarizes the issue. Commons isn't here to create an encyclopedia but it also isn't here to be a free webhost or for people who's entirely bailiwick is arguing some policy (copyright, categorization, image issues or something else). People have been blocked for fighting over categories or file names or just generally wasting time here. Again, there are adult ways to handle things and this was none of that. Either way, I'm not any of the relevant admins here and don't intend to keep gravedancing but as an aside, I started a proposal about blocking policy issue at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Adding_NOTHERE_to_Blocking_policy. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but did you have a point here? One that's relevant to the current issue? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me? I was responding to Brian's claim that this block isn't within policy and my view is that official policy doesn't reflect everything that people get blocked for. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you arguing for blocking Benlisquare on the basis of them "fighting over categories" or using this "as a free webhost" or was it "arguing some policy (copyright, categorization,"? Because if not, why raise these thing? You didn't "summarize the issue", you scatter-gunned a bunch of whole new reasons into it, including en:WP:NOTHERE which isn't even a policy on a project that isn't applicable here, just in the hope that something would stick.

Of actual Commons policies, that is, policies on this project, which ones has Benlisquare breached? Because so far no-one is showing any. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am raising the separate issue of whether blocking policy reflects current policy. You keep pointing to the ten items listed in policy and I'm saying we block for more than that so we should have official policy reflect that. You are fixated on the listed policies and ignore the fact that users have been blocked for things not listed there. That is why you are not getting a satisfactory answer to what listed policy Benlisquare has violated. But keep on demanding a listed policy for the block when we only have "more common" reasons for blocks in policy. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typically I have seen most users (excluding LTA, and users posting illegal content) are given at least one warning before a short block, that ramps up every time they continue with the behaviour they were blocked for.

In this case, zero warning was given and a excessive block was placed, against COM:BP. The user was given a indefinite block, with no history of a block before and no history of issues before this thread. The fact is the only “Intimidation/harassment” case I’ve seen. Bidgee (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, how is the picture of a teenage geisha “objectifying”? At all? Dronebogus (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Ricky alluded to: there are very few absolutes when it comes to Wiki jurisprudence (copyright perhaps being one of the most certain of rules). The rest is about judgement calls within parameters in part established by policies, guidelines, precedence, and sometimes subjective decisions made on the hope they improve the relevant project. This is a case that involved multiple policies and guidelines. Because it also involved behavior that spanned two sites, considerations for the standards of both are relevant. Some will cry "censorship" (it's not), some will appeal to policies/lack thereof. Neither overcome the reality that a block in this case improves the safety, stability, and longevity of the Commons. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pbritti An indefinite block, with no discussion, somehow improved the safety of Commons? That might be true in extreme cases. This isn’t one of them. I keep asking for a proper explanation of what Benlisquare did wrong, and I am not getting good answers. It certainly feels like censorship. Brianjd (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This block not only lacked prior discussion, it is now impeding subsequent discussion. Although I am happy to help this user, like I said, I should not have to. Brianjd (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What discussion has been impeded? The user's single comment about the technical aspects of what the user says the software does is fine but not particularly significant. Still, defend this if you want. I find boundary-pushing childish behavior a net drain and one person's obsession with getting their fetishes publicized is not new. Just because you can be offensive and annoy people doesn't mean you have to and it doesn't mean other people have to deal with it out of some general principle of tolerating idiocy. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ricky81682 The user’s understanding of AI seems to be highly regarded and should be valued in that DR, which will set an important precedent for all AI works on Commons, especially when some users currently display a grave misunderstanding of how AI works. Brianjd (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Levivich above made it to the point perfectly. It is very sad that some people continue to support inclusion of these images on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What point? ~~That the subject of a file (and whether it's offensive or pornographic) is defined by its filename? (As he also claimed at Meta).~~ Or that it's based on the text of a prompt to an AI generating program? Of course neither is true, we have to go by the content of the image, as uploaded. None of those that I've seen (although you have been busy prematurely deleting them, thus preventing their discussion) have been any more so than a great deal of content we already have here, and are not evidently considered as a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have never made any claims here, at Meta, or anywhere else, about filenames, or what defines the subject of a file, or what makes the subject offensive or pornographic. @Andy Dingley, I'd appreciate you striking the incorrect statement. Levivich (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's in relation to meta:Steward requests/Global/2022-w51#Global lock for Benlisquare where you had the same problem I was complaining of, in that we were expected to discuss a global block for uploading files that had since been deleted, so all we could see left were their filenames. If your comments were only in relation to the text prompts he'd used to create them, then I'm happy to withdraw this.

But the same problem is still there: we can't say "this upload is pornographic" if we can't judge the content, not just text associated with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yann: I don’t support the images produced by Ben but they should have been given a warning and if that didn’t stop them, an AN/U discussion should have been started for ways of restricting them. This whole situation was handled poorly. Bidgee (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock - First and foremost the blocks at both EN and here were deserved for obvious reasons, Anyway I would support an unblock in leu of Ben being indefinitely banned from uploading ANY AI images to this website (no exceptions) and this ban should also extend to them attempting to skirt the ban by trying to upload the content to Flickr and then transferring it from there to here. If we cannot have them banned from uploading AI images then this block should continue being in place for the foreseeable future.

For context they've been here since 2008 and as far as I can they've never been a problem up until now ..... so instead of losing a potentially good editor why not focus our efforts on stopping them doing something that's caused so much controversy here ?, –Davey2010^Talk 22:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Benlisquare expresses both an understanding of how their images broke other policies, guidelines, and conventions—particularly with regards to harassment, Islamophobia, and sexualization of all stripes—a topic ban from AI images like that described above is actually a fine solution for the Commons, imo. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, Of course it should also go without saying but any <x>phobic comments or a repeat of this commentary should result in an immediate indef-block. I feel I should also state for the record that I certainly don't agree with nor condone any of their comments .... however IMHO that happened on EN not here and IMHO EN have dealt with that ..... As far as I'm aware no such comments have been made here (except possibly under the guise of images but I don't know as I never got to see the now-deleted images). –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock summary, unwarned punitive block for crap done on another wiki. A lot of the support comes from people who seem to want to aggressively and unilaterally create a chilling effect on “gratuitous vulgarity” instead of letting the community decide on a case-by-case basis as it’s always done. Dronebogus (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And while we’re here de-mop the admin responsible for this mess and de-mop Yann for supervoting with a ludicrous rationale. Dronebogus (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's never going to happen. You know that all admins are beyond any criticism, let alone recall. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

I have unblocked Benlisquare given the lack of support for sustaining the block as seen above. Discussion can continue below regarding any further action necessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@King of Hearts: Extremely bad call. Two admins and another user oppose this action with three supporting it—three who have expressed their views without an ounce of AGF. Really a bad move, KOH, and I hope you immediately rectify you error. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pbritti: I think there is a slight consensus to unblock, but even if there was no consensus either way, a unilateral indef block does not stick when there is no consensus to support the block. The way AN/U discussions are usually supposed to go is that people propose remedies and !vote on them, and then the decision is made whether to block - with no block being the default of course. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also support support the unblock despite I support deleting the files. But this problem has to be addressed in the deletion discussion and not with a block. A block would be justified if the user uploads similar files after the current files got deleted. We can and should never block someone for policy conform files. GPSLeo (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@King of Hearts, @Dronebogus and @Pbritti: I took action to protect Commons, the community's view was to unblock the user, I respect to the decision. Thank you to everyone involved. Kadı Message 05:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn’t actually call for an unblock above (and I hope Pbritti was not counting me among those who expressed their views without an ounce of AGF), but I do support it. Brianjd (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do find it rather ironic that Pbritti accuses three of us (whom didn’t support the indef block) of not AGF, yet they also didn’t AGF. I have to give some credit to Kadı who accepted the decision, though I think they could’ve handled the whole matter better but at least had AGF. Bidgee (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bidgee, Thanks for pointing out, the community sometimes opposes the decisions of admins, this is completely normal, new ideas are bringing different perspectives, so the community can have a chance to analyze deeply and make a consensus. This is very significant for me, I love the Commons' system about these issues. For example, in Turkish Wikipedia, we do not have policies which are about consensus in admin's decisions, so Commons is one step ahead of Turkish Wikipedia.

@King of Hearts, @Brianjd, @Dronebogus, @Pbritti, @GPSLeo: I would like to thank all of the opposers and supporters for their valuable comments. Kadı Message 14:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bidgee: I'd caution against accusations you can't back up, especially when you accused me of POV-pushing in a discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should clarify that I oppose a topic ban for the same reason I oppose a block: no one has clearly stated what the user has done wrong on Commons. And whatever the problem is, it isn’t their use of AI, so a topic ban on AI is particularly problematic. (This might be a moot point, though, as the user stated on their talk page that they have lost interest in AI generation.) Brianjd (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"And whatever the problem is, it isn’t their use of AI, so a topic ban on AI is particularly problematic." - Brian have you actually read the issues at EN and have you seen the AI imagery here ? ... because if you have then you'd know their use of AI is the reason why they're blocked at EN and the reason as to why they're here now ..... The whole AI thing is the root cause so your " it isn’t their use of AI" is utter nonsense.

Despite Ben apparently leaving AI behind IMHO they still should've been topic-banned from it .... nothing stops them pulling this stunt in 5-10 years time..... –Davey2010^Talk 20:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not worth trying to explain; Brianjd has been told repeatedly exactly what behavior on the Commons precipitated this block (to recap: creation of out-of-scope attack images and non-EDUSE "smut", uploading images that AI created that could be interpreted as child pornography due to the prompts). Benlisquare seems to understand the issues and has made improved statements of remorse, so at least there's that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You want someone blocked for files the user uploaded they are not even deleted? As you see in the new deletion discussion this is definitely no obvious and easy case. What are the deleted and reuploaded files you are talking about? I do not see such case here. --GPSLeo (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GPSLeo: Actually, a substantial number of the images in this discussion have been deleted; try checking the OP and clicking through the links as quite a few were so demonstrably in violation of policies and guidelines that they were almost immediately deleted. Never mentioned anything about "reuploading". ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pbritti Can we drop the child pornography thing, which has been thoroughly rebutted at the user’s enwiki talk page and received no support from anyone else here? Actual child pornography concerns should be dealt with by WMF legal, not here.

Commons:Deletion requests/Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare’s footer says: Because of the detailed description these files can have an educational value. That discussion was basically about copyright, not scope; it is far from clear that these files are out of scope. Brianjd (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, baselessly accusing people of creating or uploading child sexual abuse material should be an actionable offense. Dronebogus (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither of you engage in dialogue, deflecting and using personal attacks. Frankly unacceptable behavior from both of you, and I hope both of you don't comment on further discussions on this page as neither of you have demonstrated requisite knowledge nor ability to refrain from personal attacks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is “this user makes child porn” not a civility violation? Dronebogus (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davey2010 No, AI was merely a tool they used to create certain problematic kinds of images. If someone uploaded a bunch of harassing photos (and there was consensus that they were indeed harassing), we would deal with the harassment but we wouldn’t impose a topic ban on photography, whatever that means. Brianjd (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brianjd, Yes and the use of AI tools is what got them in this mess in the first place .... so surely banning them from the very thing that got them indeffed on EN and got them a thread here is a good start to resolving this ?,

Why wouldn't we or more importantly why shouldn't we impose a topic ban? - Again their use of AI has been the issue here so why would you not ban them from uploading AI imagery ?, People at EN routinely get banned from editing certain subjects because of issues .... so why would we not ban from uploading certain images that causes issues here ? .... It seems the most logical answer here.... –Davey2010^Talk 13:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure[edit]

This discussion seems to have run its course and is just a pointless hostility magnet. There’s no consensus for further sanctions and I don’t think they’re necessary given that Benlisquare acknowledged fault and stated he will no longer be making AI works. Recommend uninvolved admin closing. Dronebogus (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So Benlisquare is no longer indef banned from the project, but they're simply driven away from the field they're usefully working in and they're only permitted back on the basis that they "admit guilt" and that Commons editors are allowed to label them as a child pornographer? Well that's a result we can be proud of. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, just accept there’s a point at which you mitigate losses and fold ‘em. I think Commons should be less tolerant of casually chucking extremely inflammatory accusations like “child porn” at other editors but that’s a question for another thread. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically speaking, I don't think any formal sanctions have been imposed on Benlisquare. Nothing in this statement indicates that. It is not productive to make up a misrepresentation of the unblock statement but the closer of this section may this differently. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't King of Hearts' comments that I saw as so intimidating. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DB, didn't you recently have to clarify that in the nude pictures of Wikipetan that you drew and uploaded, she was an adult? I mean you got some guts defending the AI smut in this discussion. Yes, of course Ben should be TBANed from uploading AI-generated images. He used the AI to create smut and then uploaded it here and then tried to add them to Wikipedia under the guise of demonstrating AI. It's a more sophisticated method, but basically the same thing as drawing a nude picture of Wikipetan and uploading it. You guys are too much. Happy New Year! Levivich (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charming passive- aggression. You are now muted. Happy new year. Dronebogus (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. If it’s to humiliate me, the only purpose I can possibly see, it isn’t working. Dronebogus (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But while we’re playing the below-the-belt ad hominem game, wowee what’s this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1126914409 Dronebogus (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WTF is "Ben" ?

"Yes, of course Ben should be TBANed from uploading AI-generated images." OK, so you have two options here:

Pitch for a TBAN on Benlisquare. Find some policy-based reason for that, on a project that already has COM:NOTCENSORED, Wikipetan and a whole bunch of anime and similar artwork here already. Good luck with that one.
Pitch for a clarification of COM:SCOPE to exclude these. Then Benlisquare will obviously be in breach of it on any further uploads. But your chance of getting that through is probably worse. I understand your concern here, but the simple fact is that Commons seems to have accepted these as acceptable, rightly or wrongly. Neither of us are likely to change that. I'm not supporting it, but I'm nor am I going to see an editor hounded like this for breaching a "standard" that doesn't exist on the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I’m not mistaken our friend here is playing the “ew hentai” card. Or possibly the “cough pedo” card. Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you link the wrong diff? Anyway, my point is that it was wrong for Ben to use an AI to create sexualized images and upload them to Commons, just as it was wrong for you to draw a nude Wikipetan (and others) and upload them to Commons. I'm surprised to see you of all people defending this so ardently, it seems you haven't learned from your recent experience. Eww is right. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That isn’t remotely an argument. Dronebogus (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“It’s wrong because ew”? That’s the hill you’re gonna die on? No worse than naked wikipetan or “busty young girl” in your defense. Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are resorting to cheap point-and-laugh humiliation tactics in place of an argument. It’s just as pathetic as the behavior you’re attacking. Dronebogus (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

User:طاهور الدريبي[edit]

Uploading out-of-scope files after several warnings. Apparent sock of User:فهد احمد عبدالله * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Blocked for a week, and one sock blocked indef. Yann (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: They've come back as User:محمد الحمديه ‎ * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next sock: User:مسفر علواني. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass rollback on rather dubious grounds[edit]

It seems that a dispute between User:Davey2010 and User talk:86.152.177.188 has lead Davey2010 mass rollbacking all the IP's edits.

Problem is is that practically all of these reverted edits I've looked at are entirely valid, and this just seems to be a dispute over Davey2010 not wanting others to edit images in their tracking categories, and unless there's something I'm not seeing here, this really isn't an appropriate use of the rollback tool - what's important here is that the images get categorised, not which individual user categorises them. Equally, I don't think Davey2010's comments on the IP's talk page are especially suitable either. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 15:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My categories state "<bus model> - Please don't categorise these images" ... so which part of "Please don't categorise these images" is hard to understand ?, If you choose to repeatedly ignore my requests to leave my categories be then you will be reverted, The polite message and the warnings thereafter are all appropriate - The IP ignored me so I warned them accordingly.

Am I the only person that finds it slightly strange that a user who hasn't edited since 22 November suddenly appears here filing this ANU thread, Very strange behaviour, If I didn't know any better I would say Alex and 86 are the exact same person .... but I'm sure Mr Noble knows all about VPNs and spoof agent softwares by now. –Davey2010^Talk 18:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"My categories"

Why would COM:OWN not apply to this?

What is wrong with the IP's edits such that they need to be bulk reverted? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I originally reverted because a few images were missing from my categories and then realised reverting wholesale may be a pointless task as they may not have removed the images in the first place (I'm convinced they have but being convinced and knowing are obviously 2 entirely different things),

Yes technically this is all Wikimedia's stuff - talkpages, categories etc are all theirs .... but if we're talking normally then I say "my" categories because I'm the one that created them and because they're under the prefix "Davey2010/" so in that respect I do consider them mine,

Anyway the IP was reverted 2-3 days ago and hasn't been reverted since (and aren't going to be). I don't really understand why Alex couldn't have spoken with me first, –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rollback tool is for reverting Vandalism - lets look at the two latest diffs on my watchlist Revision #719782226, and Revision #719782224.

Can you please explain how these are a suitable use of the rollback tool? You are as responsible for your edits when made in bulk as you are when making them individually.

Equally, do you consider this tone appropriate for a collaborative environment Last chance - you can either leave my images alone or you can be blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring, entirely up to you. COnsider this a final warning.

Ultimately, we're all hopefully here to create a store of useful, freely licensed media. I can see one user here who is helping to categorise these images, and one who is preventing it. I know who I'd rather have around. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 11:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction: I AM categorising the images .... just in my own time ... It's the Christmas period Alex .... I am not going to spend the Christmas period categorising 700 odd images just to please you .... I spend enough time on here as it is (which isn't a bad thing at all as I love doing the work that I do however one very important point: we all deserve a break)

Anyway logically your comment makes no sense but either way if you don't want me around then leave Alex as I'm not going anywhere any time soon.

The tone of my message was polite. Your perception of things is a bit wonky Alex.

Imagine creating this thread and believing it's an actual productive use of your time!, I'm guessing Alex didn't get all of the presents or money they desired so lashed out with this pointless and boring thread ....

As explained further up I immediately realised reverting the IP wasn't the best idea and immediately stopped and haven't reverted the IP since so I don't really understand the purpose or the point to this thread as the reverts all happened 3-4 days ago, Anyway I wish you all a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 13:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want a category where no one is removing your files you have to create a personal hidden category like Category:Files by Davey2010/to do. But inside the regular category tree you can not forbid anyone removing or adding correct categories. GPSLeo (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1. --A.Savin 14:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Maybe it's my lack of understanding here but if I ask someone not to categorise images within my own personal categories then surely as a decent human being they should honour that request ?, As I explained to the IP I appreciated the help but I prefer doing things my way so surely as a decent person they should've said "Okay I'll let you deal with them" OR "Ungrateful sod, wont bother helping him in future" ..... The IP solely relies on Flickr to categorise these vehicles (which as I've explained to them before Flickr isn't always right) whereas I check with 2-3 different sites PER vehicle .... so as you can probably imagine my way takes 10x longer but my way means the images are 100% correct, I'm guessing the IP has come from a bus company category so even if I create it as a hidden category that'd still mess around with them anyway so I wouldn't win,

If you as a community would rather have 100s of vehicles all misidentified then I will begrudgingly move them all back to Category:Unidentified coaches in the United Kingdom and allow the IP to misidentify them or failing that the IP could leave my images alone and allow me to categorise them next year. –Davey2010^Talk 14:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There were some edits removing a personal category [3]. These edits are not okay and can become reverted. But most of the edits are not removing a personal category. If the IP misidentifies a vehicle you can of course undo the edit. GPSLeo (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This picture is titled "...Leyland Leopard with Plaxton Supreme IV...". Unless this description is wrong, this edit by Davey seems like vandalism and Rollback misuse in one to me. And there were several reverts like this. Regards --A.Savin 14:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GPS - At some point someone somewhere had removed a few images from the cats so I reverted the IP believing at that time it was them but then realised it may not have been hence why I immediately stopped and as I said I haven't reverted the IP since - Unfortunately I don't know where the images have gone and this is the precise reason why I maybe take a such strong dislike to people touching or meddling with my things as you lose track of everything,

A.Savin - Your comments are really not helpful, None of my edits were vandalism nor have I misused rollback - At the end of the day we have 2 editors who see and do things differently to one another - The best course of action here is for both of us to simply stay out of each others way - They help out at Cat:Unidenfied coaches.... and I help out with my own images,

To extend an olive branch - 86.152.177.188 as you like to predominately help with Plaxton images would you like to work on the Plaxton2 images?, I'll be honest I'd rather do it myself but providing you don't remove my categories then maybe we can work something out ?, Maybe you could categorise them but leave my categories in place?, If you want to do that let me know here, Thanks,

–Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah the Plaxton2 category shouldn't even exist as they should all be at Category:Plaxton coaches (as I became confused with the Supremes and various other models) so 86.152.177.188 so you're more than welcome to work on those and remove the categories from those images only if you'd like ?, Does that sound like a fair deal?, –Davey2010^Talk 15:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So then, do you have any further explanation how this edit is okay, apart from the one that "[my] comments are really not helpful"? --A.Savin 15:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that was explained directly above A.Savin. I've now offered the IP an olive branch and hopefully for the time being a temporary resolution to this issue. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done - I've self-reverted on some of my edits - 26th "excess" reverts reverted and 20th Dec category reverts reverted - The IP has since been on and has since been undoing my reverts to those unrelated to the cats which I'm happy with, Just disappointed they cannot come here and chime in. –Davey2010^Talk 17:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jorge Alfonso zamora romero[edit]

Jorge Alfonso zamora romero (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user copyviolated a lot. Lemonaka (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Final warning sent. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SinghIsFxing[edit]

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#SinghIsFxing, which was archived just now. I have nothing to discuss about this user, but note that their user page still has this notice:

This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Lord Alan B'stard.

Please refer to logs and contribs for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

There is no evidence to be found in the provided links, so what is the actual evidence for this notice (Is it acceptable to simply evidence from another project?) and why isn’t that evidence described at the notice? Brianjd (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was added, and re-added after reversion, by Yann. Who has continued to make disparaging comments that they're a sock, whilst complaining that they're making disparaging comments. SinghIsFxing, and other editors, clarified that the supposed "disparaging comment" is a common English language idiom, but as Yann speaks English "at a near-native level" they surely cannot be wrong.

Lord_Alan_B'stard (talk · contribs) has not edited on Commons. I look forward to Yann's explanation as to how a Commons editor is "sockpuppeting" for an account that has no edits here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second opinion on unblock request of User:Kazimier Lachnovič[edit]

The recently blocked User:Kazimier Lachnovič started an unblock request. I asked some questions and think there is a real will on constructive contribution. So I would suggest to unblock the user and give a second chance. But I would remove the filemover rights. Are there opinions against the unblock? Ping @A.Savin: as blocking admin. GPSLeo (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I keep this link at my homepage since March 2021, so I have doubts that the user is capable of contributing constructively. However, if the result of this discussion is that they get unblocked, it must be made absolutely clear to them that their behavior on Commons was not acceptable in the past and must not be repeated. (Much of their contribution is moving their own uploads, so I am not sure removing the filemover is a good idea). Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ALDELONEPÍPOL appears to be an SPA uploading bizarre and offensive imagery without obvious reasoning[edit]

ALDELONEPÍPOL (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Their fist and only upload was an AI generated artwork depicting Joe Biden with a scantily clad clearly underage girl in w:lolicon style. I can’t think of any reason to upload such a thing beyond defamation and/or pure vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done File deleted, user warned. Yann (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user:Davey2010 continuing to make uncivil remarks after trying to resolve dispute peacefully[edit]

Open-and-shut case, nothing to do here. Dronebogus (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I traded blows with this user, quickly regretted it, tried to admit fault, and the user is continuing to attack me. Dronebogus (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dronebogus, I apologise for my comments towards you at the DR and I appreciate your comment on my talkpage as well as you removing that entire section at the DR. I simply don't appreciate my comments being called "nonsensical" - No matter how daft someones comment is calling it nonsensical doesn't help anyone, Anyway I apologise for what I had said. Have a great 2023. –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose any administrative actions. Davey2010 has apologised for their remarks; coming back to this in circles isn't going to do any help. Best to just move on. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we can just close this as open and shut then. Dronebogus (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

User Datopaduka[edit]

Datopaduka (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is uploading numerous photos of political personalities claiming they are his own works. This is unlikely since they looks like official portraits and they do not have META data to prove the uploader is the source. I have already warned him and flagged some of those photos for deletion but they are too numerous. All photos from this user without META should be deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Olusola David, Ayibiowu[edit]

I've opened a DR for some files of user:Olusola David, Ayibiowu because they're IMHO out of scope, self promotion and spam. What I received were comments as follows: "User:Ganímedes. It's just evil and wicked. Trying to take power in his own hand." "This Volunteer Response Team who selected all this files for Deletion request is irresponsible, selfish, authoritarian volunteers who handle queries for his own personal interest,gain and self reputation.Who is sarcarstically and mentally disturbed and not qualify to be among the Volunteers Response Team on Wikimedia Commons", and a long list of etc. Ganímedes (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Massive image deletion requests by user A1Cafel[edit]

I am extremely concerned about the large number of images that are being sent for deletion by user @A1Cafel: . While some of the deletion requests are completely valid and justified, many others seem to be using invalid arguments or simply lying (say that those sculptures remain in a refrigerator) in order to have the images removed. This is concerning to me because it appears that the user is attempting to use the low threshold of legality or technicalities to their advantage.

I believe that the user exhibits a typical pattern of a deletionist, someone who actively seeks to delete content without proper justification. This behavior is harmful to the integrity and reliability of Wikimedia Commons and should be stopped. It is important that all users adhere to our guidelines and policies, and that any requests for deletion are thoroughly evaluated before being acted upon.

I urge the relevant sysops to investigate this matter and take appropriate action to address this issue. We cannot allow users to abuse the system and undermine the trust of our community. Wilfredor (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally disagree with your statement. I didn't lie on anything, and I didn't abuse the system. The FOP issue of the ice sculpture is properly discussed at the VP discussion. You simply denied them and blamed me for acting as an deletionist. I understand that your are frustrated because your valued image was being nominated for deletion, but copyright is copyright. There are lots of nice and beautiful images are being deleted due to copyright issue. Similar cases like this was ended up deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I have not taken the time to evaluate their recent behavior, but will note for the record that they were topic-banned in August 2021 from all deletion processes and unbanned in August 2022 from DR (leaving in place the ban on speedy tagging). Disclaimer: I supported both actions. @Wilfredor: Could you provide some more examples from the last few months? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I don't see any instance of lying. I empathise with Wilfredor but I believe FOP applies here and it cannot be kept. The biggest problem with A1Cafel is how often they are right in instances like this Gbawden (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A1Cafel is sometimes right, but they are wrong in the case of ice sculptures. Yann (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]