Adolphus79

w:User talk:Adolphus79

Please remain calm and collegial

---

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 keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

--Bedivere (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you really delete my comment? How very uncivil... it was not a personal attack, nor was it disruptive, are you just afraid of the word "bullshit"? - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely inappropriate. You should know better. Calling the absence of admin action bullshit is inappropriate. Bedivere (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Being ignored by Oversight for 4 months, and then the closing admin not taking into account the discussion? That is the very definition of bullshit! Your lack of good faith is inappropriate, deleting a comment as a "personal attack", making a personal attack against me ("probably copyvio"), then deleting my response calling you out for lack of Good Faith? This place is a joke, and you are a poor excuse for an admin... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now removed your bad faith personal attack also... thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If you think that calling an admin's action bullshit, then trying to persuade me to think otherwise while claiming that calling the grandmother comic you uploaded in place of the weapon pictured in the image you wanted delete is "bad faith", then trying to remove the reasoning I had to delete the image just after it was decided to be kept, and calling me "a poor excuse for an admin", is not inappropriate behavior, I don't know what it is. I have blocked you three days for edit warring and inappropriate behavior. Bedivere (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

File:RUK-9BT.jpg

File:RUK-9BT.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Bedivere (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, at least its gone now... thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the original image was replaced with a composition including this copyrighted artwork. Not only it was a copyright violation but also it was replacing a completely different image, thus could be considered as vandalism. Since the image was apparently oversighted (it cannot be retrieved) the only solution was to delete the replacement image as the original was unavailable. Bedivere (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your link only goes to the front page of a website that says "Free PNG Image Library"? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

should work now. Bedivere (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That says "Free download" and "This PNG image is high resolution and very popular on the public internet. You can download it for free and use it for personal non-commercial use."? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you telling me this image isn't even a copyvio?!?!? The old lady is public domain?!?!? You are providing a link to download a free piece of artwork, with the text of your link being "this copyrighted artwork", as proof that it was a copyvio? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• You can download it for free and use it for personal non-commercial use" - not allowed on Commons. And you used it to overwrite a photo that had nothing to do with it.

Bedivere (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That means.... when you blocked me... all you really had me for was one single edit of openly admitted vandalism, uploading this free piece of artwork over the other image (which you deleted instead of reverting the change)... one single use of the word "bullshit" on AN (which you also revdel'd for some reason instead of just reverting)... and me calling your actions "bullshit" on my talk page (for which my talk page rights were removed)? I wanna talk to your manager... right now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

--Bedivere (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You restore your bad faith comments (after the case was closed), and then block me so I can't respond? now THAT is bullshit... lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked your talk page access as a result of your continued problematic behavior. --Bedivere (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Resorting to IPs to continue your personal attacks will not help your cause. Also, this is completely untrue. I was not even involved in the deletion request in the first place. Things escalated really fast because you neglected the opportunity to acknowledge your error and apologize for it. It is truly a sad situation that such a long-term user, nearly 16 years an user, came and did this. I hope that you come back and contribute positively, but this preventative block will keep you away for some time. Bedivere (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

i aussure you i am jus a lta editor causing harm and the ip adresses and unrelated to this user. ccheckuser me you 174.206.160.162 19:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Bedivere, I have been asked to look into this. I would appreciate it if you would cite the IP comment you reference above -- I will run a CU and see if, in fact, it was made by Adolphus79. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jameslwoodward. Thanks for looking into this. The IPs I was referring to are the last two in this talk page's history Bedivere (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Adolphus. I just wanted to let you know that I've lifted the indefinite block imposed on you. I may have overreacted on the attacks made on your talk page and incorrectly assumed it was you. My apologies for that. That said, the point of the original block stands still. You should not be calling others' actions (be them admins or other users) bullshit. You insisted on these remarks in this talk page. I would like to ask you not to incur in such behavior again, as it is unacceptable. Have a good day. --Bedivere (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how, per COM:No personal attacks (what I know well as Wikipedia:No personal attacks on enwiki), my statement "This is bullshit, thanks for nothing", regarding being ignored by Oversight for 4 months followed by what to me seemed like a failed DR, is a personal attack? I did not ping or mention any users, I did not say "your actions are bullshit" (which still isn't a personal attack, even if I had said it), I did not say anything about any user at all. Even my later comment that you are a "sad excuse for an admin" was not a personal attack, it was a comment based on your actions and behavior. If nothing, I still stand by those words after my experience with you, I've had much worse said to me by school-aged IP vandals that only thought I was an admin!

Next, please explain, per Edit war (what I know well as Wikipedia:Edit warring on enwiki, which explains it in much better detail), when I came even close to warring? I commented on your bad faith comments about me on a closed case. When you reverted my comment calling you out with the edit summary "request closed", I then reverted your negative comments also, with the edit summary ""This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. "... please refrain from personal attacks...". I did not reinstate my comment, I did not revert your revert. This was not an edit war.

Finally, please explain how, per COM:blocking policy, either of these actions deserved being blocked without proper warnings? The lede of that page clearly states "blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one; "cool-down" blocks are not condoned", whereas, instead of wanting to discuss it with me or the uninvolved IP editor, you decided to delete our comments and block us. In the Instructions for Administrators section, it says "For blocks based on disruptive behaviour, such as vandalism, repeated copyright violations and manual promotional activities, ensure that the user has been appropriately warned, preferably using a block warning template", I received NO warning for the alleged edit war, and was given no real reasoning for the alleged personal attack, other than "that's inappropriate, you should know better" (paraphrased for summary). Then, once you blocked me, I tried to discuss your bad faith actions here on my talk page and was immediately blocked from my talk page without you even trying to discuss this with me (see above). After which, you immediately make another bad faith comment about me on AN ("I think it is obvious they are here not to help. Sad coming from an user who has been around for 16 years"), knowing full well you had not even tried to discuss the situation with me, knowing full well you had just blocked my talk page access so I could not post an unblock template or try to discuss it.

- Adolphus79 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think everything I had to say has been already said. The whole point of the block still stands. I have apologized for revoking your talk page access as I was mistaken these IPs were you. Bedivere (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You blocked talk page access before the IP even showed up, after the IP, you extended my block indef without evidence. Are you refusing to discuss your bad faith actions towards me, or be held accountable for your use of the administrator tools? How is anyone to know that you understand the policies you are enforcing? Can you please point me in the direction of whatever Commons has in place of Arbitration? Maybe @Jameslwoodward could opine or mediate this, please? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

So you pretend everyone to disregard your uncivil remarks? "what bullshit, thanks for nothing", "what bullshit...", "bullshit..." "This place is a joke, and you are a poor excuse for an admin" "You restore your bad faith comments (after the case was closed), and then block me so I can't respond? now THAT is bullshit... lol". I did revoke your talk page access as you continued to use uncivil words such as "bullshit" despite the block for three days. It was not intended to be an indefinite block. The IPs' vandalism led me to change it to an indefinite block, which was unfortunate, that is why I lifted it. It's been over three days after the original block so it was due anyway, now that it was clear there was apparently no such multiple accounts abuse. You attempted to start an edit war by removing my comment to the closing comment of that deletion request, only to clarify the file was deleted soon after closing because it was apparently oversighted (can't see the logs); defaced the file description and you replaced it with an apparent copyright violation, a granny, saying it is a "better image". Please do understand that your actions led to that three-day block, not my bad faith or personal vendetta. We never even had previous interaction so you can't be serious about that. This is my final comment. Have a good day. Bedivere (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

So, you are admitting that this was a punitive block for me "attempting to start and edit war" by making one edit? At this point, I'm just concerned about how many other new users you may have railroaded like this in the last 4 months, blocking users without appropriately warning them, or even bothering to read the policies you claim to be enforcing. And the fact that you refuse to even discuss it with me now makes me worry about what you might do with the tools in the future. Therefore, I would like others to review your actions also. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a preventative block because you did not stop to issue uncivil remarks after I warned you. In fact you continued to reiterate them after you were blocked, resulting in revoking your talk page access. You can do as you please. My actions against you were not unfounded and I totally stand by them, except for the indefinite block for which I've apologized already. Bedivere (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You have yet to explain, per the Commons:blocking policy, what I did that deserved a block without proper warning or discussion? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You did receive two warnings, one for the uncivil remarks and another for the copyright violation that you uploaded as a replacement of the controversial file you wanted deleted. The blocking policy includes a number of motives/reasons for blocking but these are not taxative and I already explained them in depth, both in the actual block log and here. I am not sure what else do you want and you've been given all the responses you needed to have from me. Bedivere (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The block log doesn't say anything about copyvio, only "Intimidation/harassment: Inappropriate behavior", no mention of a policy at all. Where is the violation? What is the copyright status on the image I uploaded? Could you please post the diff of the personal attack? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind reading my replies and messages above?

I just read your friendly message on the Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard where you claim you were "blocked as a bad faith "cool-off" punitive action", that you "called out their [my] bad faith on my [your] talk page" you were "then blocked from editing it also without appropriate warnings". Your talk page, which includes the warnings and my comments, and your own comments, say otherwise.

I hope you have a good day. Bedivere (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

(Undent):You didn't just now read that, you commented on that edit as soon as it happened. I'm not sure why you are surprised by that post though, you had just blocked a veteran editor with 18 years of good standing from editing their talk page, literally 3 minutes, and one edit from me, after blocking me. You gave no warning that you were going to block me from my talk page, you did not have email activated, Oversight had been ignoring my emails for 4 months, and Commons doesn't have Arbitration, so I left a message at the one place I know to leave messages about disputes. Again, I am waiting for the diff of the personal attack that you claim started all of this? Or the copyright information on the image that I uploaded? Or quotes from any policy or documentation that says you can block a user from their talk page without warning for questioning your actions? Or any actual policy that I broke? What kind of administrator is unwilling to quote the specific policy they used to block an editor? Why can you not even answer one question with a straight answer? Are the standards for RfA here really that low, that an admin doesn't even need to show that they know the policies they are enforcing? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Both of you, please, please, just drop it and don't interact any more. Neither of you comes out of this very well and I see no point in continued discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I am genuinely concerned about this admin's continued use of the tools if they are unable to show they understand the policies they are supposed to be enforcing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you hire a Police Officer without checking to make sure they understand the laws they are enforcing? Do you hire a teacher without checking to know they understand the subjects they are supposed to be teaching? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, drop it. You both made mistakes here. All of Commons, including being an Admin, is a continuous learning experience. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)