Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

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

User:Assifbus

[edit]

This user uploaded a [sfw] image of what they claimed was a fetishistic sex toy molded from a child’s body. They later tried to walk back on their claims and said they weren’t sure it was based on a real child and bought it for non-prurient reasons but it’s incredibly disturbing that they would mention such things in the first place. Now I might’ve (barely) let this slide as the behavior of a well-meaning eccentric who doesn’t speak good English but they have been blocked on three other wikis for disruption. I don’t think their unremarkable positive contributions justify tolerance of a known problem user who uploads appalling content that severely harms the reputation of Commons. Dronebogus (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the most passive precaution must be to put this user on our watchlist. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 15:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lalchhanhima hmar Zote

[edit]

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

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

Sock trying to avoid block, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Duhzuala.Jonteemil (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Both indef blocked. Bedivere (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please also block Lalchhanhima zote hmar as yet another sock. Jonteemil (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now also Malsawmdawngzeli. Jonteemil (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:JopkeB

[edit]

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

This user frequently submits the Categories for discussion (COM:CFD), but he/she seems mistakenly think that CFDs are the place for one-sided self-assertion and deletion games, and seems severely lack the efforts for sincear discussion. Even if answers are given to his/her initial questions, he/she almost always ignoring it, and repeats the same assertions and the same questions over and over again, exhausting the discussion and ultimately trying to only pass his/her own assertions. We believe that the current situation, in which a person with problematic discussion skills frequently submit COM:CFD and try to ignore dialog, is a hindrance to the autonomy of the community, so it requires appropriate guidance.

Case 1. Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/07/Category:Market exploration shops
Discussion about the purpose of the category and the addition of short description. Even the answer with reliable source and its English translation are given in intial phase, he/she didn't want to accept it, and prolonged the discussion by repeating baseless fantasies.

Case 2: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Services (economics)
Based on the lesson learned from avobe Case 1, I asked this user if he/she would carefully read the other user's answer and discuss the issue in good faith, because it is an etiquette expected of everyone taking part in the discussion. However he/she avoid to respond to it, instead he/she posted his/her grievances on my talk page.

Case 3: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Event spaces (venues)
Newest case in this week. While we were discussing the needs of a category without restriction of place as an extension of an existing category (limited to buildings/facilities), this user made false statements as if he/she have already discussed it on the RfD on the above existing category, and repeate the same assertion and the same question repeatedly to a question that has already been answered. In my eyes, he/she has not enough skills to discuss with other users.

I know the above discussion style is popular with some in Generation Z, but I've already been experiencing that type of argument destruction for about 30 years and am long tired of it, so I don't want to deal with this type of time wasting.　--Clusternote (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with asking for a description of what a Commons category should include? I don't think it was clear at the start of the discussion for any of the above three? Ideally, when creating a new category, you would have taken care of that. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's important to provide definitions and rationales when creating categories. I prefer to provide reliable sources and relevant Wikipedia articles as evidence in this regard, and take other measures when that isn't possible. --Clusternote (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Clusternote, but CfD is precisely the place to discuss a category, and it is entirely correct to bring a category to CfD if its scope is unclear. I'd consider JopkeB to be among (at most) the few dozen best contributors to Commons in capacities other than just taking and uploading pictures. You are basically asking us to censure someone for doing things right and improving Commons. And as for your generational remark, I was born in 1954. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Media archives such as Wikimedia Commons tend to be folksonomy-oriented, and the resulting cluttered categories need to be organized; and on Wikimedia Commons where the community consensuses are respected, debates are inevitable. However, his/her argumentative skills, in which he/she ignores other user's opinions and pushes his own argument, are incompatible with a folksonomy-driven culture, and it may cause of hindrance to further development of Wikimedia Commons. His/her habit of strong-arming others and never admitting to errors in judgment as a result of his/her disregard for others' opinions needs to be corrected. The habit of ignoring the opinions of others, persistently pushing own-opinions, and never admitting the error on own opinions, are wrong, and needs to be corrected. --Clusternote (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add, I cannot recall ever seeing an uncivil comment from JopkeB, in which respect they are probably better at this than I am myself, and I don't think my conduct is usually seen as problematic. If you have an example of such a comment, please provide the appropriate diff. (Also, I literally don't know anyone who is more careful to try to spell out an apparent consensus before presuming one exists.)- Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Cases 1-3 above, already I've provided specific examples of his problematic behavior. If you requested the detailed line-by-line diffs of problematic post, I will presented it short after. --Clusternote (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Case 1:
Just before this post, I've post a reliable source and summary, and the initial problem had been resolved. However, he/she did not understand its importance, and repeatedly proposed definitions that contradicted the sources, prolonging the discussion.
Case 2:
In the above Case 1, his/her problematic behaviour became clear (Ignoring or not understanding other users' posts, and persistently pushing clearly incorrect opinion), so I tried to confirm that he/she would observe the general etiquette of discussion that is required for all discussion participants in general, before the discussion.
He/she ignored the above confirmation without realizing that he/she had no choice but to answer Yes, and exploded with frustration on the my talk page.
In general, it is impossible to debate with users who disregard the minimum etiquette of discussion.
Case 3 will be post later, because it will be slightly long. --Clusternote (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problems with the discussion style of JopkeB in these examples. The suggetion to shorten the description in Case 1 is a valid suggestion, whether you like it or not. Your suggestion for the description certainly works, but this doesn't mean it can't be improved upon and the best time to try and improve it is during these kind of discussions. In Case 2 I only see a normal suggestion to discuss and possibly merge categories, to which you respond with a borderline civil question - which leads to JopkeB asking you very civilly on your talkpage to explain in more detail what behavior of them you find problematic. Again, your description of his valid question as "explodes with frustration" could be called uncivil, if anything. Kritzolina (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Clusternote: I don't have an issue with JopkeB in general, nor in the CfD to which you pointed. They may lack perfection, though don't we all.

The category descriptions should be as short as reasonably possible, and I would point you to those at Wikidata for items. If you want to get into a long detailed discussion and explainer, then put it onto the talk page of the category and point to it. References would belong on the talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked by this accusation. I am not aware of any harm. Thanks a lot, @Jmabel, Enhancing999, Kritzolina, and Billinghurst: for standing up for me and for the compliments. I couldn't have done my own defense any better.
For me only some personal remarks remain:

  • I was born several decades before Generation Z. But even if a person who is part of this generation (or any other) has a discussion style someone else does not like, then we have to deal with that style. Unless the person is showing improper/uncivil behavior (like name-calling, discrimination, intimidation, making negative remarks about a person instead of talking about the content), everybody may discuss the way (s)he likes. If you do not agree with a statement, summary, conclusion or proposal, just say so and make a better one or propose a correction.
  • I prefer to be referred to as she/her.

--JopkeB (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a normal community, general discussion etiquette requires participants to (1) read and understand the opinions of others, and (2) respond to them in good faith. This is a confirmation of the basic rules of discussion, so agreeing with them is the starting point of the discussion. Conversely, if a user could not agree with them, then that user was considered unfit to be a discussion participant in general. However, this seems to be not the case here at Wikimedia Commons. In Case 3, there is a breach of etiquette in which the answer to the question is ignored and the same question is asked repeatedly, but for some reason this is not considered a problem here at Wikimedia Commons. It is as if some mysterious implicit discussion rule is being applied.

As ordinary people, we base our lives on the general society, not on the internet society where we are constantly fighting, so we dislike being bothered by discussions with unusual discussion rules. I have already seen this kind of problem in several Wikipedia Projects in several languages, which caused me to abandon these projects. On the other hand, I had thought that tha fact Wikimedia Commons has fewer such disadvantages is a great virtue, but this assumption seems to have already collapsed. This is a very unfortunate situation. --Clusternote (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get your problem. Yes, reading and understanding and then responding in good faith is a basis for civil discussions here and elsewhere. But where exactly do you see a breach of that? Can you give a difflink? Also ... if you saw this kind of problems on several other projects ... did you ever try and work on your end of the communications? Kritzolina (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:El Luchadorio

[edit]

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

User uploaded numerous insignias of Ukrainian cities. All of the files were licensed as Russian official insignias. In some cases, El Luchadorio named files improperly, so there is no clear indication that images depict insignias under Russian military occupation. Those can be mistakenly used as Ukrainian insignias. In other cases, images depict official Ukrainian insignias with no clear explanation of how those became Russian insignias. For example, today user uploaded file, which duplicates original Ukrainian flag, and now Ukrainian government website listed as a source for Russian official insignia. User also tried to replace license template for already existing files. Yesterday I talked to user about the issue, but new upload indicates that problem remains. Siradan (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll change the license. El Luchadorio (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is fixed. El Luchadorio (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But now File:Flag of Selidovo.svg duplicates original file File:Флаг Селидово.svg. Moreover, I checked the source, which you enlisted for your file, and it depicts a different flag. Siradan (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you did no changes for files like File:Flag of Soledar.svg Siradan (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Soledar flag is not used in articles. OK, I'll rewrite the selidovo flag, according to the source. El Luchadorio (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if uploaded files are used anywhere at the moment. As long as files remain on the platform, descriptions (especially licenses) must be correct. Siradan (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OperationSakura6144

[edit]

Noting for fellow administrators that I have flagged for the third time to the user OperationSakura6144 that their actions in requesting speedy deletion of redirects and unexact duplicates is out of scope. This person does not engage in questions or seeking assistance. I have two options if they continue, either to block, or to inhibit their use of certain templates. This is among either category moves that seem occasionally to occur without community consultation. FYI @Túrelio: who has been servicing some of this user's requests.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a longer block than their previous ones Bedivere (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dronebogus

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I really should have shut this down yesterday because it was turning petty fast, but by now it's very clear than no productive further conversation is going to happen.
  • Just Step Sideways, "Commons is not a personal fap stash." was deliberately confrontational. You didn't need to phrase it that way to communicate that you thought the image was out of scope. You don't get to act surprised that someone you already have history with (by your own admission) got upset that you deliberately provoked them.
  • Dronebogus, combining nominations generally isn't an issue, though it's also generally of questionable value. A note linking related discussions achieves the same effect. However, considering that this is someone you've had disputes with, it probably wasn't a good idea.
  • I strongly suggest the two of you stop interacting. Just Step Sideways, there are plenty of other people (myself sometimes included) that nominate low-quality pornographic illustrations for deletion. The project won't suffer for you not nominating Dronebogus's uploads. Dronebogus, there are plenty of other people (myself sometimes included) that defend pornographic images on DR when they're within scope. The project won't suffer for you not contesting Just Step Sideway's nominations. I would be more than happy to put forth a formal interaction ban if either of you request, and I would also be more than happy to block either of you if you continue sniping at each other, but I hope that all of that is unnecessary.
  • Finally, Just Step Sideway, I saw your user page message and I have to say that considering your behavior in this thread (which is, as best as I can recall, the only time I've ever heard of you), I suspect that the way you conduct yourself is at least 51% of why you encounter hostility on this project.


The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


So, we have a bit of history here, in that this is not the first time I have nominated poorly made cartoon porn either created or uploaded by this user for deletion Last time it was all deleted and I had hoped they wouldn't do it again, but it turned out they have been. That really neither here nor there, just some background. Today I nominated some more recent items, and I made a deliberate decision to nominate them individually, so each would be discussed on its own merits. Dronebogus decided to override me and retroactively bundle them all together on discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sanny and Tess orgasming 2.png. Is that ok? It feels to me like it is not ok. Just Step Sideways (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to point out one of the files they nominated is COM:INUSE on two sites, as well as their deliberately obnoxious response to a serious inquiry I made about off-wiki canvassing. Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user also enjoys being gratuitously rude and combative towards me in general: here and here (if you’re unaware their original username was Beeblebrox) Dronebogus (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I bundled them was because the original rationales were identical and the files were mostly the same. This is a situation that would typically result in a bundle nomination. Given the overall sloppiness of the request (see the aforementioned rudeness and INUSE violation) I viewed this as lack of concern and/or familiarity with procedure. I did not bundle two nominated files (the discussed file and another that had previously been nominated) because they were distinct cases from the rest, refuting JSS’s claim I’m trying to “derail” the nomination with the in-use file. I am more than willing to revert my decision if it was incorrect but I do not think it was unreasonable in light of the above circumstances. Dronebogus (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it may be noted that Just Step Sideways announced he was opening his deletion requests in a Wikipediocracy thread expressly dedicated to catty whining about Dronebogus, which may go some way to explaining the bizarrely vituperative tone of his contributions to it. I have no opinion in re the drawings of pink-haired anime girls with big schlongs that said DR was created for, and my comments here are not intended to be construed as any endorsement or condemnation thereof.
I think it is somewhat disruptive of Dronebogus to close DRs for his own images, and the hentai he uploads seems like it is often out of scope, but it seems to me like it is also somewhat disruptive to follow someone around and needle them with snitty comments for months and months, so it would be nice if they could simply learn to live in harmony JPxG (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it won’t make it happen Dronebogus (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose JSS is indefinitely blocked from Commons for off and on-wiki harassment and off-wiki canvassing, and I’ll accept a formal topic ban from closing involved deletion discussions or merging deletion discussions in general. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it’s also worth mentioning the timing of this DR, during an ongoing (as of this post) thread where I made numerous extremely critical remarks about Wikipediocracy. Dronebogus (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You want me banned because I don't think Commons should host shitty cartoon porn? This is not about your remarks at en.wp and it is not about the WPO thread that JPxG wrongly characterizes above, it is about images here on Commons and nothing else. Just Step Sideways (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me if I don’t believe anything you claim about WPO, especially since on your talk page you deliberately avoided mentioning that, yes, this was brought up on WPO. Dronebogus (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never stoop so low as to accuse a distinguished user as yourself of canvassing or harassment: just of being bizarrely vituperative and following Dronebogus around to needle him about stuff with pointlessly personal comments. I did not explicitly accuse you of catty whining, merely of posting in a Wikipediocracy thread created for the purpose of doing so, but if you insist on being pedantic about it, then yes, I will explicitly accuse you of catty whining as well. Please correct me if this is an inaccurate summary of your post:
    I just nominated a bunch of the worst of his recent garbage for deletion.
    I will not reproduce the rest of your comment, which is a completely deranged Qanon-tier implication about Dronebogus's character (if you have any actual evidence of this being true, why the hell are you giggling about it on WPO instead of immediately reporting it to T&S?) JPxG (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume he’s calling me a pedophile or something? Dronebogus (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User:AshleyYakan

[edit]

Copyvio. Last photo was stolen from Associated Press--Trade (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 1 month by Bedivere. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthumormonger

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am indefinitely blocking the user for not being abel and not wanting to learn to follow Commons procedures for obtaining valid licenses for the pictures they upload in combination with a non-cooperative time consuming discussion style. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthumormonger: Part I

[edit]

Greetings, I tagged a few uploads by Lighthumormonger (talk · contribs) as "no permission" or copyright violations.

Unfortunately, LHM appears to be engaged in a deceptive practice of representing the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and misrepresenting Commons policies and copyright guidelines.

This email exchange was cited as a grant of permission from "Intuitive Machines, Inc." to grant a public domain license to Commons for a specific photo. It grants no such license.

The original author of the email claims to be an "administrator of the Wikipedia Editors Guild" and a blurb appears to disclaim direct affiliation with WMF, but nevertheless, the respondent appears to believe that the WEG is the WMF, or a part thereof.

The requests from the author of the email discourage any claim of ownership on the photo in question. This seems to be a serious misrepresentation of our licensing and permissions. Perhaps we may discourage watermarking, but this is a bridge too far.

Lighthumormonger is not, as far as I'm aware, a member of COM:VRT or anyone directly responsible for obtaining licenses for media on Commons. It's not clear why this was a private exchange and not sent to VRT as is required by Commons policies. This sort of "third party arrangement" is something that VRT doesn't permit.

Meanwhile, on Metawiki, I had some exchange with this editor about the alleged "WEG" and its presence. These questions were not answered to my satisfaction, but who am I to judge? Elizium23 (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to improve WP one edit at a time here. If Elizium23 would like to discuss any more with me about any of this, my Wikimedia user talk page is open to him for a 'mutually respectful' conversation anytime. Lighthumormonger (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current evidence and discussions here on Commons include:

  1. File talk:Odysseus-lander-at-30-degree-angle-on-moon.jpg
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lunar-south-pole--with-malapert-a-crater.jpg
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nasa--methalox-rocket-launch.jpg

Elizium23 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a little vendetta against me Elizium? You can delete whatever you want, and that's ok with me. I thought you told the Sysop over at Meta you didn't want any drama? Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing personal, mate, and I wouldn't describe this as "vendetta", but you do you.

You're an excessively polite and considerate writer and every communication you make exudes professional courtesy. Unfortunately for me, I scratched the surface of that façade and found only deception, falsifications and evasiveness. I've identified several situations where you've led people to believe the wrong thing, and these situations pertain to legal, copyright issues and issues that may concern the WMF themselves.

Unfortunately your case is difficult for most admins to correlate and track because you're spreading yourself across several wikis, and conducting off-wiki activities as well. I'm hoping to round up all the relevant evidence so that your case can be examined properly by someone with authority. So I'm just a middleman here.

Anyway, you asked me today to stay off your "user page" but since you're being evasive regarding exactly how to contact you, you'll need to clarify which pages you mean? Commons only? All your talk pages? Should I also avoid contacting your alleged "Wikipedia Editors Guild" email address at Yahoo? You've already pinged me against my express request to cease and desist (I thought I muted you, but it broke through anyway). If I want to delete more of your stuff in the future, you're cool with not knowing about that? Elizium23 (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, really, I hope y'all can understand my confusion, because you're directing me and others all over the place: your Commons talk page says you don't want to use it, and your User page on Meta says that your User talk page belongs to "The Wikipedia Editors Guild" and you're directing everyone else there. SO is that your personal page, or do you share it with other alleged WEG "admins"? You didn't want to discuss much on there, though, directing me to a seemingly personal freemail account: "light.humor(at)yahoo.com". Do you likewise share that account with the rest of your WEG buddies? I've got to admit that you designed a really cool official logo. It fooled the CEO of a space exploration company! Sadly, nobody is able to contact you at your parked domain "wikipediaeditorsguild.net". So how does one get ahold of you? Inquiring minds want to know. Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthumormonger: Part II

[edit]
Whatever. Please leave me alone. Delete whatever you want. I'm sure you will save the world from me. Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lighthumormonger: you are asking to be left alone, but you have not answered any of the substantive issues raised about possibly not obtaining adequate permissions for images, and about possible misrepresentation (remember that the name "Wikimedia" is trademarked). If there is something called the "Wikimedia Editors Group", and if the talk page on Meta that you apparently wish people to use in lieu of your talk page on Commons talks, frankly, rather mysteriously about that group, which it refers to in the first person plural.

You have stated that WMF is "aware" of this group, which implies that they are aware of you using their trademarked name. I, for one, find it very misleading for someone to create their own entity with "Wikimedia" in its name and tell outside parties that they are an "administrator" of that entity.

WMF is a large organization, with hundreds of employees, so it is unclear what you mean when you say that WMD is aware. At the very least, I'd like to see that clarified.

If you may be representing yourself in trying to obtain image licenses for Commons, or if you are misrepresenting that you have obtained a license that meets Commons' requirements when you have not, then that becomes legitimately a Commons issue. I suppose it is OK if you don't want further interaction with the person who raised the issue, but speaking as a Commons admin, the substance of this looks to me like at least a potentially real issue. - Jmabel ! talk 06:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did ping a couple reps from AffCom, including @Mehman (WMF), who responded to say that there was no record of WEG in his files, but also that WEG was not within scope of AffCom? So it's unsurprising that I contacted the wrong person again, and it doesn't prove that WMF is totally unaware of LHM and WEG, but Mehman, for his part, has disavowed awareness. It's also relevant for me to point out that LHM has a habit of tampering with talk pages and other people's comments, and has substantially edited what I put down on all those talk pages, and thus the contents and context of anyone's comments are not to be trusted without checking the revision histories. Thank you!
Elizium23 (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel, this guy has been following me around and pestering me for the last four days. I've grown tired of this. He has already taken it to the ANI board in the WikiMedia Meta section, and there he was told that they don't see an issue. He seems to be entirely fixated and obsessed in trying to cause me trouble. If you or anybody else here might like to discuss the copyright problems with me here in a reasonable fashion and not in an accusatory one, I would be happy to do so. This guy calls me the devil basically. I can't talk with him at all.
There is a certain quality of dialogue that Wales and Sanger defined as "Good Faith." I think that Jefferson and company defined it as "a presumption of innocence." I don't feel that Elizium has given any real chance for "Good Faith" to exist in our dialogue at all. He has continuously accused me of dishonesty of one form or another from start to finish. If you or somebody else here were willing to attempt to work with me starting with a presumption of innocence, I would certainly be quite happy to work with them.
I think that Elizium might do much better if he started off his dialogues with other editors based on a presumption of innocence, and not of guilt.
Thanks, Lighthumormonger (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "following you around" is an accurate description. Sadly, when a disruptive editor feels harrassed and stalked, it's because they're bouncing all around creating problems in various areas, and someone needs to track all that down.
I first noticed LHM adding rather brazen Original Research to enwiki articles, and I noticed that they're brand-new to the topic area and a rather new account, as well. Then when I dug into the WEG situation at Meta, I found their non-responses to be evasive and disingenuous, so that's when I looked into those Commons uploads and found the really crazy bullshit that transpired off-wiki. Ironically he's back here, asking me to take the discussion off-wiki where it can't be seen by anyone else. I have nothing to say to LHM that shouldn't be seen in public.
I asked Meta admins to intervene there, but I felt like it was a waste of my time trying to produce diffs that show what an exceedingly kind and polite troll he is, because there was no substantial disruption on that particular wiki.
I can be an easygoing guy and the best way to get along with me here is by accepting criticism, being honest, following policy, owning up to any mistakes. If LHM would head-on address the issues we're raising and show good faith, I wouldn't have a problem working with them. But I feel like all we're seeing are smoke screens and chaff defenses, so yeah, I've been tenacious about it. Elizium23 (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I declined the Meta request as there was nothing to from sysops (and for the reasons you mentioned). --SHB2000 (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so I guess I'm not the devil after all, I'm just a lowly "troll," thank you my friend for the 'promotion.' Surely I must be "innocent" now. Golly, gee, wiz! Please leave me alone. Off-wiki, On-wiki.... sometimes a truly meaningful conversation can only be held in true privacy. At least that's my belief. If you are afraid of true privacy Elizium, I apologize. What is it that you are afraid of that I might do to you in a private email conversation? Slip you a Mickey or something? Lighthumormonger (talk)   : - )   16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium, I have told you multiple times, if you ever truly wanted to get in touch with me, you can do it at the Yahoo address. The offer remains fully open to you (or to anyone else for that matter). I don't know if this is the right place for you to be "monologing with me," but if you ever really wanted to truly dialogue with me, I would certainly be happy to do so at that address. Thanks, Lighthumormonger (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: may I strongly suggest that at this point you bow out of this thread? You have raised your concerns to the admins. Repeating over and over what amounts to "I don't like or trust this user" does not in anyway strengthen the case you have made. In this section, all you have done is derail my attempt to communicate with Lighthumormonger, which is far from helpful. - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And with that, not having received answers, I will also not repeat myself and will bow out of this. I hope some other admin(s) will take this up. At this point, I feel my mind is made up, but on the basis of evidence that does not meet the standard usually expected here, so I should probably just withdraw from the matter. Consider this a recusal. - Jmabel ! talk 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthumormonger: Part III

[edit]

How about adressing the questions raised here in public, as they are of public interest? Kritzolina (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Hi Kritzolina, I feel that Elizium has given me a sort of "barrage" here of approximately 10 questions all at once, that I am apparently supposed to answer all at once. Which question do you want me to start with first? Lighthumormonger (talk)   : - )   18:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just start with an easy one for you ... and then do the next one, and so on ... there is no hurry, just stop throwing blame on others as long as you are not done answering. Kritzolina (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a very reasonable and fair "opening question." If you don't mind, I would very much prefer if Elizium could please submit a numbered list of carefully worded questions first, so his questions can be properly and fairly addressed. Currently his many questions seem to be all over the place and worded in many different ways. I think it's only fair to request that Elizium first submit a carefully worded and numbered list of questions here, so we might be better able to address his questions. Would that be OK?
Thanks, Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not ok, I do mind. You are doing things here on Commons that look at least very shady. Try to explain yourself and your Wikipedia Editor's guild. You could start with explaining what WMF knows about all this and who is your contact person there. Kritzolina (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as I told Elizium, who apparently did not believe me, we have been in contact with the WMF. Approximately one month ago we had an hour long conversation with Shaun Spalding, WMF Counsel. Mr. Spalding discussed the legality (or lack thereof) of the WEG. As best as he could determine, there was nothing illegal about it. I don't really like giving out names of WMF employees here, but if that's what you want we can do that. Lighthumormonger (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To better understand the WEG, I might suggest you review the page: My Meta Talk page. If after reviewing that page you may have any further questions about the WEG, I would be happy to answer them for you here. Lighthumormonger (talk)   : - )   19:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Commons admin: given the email linked above, particularly point 2 in the email, it seems that any uploads from WEG members (including Lighthumormonger) should be heavily scrutinised, and it seems reasonable that if WEG members continue to upload their upload privileges should be removed. COM:VRT is the appropriate process to obtain licence releases, not via third party emails. Commander Keane (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. Reading through this whole thing there's clearly something fishy going on here and it's totally inappropriate to get permission for us to host images through a private email. That's what COM:VRT is for. Their overall behavior should really be questioned, scrutinized, and dealt with on other projects along with it but that doesn't stop us from doing what we can to stop their actions on our end in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many problems with that email. A few:
  • Using the term "Administrator", which all Wikimedia users know has a significant meaning in Wikimedia. This is a huge misrepresentation. The general misrepresentation worked, with the person responding "The Wikipedia Editors Guild is responsible for infinite value to humanity, and I appreciate the work y'all do."
  • Other large gaps in Wikipedia and Commons policy
The above suggests that Lighthumormonger is not very familiar with Wikipedia or Commons policies and guidelines, certainly not enough to use the word "administrator", and is either mistakenly or maliciously misrepresenting themselves to the general public. Imagine how the person from Intuitive Machines feels, having provided a photo to an important sounding Wikipedia person, only to see it deleted (File:Odysseus-lander-at-30-degree-angle-on-moon.jpg). Is this something that Commons administrators can take action on? Consigned (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the WMF is quite capable of taking care of itself, and of making its own decisions. We will await instructions from them if we might have crossed any lines anywhere. Currently due to our work, the WMF was the first to legally release that IM photo to the public in a legally copyright free format. If you guys want to delete it, its on you. Lighthumormonger (talk)   : - )   04:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lighthumormonger: in my experience the WMF struggles with legal issues. We wait 6+ years for legal advice on software improvements, they do nothing when Wikimedia wikis violate terms of service (link), and now they are meant to deal with you? Anyhow, you said you would answer a list of questions, so:
  1. How many members does WEG have?
  2. What are their Wikimedia usernames?
  3. Which organisations have you sent letters to requesting photos?
  4. What are the corresponding uploads?
Commander Keane (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Spalding might be aware of the existence of the group and have no issue with its name (checking this is within the scope of his role), but I heavily doubt the copyright issue has been approved. I might just check with WMF legal ... but aside from it, copyright issues affect us as a communiy first and foremost and are not just a thing for WMF to deal with. Copyright violations on our project can not be tolerated. So please answer the questions of Commander Keane, so we can start to look deeper into the issue. Kritzolina (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kritzolina, you have my word at this point, if that's what you want. If you want this I will put it in writing right now "I Lighthumormonger, will personally never upload another image to Wikipedia/Wikimedia in my lifetime," if that is what you want. Is that what you want? There are no hard feelings here. I would be perfectly happy to make that statement if that is what you want. At this point, my performing any further image uploads here on my part, would probably no longer be very compatible with my current role at the WEG. So I'm perfectly happy to make that statement right now. Do you want me to? Lighthumormonger (talk)   : - ) 14:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Commander's questions:
  1. Right now we have only six members.
  2. The only two organizations that we have sent letters to are Spacex and Intuitive Machines. We never got a reply from Spacex. The letter to Spacex was simply a technical inquiry, and had nothing to do with images or copyrights.
  3. The only upload that we ever made using our own individually acquired "copyright permissions" was the "IM image" upload, The one that shows the Odysseus spacecraft on the Moon canted at a 30° angle.
  4. Due to the various forms of harassment that our editors might be subjected to at WP, just as I have been subjected to over the last five days at WP, we prefer to keep the names of our members as confidential information. This WEG policy is somewhat similar to how the WMF typically respects the confidentiality of its own editors as it might relate to other organizations outside of the WMF/WP. As I understand it, typically the WMF only engages individual members of its "editorship" with outside organizations, with the permission of those editors that they would like to have engage with other organizations outside of the WMF/WP.
Thank you for the good questions,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, we did write a letter to a sweet lady who had taken the photograph of F Lee Bailey's tombstone, and she gave us permission to use her photograph. I didn't include that letter above because she was not an "organization." Of course you can delete that image too if you want. Our purpose is not to make a name for ourselves but to help Wikipedia, but if you wish to delete both of our photos, have at it. Lighthumormonger (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being harassed as an editor at Wikipedia is no picnic. I will tell you that much. Dang! It really sssuuuucccc..., oh never mind. Lighthumormonger (talk)   : - )   15:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "IM Photo" which had its copyrights legally removed by the president of Intuitive Machines so that Wikipedia could use it, is still appearing in the article and is here. So if you guys want to delete this photograph because you didn't get it in before we did, it's up to you. If you want to disappoint the president of Intuitive Machines, to destroy Wikipedia's claim that it was the first to release that photo, and to bolix up the article, it's on you. Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthumormonger: Part IV

[edit]

Why do you want to go around the COM:VRT process? There are many independent groups contributing to the project but all these groups use the VRT to archive the permissions they obtained. GPSLeo (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review the link above that you have kindly provided to the VRT process and get back with you shortly. We are happy to work together with processes that are already in place, so long as we do not feel that such processes might be in some sense "overly restrictive."
In the years that I have edited at Wikipedia, I've always uploaded images while experiencing a certain level of trepidation because sometimes it seemed that about half the time images were rejected for reasons which seemed to make no sense at all to me. As a lowly editor, I did not question the reasons, but I always wondered about them. I just simply stopped uploading images at one point.
Now with all of the harassment that I have experienced in the commons area over the last few days, I think I might be starting to remember why I eventually stopped uploading images all together. Thanks for the good question GPSLeo. Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFTER PERUSING THE VRT PAGE: It never occurred to me to use the VRT system to submit an image. After remembering what they do over there at VRT, it does not look like they are really set up to routinely specialize in dealing directly with image copyright questions. Unless they were really set up for that, that just doesn't seem to make intuitive logical sense to me. Thanks for the good question GPSLeo. Lighthumormonger (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing that you edited Wikipedia for years and uploaded photos. Before February 2024 you only uploaded one photo. The other uploads are COM:OVERWRITE guideline violations on others works. That does not make sense. GPSLeo (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that Commons makes its own decisions, but I'd just note that Lighthumormonger has now been indef blocked on en.wp and meta, largely over concerns about this shady organization they claim to represent. Just Step Sideways (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Block on enwiki now upgraded to a checkuser block. Grandpallama (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is just semi-elaborate trolling. I think that is fairly obvious at this point but none of the admins seem to have reached the same conclusion. Just Step Sideways (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all! Sorry to pipe up again but it looks like the sock drawer has been thoroughly sniffed, except that I suspect that the IPv6 range 2601:642:C401:340::/64 (talk · contribs) may well belong to our man Scottperry (talk · contribs) here, because LHM fiddled with a user talk page here on Commons. Elizium23 (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Lighthumormonger is now also blocked on Meta. Make it three-in-a-row and get a G-lock; it will finally stop wasting multiple volunteers' time and energy across several WM sites andprevent him from just moving on elsewhere... Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support that. Nothing about their contributions anywhere seems constructive to the overall project. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Sounds like a case of en:WP:NOTHERE. Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Bidgee (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already requested a lock yesterday. They didn't do it, this was the explanation:"Declining report for now, there are two local blocks and are under discussion on Commons, yes, but they are still editing some wikis without local blocks, and as it was mentioned in the stewards' IRC channel, this is mostly a local issue at the moment that local communities are able to handle. I do understand the reasoning for locking and I think we can potentially consider a lock (or, better, a global block) here if, for example, they were blocked on another wiki or if there is any evidence of sockpuppetry, but since this is not the case at the moment I am declining."
So it does seem another local block might move the needle. [1] Just Step Sideways (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User Saadfghjkl998877665599

[edit]
✓ Done Blocked by Achim55. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amar67

[edit]

Uploads blatant advertisement files and when File:Silver's Product Ranges.png they reuploaded it to File:Group 1.png. Jonteemil (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked them as a spam-only account. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexismeshi

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I've indefinitely blocked Alexismeshi for legal threats and pointed them to the WMF contact page. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


User:Alexismeshi has been blocked on English Wikipedia and has had their user talk page access revoked. They've been attempting to continue their dispute at COM:HD#@Bbb23 & 331dot. Despite being advised by others that this is not really the best way to proceed, their latest post indicates they don't intend to stop. Their posts also imply legal action is being taken against two English Wikipedia administrators which is a violation of COM:NLT even if it's not related to Commons per se, and could also be construed as an attempt to create a "chilling effect" to discourage others from advising them of relevant English Wikipedia and Commons policies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let their Legal Department handle this. There may be a cultural issue here. Alexismeshi (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legal Department: I need the names and contact information for these administrators: @Bbb23 and @331dot You are more than welcome to post here-free information for all. Alexismeshi (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


MarchJuly

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I've indefinitely blocked Alexismeshi for legal threats and pointed them to the WMF contact page. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This user is attempting to censor my communication on this board and obstruct a legal process. Alexismeshi (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


Proposed interaction ban between Dronebogus and Just Step Sideways

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I’m going to go ahead and withdraw this. There are two reasons for that:
1. It’s clear that there’s not going to be a consensus for support. To a lot of folks, the lack of a formal IBAN policy is a dealbreaker, and for some, this isn’t a clear cut-enough case to be the site’s first IBAN.
2. Holy hell, there is so much arguing going on here. At this point, a substantive portion of the discussion by lines of text is folks sniping at each other. I blocked two people for conduct directly related to this thread, and there’s still sniping.
Ergo, I don’t think the project is served by leaving it open any longer.

Some closing statements:
1. @Dronebogus: your behavior in this thread and the DRs that led to it has been highly disruptive. I blocked you for a week for wikt:shit-stirring (some people have objected to that wording but no one has objected to the description), and it could have been longer. Consider this a final warning: if I see behavior like this again from you (arguing with everyone even over petty things, trying to draw more people into the arguments through talk page messages), the next block is going to be indefinite. You're very lucky that I missed you trying to get another user sanctioned on English Wikipedia (in part) for their comments here when I placed the original block.
2. @Just Step Sideways: as stated in the thread above, your word choice was overly confrontational. I hope you didn't start all this on purpose to entertain people on an external site, as has been alleged, but for anything short of death threats and doxxing (which would be handled at the Foundation level), I don't care what people do on other sites. There's no IBAN, but should you decide to nominate Dronebogus's content for deletion again, well... look at what happened this time and please moderate your word choice.
3. @Trade: the admins have eyes. You don't need to edit other posters's comments. If an admin thinks something is an issue, they will handle it. Especially in a thread like this that's already highly inflamed, that's just going to further fuel the fire. Please don't do it again.
4. Actually, "the admins have eyes" is a good reminder for everyone. You don't need to point out when people are coming into this discussion with few/no previous contributions. You don't need to point out IPs are probably users choosing not to sign in. You don't need to point out that he said or she said something in a thread that is already being heavily watched. It just makes the situation worse.
5. Accusations that someone is a pedophile or collects pedophile art, even when worded circuitously, are personal attacks. Considering the constellation of factors specific to this incident - A) the images are cartoon-style illustrations of characters of indeterminate age, B) the images are of people with both sets of genitals and accusing trans people of being pedophiles in order to try to chase them out of public spaces is a well known tactic, and C) there are credible accusations that there was off-site coordination at play - it is very difficult to assume good faith about the accusations.
6. I want to apologize for my part in starting this mess. I shouldn't have proposed an IBAN or started this thread. A strongly worded warning to the two initial parties to knock it off would, in hindsight, probably have achieved the same result without 5,000 words of back and forth.
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


In my closing of this Administrators' noticeboard thread, I asked the Just Step Sideways and Dronebogus to stop interacting with each other, and offered that I'd propose a formal interaction ban if either party asked, though I hoped it wouldn't be necessary. Dronebogus asked for the ban, so I'm proposing it here, even though Commons doesn't have a formal IBAN system.

Proposal 1 - Just Step Sideways and Dronebogus are under a two-way interaction ban. In addition to the examples in the linked page, they are explicitly not to nominate each other's uploads for deletion or comment in DRs started by each other. This ban is indefinite until repealed through a similar thread on this noticeboard.

I'm not sure if there's a better alternative; I'm open to suggestions as long as the sniping stops. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (Proposed interaction ban between Dronebogus and Just Step Sideways)

[edit]
  •  Support I am not a participant in this spat, but it has been pretty exhausting to watch. I will also, again, note to the closer of this that Elinruby and casualdejekyll are both posting in the Wikipediocracy thread, where fairly recently Beeblebrox posted a plea for backup. Well, I'm sure it was just an innocent mistake that both of them failed to mention this at all! Anyway, here's Beebs' post:
He's now calling for me to be banned from Commons, accusing me of hounding him for two discussions two years apart, and insisting that you guys told me to nominate the cartoon porn for deletion, while basically refusing to discuss why shitty porn cartoons are within the scope of Commons stated purpose.
All of which is totally on-brand.
As far as I can tell, the idea is that Beebs did nothing wrong, he's just going to keep being extremely hostile, for basically no reason other than teh lulz, then when he gets in trouble for it he will just go mewl on WPO, in the hopes that other users there will come here and bail him out. I see no reason to suspect that he has any interest whatsoever in stopping this or toning it down: being a WPO user means he is better than everyone else, should not have to follow the rules. JPxG (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider discussing the substance of my comments rather than claiming that I'm part of some Wikipediocracy cabal. casualdejekyllcommons 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider how it feels to be a Commons user who finds out while we're trying to have a discussion, a half dozen of the discussers are having their own private discussion on a private site, and then get massively defensive when anyone says anything about it. If there's a thread on a particular user on WPO, then behavior against that user on Commons by WPO users does have a feel of organized harassment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a private discussion. It may be moved to the members-only section at some point, but for now you can read it here and assess for yourself the truth value of JPxG's claims. 91.85.220.117 04:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, just so we're clear, if I found out about Dronebobus' uploads from reading a thread on WPO, that's horrible canvassing, but when you find out about this discussion the exact same way it's totally cool? Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I would never think to accuse an esteemed user such as yourself of a crime so horrible as canvassing! I am merely accusing you of posting regular updates on Wikipediocracy, in a thread named "User:Dronebogus, WP:BLUDGEON, and why there's so much porn on Commons", to announce the latest actions you've taken in your dispute with Dronebogus. Is this not true? JPxG (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll: JPxG has stepped in to once again declare that being a user of Wikipediocracy automagically makes your arguments discountable. Well, no, I didn't declare that, because that would have been fucking dumb. In fact, I didn't even say that your comments should be discounted at all, the only thing I declared was the mere fact that you had come here from WPO. The only one saying that this necessarily invalidates them seems to be you. JPxG (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're really raising that civility bar with these comments, way to go. Just Step Sideways (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The out-of-scope cartoon porn appears to have been nominated in good faith. That request should be judged on its own merits. This interaction ban misses the mark by a mile. Balph Eubank (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I really hate being lied about. I posted to that thread *after* @Dronebogus: posted to my talk page about these threads here. Maybe he should not tell me about his porn travails on Commons if he does not want me to comment on them. But since we are here, why is it exactly that this stuff is hosted on a WMF server? Enquiring minds want to know. Elinruby (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) PS: Screenshots available if needed in reference to timestamps. Elinruby (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{(ping|Abzeronow}} I am just now back online. I see you are an administrator, to whom I would normally give great deference in the same way that I would not argue with a traffic cop in the moment, merely take to court if needed. However I do not know what a CSAM is. Could you please indulge a newbie to Commons processes and explain that? I myself see a clearly false insinuation that is invalid on its face. What am I looking at wrong here? PS, my name is not Elin. If you do not want to type out all the syllables please use "El". Elinruby (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CSAM stands for child sexual abuse material. Abzeronow was saying that your previous comment was inappropriate. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AHA, he is saying it isn't actually kiddie porn? I disagree, but have stricken the word "kiddie". Is there a definition or policy somewhere about this that I could review please? Elinruby (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: I've blocked Elinruby for 2 days for this continuation after your warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I also agree with your statement regarding Dronebogus " Also, asking for a formal IBAN and then continuing to throw fuel on the fire *really* isn't a good look." This is definitely a messy thread. Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There wasn't much of a de-adminship policy back when I started a discussion that ended in bit removal. If it's a good idea, and it isn't forbidden by policy, there's no reason not to see if an iban here can help matters. I have no particular opinion at this point whether one should be imposed, I just wanted to respond to the "no formal mechanism" comments above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Relatively few interactions between the two. JSS's nominations seem to be caused by legitimate reasons (which, incidentally, I agree with), not just to spite DroneBogus. Dilettante (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have trouble taking Dronebogus's comments at face value when they do things like creating a redirect for "male privates.jpg" and pointing it at an image of soldiers in a marching band. Those don't seem like the actions of someone who is serious about what they are doing. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an image of privates, who are male. It’s kind of a joke but it’s also showing what it says, and is a redirect of an overused title used for uploading dick pics. Dronebogus (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus It's not "kind of a joke". It's nothing other than a joke. A joke which you decided to make today, in the middle of all this. And immediately after you replied to my comment here you went directly to a deletion discussion that I started over a month ago and voted against my view. I question whether you have a the judgment and maturity to contribute productively here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re making an inordinately huge deal over a slightly questionable gag very few people would ever notice and an innocent, civil vote in an open deletion debate. I looked at your contributions, was bemused by the title, and checked out the discussion. No bad faith whatsoever I assure you. Dronebogus (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not question people's judgement or maturity here because it could lead to uncomfortable conclusions. Because not only does Commons have different standards for content, apart from, say, enwiki, but contributors are judged in different dimensions. Dronebogus is currently being defended by at least 4-5 Commons administrators, in a dispute against @Just Step Sideways, who is no spring chicken, and those administrators are willing to block, sanction, and silence other experienced editors for casting aspersions on the quality, maturity, or legality of the uploads of someone who joined Commons less than 2 years ago. Not insulting him personally, that is, but making value judgements about his activity and contributions to this project. Which project is a free media repository distributing educational content to the whole world. Elizium23 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t about quality or maturity, let alone legality. It’s about JSS going out of his way to make inflammatory remarks. You can nominate anything I upload for deletion, but you don’t have to tell me how awful and evil and disgusting it is 5 million times. Dronebogus (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of folks going out of their way, I've examined your user page and your uploads, and I regret that they ever entered my eyes or browser cache.
I've defended Wikipedia from trolls, vandals, and tendentious editors for 17 years and so I struggle, in this case, assuming good faith, much less assuming that you're working alone, or that this is your first account.
Your user page smells like a 15-year-old boy's carefully-curated sock drawer. Your contributions are awful, evil, and disgusting. Elinruby's comments are 100% correct and accurate.
You're complaining about how others are treating you -- and Commons administrators are defending you from that treatment -- but is anyone really surprised at these reactions, considering how we're being triggered and manipulated here? Elizium23 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I’ll listen to the ~5 admins over your baseless aspersions and borderline personal attacks. Dronebogus (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legality? Trade (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: Since I started this thread - at your request, I should note - you have continually escalated the situation through your apparent need to argue with every single commenter, every single time, as well as your decision to throw aspirations at other participants here and on other pages. I am strongly recommending that you disengage, as it has become increasingly clear that, whatever the culpability Just Step Sideways had in kicking off this mess, the bulk of the blame for its continued degradation lies on you. Please consider this a formal warning that your interactions with other users on and about this thread have become disruptive. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Dronebogus (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I think you may have meant "aspersions". We all have aspirations when we breathe.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, these are legitimate nominations of highly sexualised images of clearly very youthful, bordering on juvenile, fictional characters. They serve no educational value. On their enwiki userpage Dronebogus claims Wikipe-tan is their Waifu, and these images seem to have been uploaded for user's personal gratification. 1.152.111.98 23:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I've blocked Dronebogus for continuing to escalate this after being warned to disengage. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept that many of you felt my comments went too far, that's a fair criticism. I don't accept that an interaction ban is the correct response, because Dronebogus has demonstrated here in this very thread that they have some behavioral issues that come out when their creations are criticized, and the uploads I nominated for deletion, regardless of the tone of my remarks about the, are clearly outside of Commons' scope.
    That being said I'm not any more interested in going through all this again than any of you are, so I won't be nominating his uploads for deletion in the future. Hopefully someone else will be paying attention if and when he makes such uploads or creates weird redirects for his own amusement in the future. Just Step Sideways (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per other people who oppose this. @Dronebogus: and a few others who support this were just going off a few weeks ago about how repeated needling with personal comments isn't an issue and anyone who thanks otherwise is just being over sensitive. So apply your standards and suck it up buttercup. It's always the people who are most vocal about how other user are being over sensitive that act like the biggest snow flakes the second their even mildly criticized for their own behavior. Not that I don't have sympathy for the pedo comments, which are totally needless, if not clear violations of the guidelines, but hey it's only two DRs over as many years. @Dronebogus: will sit there all day and go off about how other people should take responsibility for their actions, but then do nothing but deflect and blame everyone else when it comes to his. So he really has no room to talk when his whole standard is to say "F you" and "I didn't do anything. It's all your fault. Just stop being an over sensitive cry baby!!!" to anyone who complains about his bad attitude. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - enacting an IBAN here would be suppressing a mere symptom: it's like taking statins to reduce cholesterol, or paracetamol to reduce a fever. JSS's actions on Commons have indicated a healthy and functioning immune system. Let's not suppress that response to the root causes. There are two root issues I can identify: one is off-wiki drama and coordination being stirred up where it is out of our sight and control. That's never a good sign (it's also a symptom but it's a proximate cause for this dispute.) The second and obvious root cause is Dronebogus having a troll personality. His masterful contributions indicate an expert level of skill and experience in triggering and manipulating others. I personally doubt that Dronebogus acts alone and I doubt that this is his "first rodeo". He's currently blocked. Unfortunately, Commons doesn't subscribe to the principle of en:WP:DENY and we need a healthy dose of en:WP:DFTT here as well. An appropriate and complete "immune system response" would be to indef Dronebogus and delete every contribution he's ever made. Then we could stop wasting our time and go back to building a free media repository that deserves the respect of our peers. It's sad that trolls can waste so much admin/editor time, but every once in a while, someone finds an ideal way to manipulate the sentiment here and fly under the radar with a straight face, and we don't realize we've been played, until we're knee deep in someone else's B.S. Elizium23 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. There's really no other way to explain comments on his user page like "I’m gonna drive around with a picture of a naked anime child on my bike" other then intentional trolling to stir up drama. This could and should have just been dealt with a while ago by indefing him until he promised to clean up his act and the trollish pedo sounding nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let us avoid personal attacks please Trade (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: Don't edit other people's comments. It's not a personal attack to say "I’m gonna drive around with a picture of a naked anime child on my bike" sounds like something someone who's sexually attracted to kids would say. I already said so in my comment, but I don't think Dronobogus is a pedo, but again, it sounds like something someone with that inclination says and it's not against the rules to describe how something sounds on here. If someone says "I'm going to get a gun and kill a politician" on their talk page then at least IMO there should be zero issue what-so-ever with another user pointing it out or saying it sounds violent. Your free to disagree, but at least keep the original comment about it intact please. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing your comment vs. hiding parts of your comment for NPA reasons are two very different things. Don't conflate them please Trade (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: I don't want you doing either one and it's not a personal attack anyway. So it's a distinction without a purpose. This is pretty simple and I could care less about the semantics, don't edit my comments. Period. End of story. Just don't do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement for any onlookers

[edit]

I understand a Wikipediocracy thread has been started, and would like to clarify stuff for any on-lookers. Supporting this does not mean we are supporting the uploads of Dronebogus (and vice versa). It means we support a two-way IBAN between Dronebogus and JSS, and by extension think that the behaviour of both Dronebogus and JSS has been uncivil to say the least (since that's the point of a two-way IBAN). There have been straw man allegations on both sides saying "Commons admins support weird porn!" and "Experienced Wikipedia editors are allowed to break policies!". I just wanted to clarify the nature of this proposal for any future onlookers. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a link to the Commons policy on IBANs please? Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense, perhaps? Bedivere (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:SENSE appears to be an essay. :) SashiRolls (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What have KiwiFarm LiteWikipediocracy accused Commons of this time? Trade (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Chhanchhana zote picture

[edit]

Yet another obvious sock of Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to think this user is just being foolish or does not understand at all the Commons rules, based on their poor communication skills in proper English. I don't meant this as an insult, much on the contrary, I am beginning to feel sorry for their inability to properly communicate. I would be up to giving them a chance to start afresh if they promise not to create any more socks, sticking with a single account, and provided that they stop repeatedly uploading the same pictures with or without watermarks. I mean, it's obviously not okay to go out and create dozens of socks anyway... Bedivere (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Competence is required and I just don't see that. Jonteemil (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a misunderstanding of guidelines. This is clearly intentional. The person sent me around 30 spam mails. GPSLeo (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quickero005

[edit]

Quickero005 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues uploading copyvios 10 days after Yann warned them. Günther Frager (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by EugeneZelenko, 1 week banned. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald J Trump (realDonaldTrump) Twitter - публикация от 2020-05-29.png

[edit]

Was closing the DR discussion after barely four hours strictly speaking necessary?--Trade (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: --Trade (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagreed to the speedy request but you did not mention the reason for that. GPSLeo (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? Trade (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly go through the current day's DR and action nominations that fall under the CSD, especially F1, F10, G7, and G10, so that when the week is up, the list of DRs is less daunting. In this case I thought that the F3 was correct and actioned it, but it appears to be disputed due to the former president's use of his private account for official business as opposed to using the official account. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I accidentally wrote I instead of you. You did not mention why you changed the speedy request to a regular deletion request. GPSLeo (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this place for "user problems" not "copyright". check: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the user problem is that the DR was closed before any real discussion had a chance to take place Trade (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: See my response above. Thinning the herd is pretty common and is done so that we can make the already severely backlogged DR process as manageable as possible. This is the first time in probably several hundred such deletions that it's been an issue, and it's currently being reviewed in requests for undeletion, so things are working as well as they ever do around here. Hope this suffices. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer Lalchhanhima Zote

[edit]

Yet another obvious sock of Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alisahib2001

[edit]

Alisahib2001 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) re-uploading non-free logos immediately after deletion, despite multiple warnings: [2] [3] [4] and so on. Quick1984 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"stop harrasing me please..."

[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANanahuatl&oldid=prev&diff=900133255

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nanahuatl&action=history

bro... there was a good question with valid answer replied by me and he removed that 15 minutes later.

and extra, IP people swarming in my user talk page in turkish wikipedia, and Nanahuatl keep getting them out, i appreciate it. so, i want more, i need 1 month protection for user talk page. so, i requested this from him and what? he removed that 15 minutes later.

and that maked me a bit of angry and i sent him a wikilove. "diplomacy barnstar", yeah, he is good at diplomacy by removing my valid requests and answers. he removed that approx. 10 minutes later.

and finally he said "stop harrasing me please...". WHAT? if im harrassing because of these, then give me a block or whatever. i dont know.

-

to clarify more: 1,5 years ago... i asked him multiple questions with 2 months break, you can see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nanahuatl&oldid=741910576#File:Countries_that_published_a_support_message_for_2023_Turkey%E2%80%93Syria_earthquakes.svg . after an admin and the user told me stop, i stopped. ok. but after 1,5 years, i requested something little and even answer a question in his usertalk(he said "you should find another user to ask) that happend.... am i harrasive user? is it me that become after all these effort and work?

in conclusion, am i wrong? modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if a particular user asks you to leave them alone, it's probably best to do so. Was something going on here that could not be handled by anyone else? - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes... you are right, i should never, ever again interact with this user on commons again. did i really something wrong? no.... but i shouldnt did this, i knew he would call me "harrassive".. i just want to not seen as enemy by people, im tired of this situation.
in the end of the day, i became the "harrasive" user. man.... modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this has become an unwritten rule on any project, but I don't exactly agree with the logic of it – especially as I've been in instances where users have done this to evade scrutiny. Coming back to this specific situation, I don't think modern primat is in the wrong for doing so, and I expect Nanahuatl to give an apology for the frivolous accusations of "harassment". --SHB2000 (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, let's get this straight. There was a dispute on the Turkish language Wikipedia in which you were the target of harassment. You did not like an admin decision Nanahuatl took there in lifting protection from your talkpage. You two had a conflict a few years ago. So you bring the current conflict to Commons by giving them a barnstar with a highly ironical message. And now you are not happy with the message they send to you while removing it? Did I get this right? --Kritzolina (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

first, IP people are not doing harrasive things in my turkish user talk page. i believe we need actual users on my tr wiki u.t.p. for my appeal.
second, nanahuatl is not admin around here. i didnt write exactly. i requested him to make a request for protection for my talk page. so, he would go to admin in tr wiki and will ask a protection
third, "stop harrassing me" just made me upset a little bit. if im harrassing give me a block. @Kritzolina modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 08:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing up the misunderstandings. Still, the main things that are relevant for here
  • The actual problem is on tr.WP, it should not be brought to Commons. In the future please try to solve conflicts on the Wiki that is affected.
  • Your barnstar was not appropriate. This kind of irony can feel harassing. It is appropriate to ask you to stop this behaviour. The wording how Nanahuatl might have been harsher than necessary - still you should not take it as an insult, but as a sign that you went a bit overboard with your irony.
I am closing this without an admin action. I am advising you to keep away from people who ask you to stop interacting. I am also advising you not to use this kind of irony in further interactions. It usually just leads to unnecessary escalations. Kritzolina (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done No admin action necessary. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arial Bold

[edit]

User Arial Bold (talk · contribs) and their IP have made false claims about me. In addition to uploading an image I made and claiming it as their own, they are also claiming that my links to the original image are dead and that I have given them "no proof". They have also asked me to stop removing content from Rogers Plaza on Wikipedia. It's clear the user is not here in good faith. TenPoundHammer (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: The Wikipedia side of this is not relevant. Some links would be helpful in terms of the Commons side. And you seem not to have notified them on their user talk page about this discussion, which I will do.
I want to add to this: my main experience with User:Arial Bold is that they do not seem to understand what is meant by "own work" and show little or no understanding of copyright. See, for example, File:Rogers Homested.jpg and the current DR for that. Also, I presume User:74.204.120.66 is User:Arial Bold (otherwise the former's remarks at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rogers Homested.jpg make no sense). That means this edit is not drive-by vandalism by an IP, but someone removing the link to a DR from one of their own uploaded files. - Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a block if they continue any further. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Most uploads are nominated for deletion due to different reasons. Block is currently not needed. Taivo (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysio.szubzda.1

[edit]

Krzysio.szubzda.1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

I blocked this account for a week for uploading copyright violations after warning. I deleted obvious copyvios, notably screenshots. There are still many files to check, most of them probably not OK, despite the EXIF data. 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs) 14:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1

[edit]

User:Adamant1 has made a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content ( Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin) ), and their conduct in this matter has been less than civil and respectful. Their demands for extra proof from uploaders are unreasonable and have caused unnecessary disputes. Instead of being receptive to others’ input, they consistently double down on their position.

Their claim of years of experience leading to "a pretty deep understanding of the laws and policies around these things" led me to find a multitude of similar issues which have seemingly not yield a meaningful improvement in their conduct. The first of which dealt directly with FoP in Belgium (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_112#Adamant1).

(There are several other complaints against Adamant1 that I have not reviewed in detail, but they can be found here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_113#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_107#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_99#User:Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_102#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_98#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_92#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_81 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive_20#Adamant1 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_100#Editwarring_by_Adamant1)

Adamant1 has even threatened to repeat these FoP deletion requests and has made vague demands to “properly document and license” my uploads after their arguments have been thoroughly refuted ("Otherwise don't be surprised if your files get nominated for deletion"). I would much prefer to avoid any further dealings with them, and I believe the community would benefit from this as well. --Trougnouf (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: It's funny to me how that critizim always comes from some of the rudest people on here. But whatever. See my comment below. Are you seriously going to rude or worth blocking someone just because they said people shoud properly license and document their uploads? Come on. Trougnouf tells me I'm waging an "inquestion" against FOP, refuses to drop it after I asked them to multiple times, and somehow I'm the rude one here. It's pretty obvious you have zero ground to stand on. You never have had any. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things here that the person who opened this is just being dishonest about.
  1. User:Adamant1 has made a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content I didn't open a "broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content" The DR has to do with a single mural that all the images where in the same category for. That is not "a broad deletion request on Belgian FoP content" and there's no rule against opening a DR for multiple files for the same subject that are in the same category.
  2. their conduct in this matter has been less than civil and respectful. Their demands for extra proof from uploaders are unreasonable and have caused unnecessary disputes. All I said was that the images weren't properly licensed or cited to the creator and it's on the uploaders to provide that information. That's it. There's nothing uncivil about that. Trougnouf then decided to treat me like I was doing an "inquisition" (their words) against FOP in Belgium. They also refused to drop it and continued responding to me after I said it I rather not continue the conversation. Both of which was extremely rude. It's not on me that Trougnouf decided to beat a dead horse after I told them multiple times that I was done discussing it.
  3. Adamant1 has even threatened to repeat these FoP deletion requests. That's patently false. Nowhere have I said I was going to continue the FOP deletion requests. All I said is that they shouldn't be surprised if people nominate their there images for deletion if they don't properly license or document them. That's not a threat and nowhere did I say I was planning on being the one do it. So this ANU is totally baseless. Trougnouf needs to just accept that their uploads will be nominated for deletion sometimes, drop the retaliatory bad attitude, and move on like I repeatedly asked them to in the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not see any admin action here but, Adamant1, your really don't have to -- indeed, ought not -- respond to every statement you disagree with on a DR. Your own view is clear, people agree or disagree, fine. Unless they've specifically addressed a question to you, or raised a substantive issue relevant to the DR to which you have a substantive response, typically you should just leave it alone and trust that the person who reads the closes the DR will read what everyone said and evaluate it. You actually make it much harder for them to do so when the DR becomes a long thread of tangentially related discussions.

I don't want to overstate what I just said -- I've sometimes seen genuinely productive, broader discussions arise on a DR and I'm sure you didn't respond to literally everything you disagree with -- but if it's turning into more or less an argument, it's rarely productive to keep disagreeing at length. It "sucks all the air out of the room," discouraging other people from participating productively in the discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 05:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally fair in general. I think it's a little unfair in this case considering I told Trougnouf to drop it and their the one's who continued responding, but whatever. It's not really that I disagree with people. It's that they say things that are either patently false and/or involve personal needling. If someone says I'm on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" or that I'm wasting everyone's time with the DR then I'm going to respond. Their the ones sucking the room out of the air by not sticking to the actual reason the images were nominated for deletion.
I'm 100% there to have a substantive conversation. You can look through my past DRs. 99% of the time when I respond to someone it's because what they say is totally vacuous, personal nonsense that adds absolutely nothing useful to the discussion. I guess I can cut down responding to those types of things, but I think a better solution would be for people to just stop making blathering, off-topic personal comments in deletion requests. It seems like know one really cares about it though. It's not the personal needling that's a problem, the real issue is responding to it for some reason. I'll be sure to shut up and nod my head silently in agreement the next time someone won't stop responding when I ask them to and says I'm on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" though. I swear the priorities on here are fucked. You want me to shine their shoes to while I'm at it? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not see any admin action here

While I'm not advocating for an outright ban, I think there should be a clear message from the admins that Adamant1 is not allowed to open FoP Deletion Requests (or DR altogether).
This isn't the first issue with them, communication is broken and goes nowhere despite what everyone has to say, and it is a legitimate fear that uploading anything supposedly protected by Freedom of Panorama (as well as the countless content already uploaded) will result in such frustration again.
I'm sure that Adamant1 has some positive contributions and these DR are certainly not part of them, so it would be in everyone's best interest if they were to refrain from making them. --Trougnouf (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, you recently told me about all the things that are more important to you than deletion discussions - will you promise to stay away from deletion discussion for at least half a year so things can cool down? I know this is a long time for you, but as I said ... there are many other things you can do that are not perceived as problematic, where on the contrary the communiy sees your edits as productive. So could you consider this? --Kritzolina (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kritzolina: honestly I would, but it's almost impossible to do anything that doesn't involve deletions on here some how. I accidently upload a scan of a postcard that's wrong and want it deleted as a curtesy then I'm screwed there. Read through the DR. Trougnouf says in this that "communication with me is broken." I'm the one who said twice to end the conversation and stop beating the horse about it. They continued it and had the last word.
I don't care if they feel like there's a "a fear that uploading anything supposedly protected by Freedom of Panorama is going to deleted." It's one DR for a single mural that I at least felt was justified at the time due to the questionable circumstances and told Jmabel I probably would have been fine retracting half way through if it wasn't for Trougnouf's attitude and badgering. Their "fear" is totally unfounded concern trolling just because their upset that I nominated one of their images for deletion though. That's all it is. There is no wider "inquisition" against FOP on my end here. People get DRs wrong sometimes. That's it. And again, the DR seemed justified at the time.
I'll meet you halfway though. Show me any evidence what-so-ever that I'm an "inquisition against Belgium FOP" or threatened to go on one and I'll accept a full six month block. I'm not doing that or accepting a topic ban based on zero evidence though. That's not to say I don't accept Jmabel's feedback or won't listen to it. I certainly could reply less in general. But that again, in this case I'm not the one who continued it after I was told to stop. Trougnouf did and I think Jmabel's feedback is certainly enough. Again though, I'm more then willing to accept a six month block if you provide evidence of me being on an "inquisition against FOP in Belgium" or whatever. Otherwise this should be dropped and/or Trougnouf should receive a warning not to file baseless, retaliatory ANU complaints again. I don't think it's unreasonable that if your going to say I should take a six month topic ban or full for something that there should be some actual actual evidence of it though. Otherwise your just feeding into retaliatory drama farming. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that it would be very awkward not to be able to nominate your own uploads for deletion, if something went wrong. So yes, we could make this a "I promise to step away from DRs, except nominating own uploads".
Otherwise this conversation sounds eerily like the one we had over the last AN/U coplaint against you - which, if I may remind you, was also about too broad DRs. So the problem might not be Belgian FOP, but overly broad DRs in general. This is why I am asking you to step away from DRs. And please notice, I am trying to pave a way to close this without admin action. So stop and think before replying again. Kritzolina (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally different circumstances from my perspective. In this case I said Jmabel's feedback was totally valid and that's something that I'm more then willing to work on. At least one of the images in the DR, File:A street in Brussels de minimis.jpg was already deleted as a copyright violation and had been reuploaded against the previous consensus. I'm pretty sure there were others. Regardless, that DR was both start and closed by admins and I partially based the deletion request on the previous conclusion by them that these images are copyvio. So I disagree with your characterization that there was or is anything "overly broad" about this. The fact is that I looked into it, there was a previous consensus by multiple administrators that the images were copyrighted and one had already been deleted as such.
So I thought it was worth nominating it and the other one's for deletions. I'm more then willing to admit the consensus has clearly changed about it since then, but that doesn't make the DR "overly broad" or whatever. Nor is a deletion request being kept for images that were previously deleted because a consensus about it has changed over time worth blocking or topic banning the nominator over. Again, that's not to say I don't accept or won't listen to Jmabel's feedback though. I just reject the way you and Trougnouf are characterizing this and I don't think writing a couple more messages in a DR then I probably should have justifies a block or topic ban. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am now taking time away from this discussion. I would like to ask you to also step away and use the time to really think about things like your discussion style and some of the advice I also shared via email in our last discussions. Also please remeber - deletions make everyone touchy and one should be especially careful when discussing them. Kritzolina (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Car-man08

[edit]

Car-man08 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) A huge amount of recent copyvios after two long-term blocks: [5] and [6] (@Skazi: for some reason there are no notifications on the uploader talk page). Quick1984 (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User indefinitely blocked. We need to review all uploads of this user. GPSLeo (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=900706251"