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.

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.


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]
Still continues. --Geohakkeri (talk) 22:18, 23 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]

Adamant1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  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]
  • (Non-administrator observation)- per the precautionary principle, I think it is a good idea to submit DRs when someone has legitimate questions about copyright. Indeed the permissions under these files did not recognize the copyright holder of the characters in the mural - they should be tagged {{FoP-Belgium}} and recognize the original artist in Author, as the photos are derivative works. Without the context discussed in the DR, they do look like copyright violations. But Adamant1's behaviour in the DR, arguing with seemingly every responder, is not pleasant. It would be better if they left their rationale to their initial nomination, where they did clearly explain themselves, and let the closing admin evaluate the validity of the nomination and responses. Consigned (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The problem is not that all or even most of the DRs are completely unreasonable. The problem is that Adamant creates several in one go and not all of them are clearcut. Which also wouldn't be a problem, if Adamant1 didn't defend their opinion the way they do. Which is a problem. But after a bit of more thought I am not the right person to close this discussion, so I am stepping away for good. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My memory of the last AN/U thread about Adamant1 was that they had made a large volume of specious DRs for in-use images, and when asked about this, made up fake quotes that weren't in the COM:INUSE policy, personally attacked people for disagreeing with them, et cetera; see here for some more context; they were eventually given a two-week block for this. While it's obviously not against the rules to have been blocked in the past, it seems like a pretty consistent recurring problem. Adamant simply wants to make giant, indiscriminate DRs -- basically wasting everyone else's time so that Adamant doesn't have to bother figuring out if nominations are valid or not. They refuse to admit when they are incorrect, and their response to any criticism is to deny everything and blame the other person. They have been repeatedly blocked for doing this, arguing so aggressively the last time that they had talk page access revoked. You can see this happening even in this thread, where repeated gentle attempts to propose diplomatic face-saving gestures (e.g. voluntarily stepping back from DRs for a while) are met with scorn and derision. It's one thing to be wrong about stuff every once in a while, that's fine. But I really don't think it's a net positive to be wrong about stuff every once in a while, and constantly refusing to admit it, refuse to change your own behavior in any way, disruptively double down, and accuse everyone else of being the problem. I think that Adamant1 should not be allowed to make DRs anymore apart from their own uploads, as them continuing to do so wastes large amounts of everyone else's time, and they have said again and again that they do not care about this or intend to stop. JPxG (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @JPxG here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:50, 24 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]

User: Nil004y

[edit]

Nil004y (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploads non-free files 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 05:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - I have warned them, which you could have done. A block would have been excessive at this point. In future, if you bring someone here please notify them on their talk page Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lalhlimpuii

[edit]

Yet another obvious sock of Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done blocked and all deleted and reverted. I think we should delete all files uploaded by this user. GPSLeo (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Delbatros

[edit]

User:Delbatros is removing legitimate IP contributions from a deletion request discussion. If IPs are not wanted in those discussions you should announce and make it technically impossible. İf not you should apply a sanction to Delbatros. Thanks. 186.172.250.216 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of your comments on the deletion discussion is also not appropriate. So please stay friendly when commenting on discussion pages. And @Delbatros you should also stay friendly when reverting inappropriate unfriendly comments. For now there is nothing to sanction but if this happens again the one of you who makes such comments will be blocked. The comment on the deletion discussion can be added if worded in an appropriate way. GPSLeo (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support a block. The IP might have been a tad snarky with their words, but IMO does not justify removal. Delbatross, however, continued to label the IP in question as a troll with no apology at hand. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User changing categories against convention

[edit]

User:AmsaTalla is moving categories and naming them non-alphabetically, going against convention. I asked them about it on June 22 but there has been no response about it.
They continue to make changes in Category:Bilateral relations of the European Union and members of the European Union and are moving categories:

This is like changing category names in Category:Bilateral relations of the United Kingdom to put "United Kingdom" before "Belgium" for unknown reasons.
Can these be reverted back and user given a warning about lack of communication? Thank you. // sikander { talk } 🦖 16:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User warned. I'll do the reverts. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is now all correct but @sikander, you may want to check. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Perfect, thank you for taking care of this so quickly. Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖 22:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammedfasilkvkave

[edit]

Uploads File:SHOOTERS PADANNA.png after having been warned by Krd to stop uploading copyvios. Jonteemil (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And seems to be the same user as User:Realmalabarboy which is blocked as sockpuppet. See also w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobanfasil. Jonteemil (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked indef. for socking, copyvios deleted. It would be useful to link all related accounts. Yann (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. This account is also related and already blocked at enwiki as a duck:
MhdFasii (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Jonteemil (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it can be blocked here as well.Jonteemil (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked by Magog the Ogre. Yann (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Editor committee

[edit]

After having a slew of files (images of newspaper articles) deleted for copyright violation, this user has re-uploaded the images, but now with public domain claims. This does not appear to be a case of a simple mistake, but rather an attempt by a user to purposefully circumvent Commons' copyright guidelines. WikiDan61 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked the committee indefinitely due to inappropriate username. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Utan VCRSN19

[edit]

Utan VCRSN19 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Some recent copyvios after multiple warnings, including the last one. Quick1984 (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The user has not edited for more than month. Taivo (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prototyperspective: disruptive voting on COM:FPC, refusal to listen to guidance

[edit]

What the title says. User has been provided guidance on their talk page and several FPC nominations. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to clarify what the concerns of users and my comments were. I voted oppose on three or four images or so because I think their educational content is low as COM:FP says Featured pictures are images from highly skilled creators that the Wikimedia Commons community has chosen as some of the highest quality on the site. and COM:SCOPE says Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content … The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". … Image quality is just one of the factors that may limit the educational usefulness of a file. Other limiting factors may include low resolution and hard-to-remove watermarks. so to me it is just a logical conclusion that the degree of educationality, how educational a file is, is very relevant to whether or not a file should become a "featured" picture "highlighted" by this site.
Where am I wrong about that and people can have other views but FP has turned into something that seems to assume WMC is some kind of photography critique platform. It isn't; a prime purpose is educational media so we shouldn't feature so many fairly (I'm not saying totally) uneducational images as the best of the site. People have applied very high standards to illustrations and diagrams and I also apply a high standard in regards to educational content of files and wonder why this hasn't been sooner as now again people seem to assume we're some kind of artistic photo critique site without focus on educational media. I don't think these opposes are disruptive in any way, it's just that not many other users have applied this criteria earlier. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Special:Diff/901999164, after I opposed one of your nomations because of the rationales of the voters, you said:

I should just start voting oppose very often because the whole thing is a joke and some kind of technical photo competition rather than in lie with COM:SCOPE.

I believe you opposed all of those nominations out of bad faith. I did warn you on your talk page not to take it personally and to not continue disrupting Commons with your opposing votes. Zzzs (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not in bad faith. I outlined the rationale above, what exactly is wrong with it? However, a point to make would be to create a discussion about this general issue elsewhere rather than voting in nominations of images that aren't very/sufficiently educational. I explained above why I don't think these are in line (typo there) with COM:SCOPE and I'm not taking it personally. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't take it personally, why did you address every opposing vote, especially mine, and mention that you'd start opposing more often with the text I quoted above? I also explained on your talk page why bird images (the nominations you mainly opposed for "violating" COM:SCOPE) are educational and within the scope. Zzzs (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people assume FP is something like a photo competition where images are judged by nothing than technical criteria doesn't make it so. One could make a coherent counterargument (and why is it me to make these) that FP has since inception / 2005 often featured many relatively noneducational images, basically based on their aesthetics and technical quality. On the other hand, when going through the candidates log like this one often finds rationales related to mine Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/April_2005 like very good quality, but how is the topic special, or at least of general interest? or …On the one hand, this picture is "topical" — i.e. it tells a story. On the other hand, the picture is not that good by itself…
Just because something has become widely assumed and deeply ingrained does not make it suddenly the required only way to assess for FP and silence those who apply criteria that seem foreign to you. Nowhere on the FP page or in any policy page could I find a requirement that things are only evaluated by technical criteria but not by how educational they are. In any case maybe it's better to discuss this before voting according to this criteria which seems uncommon in this FP WMC-subcommunity. I don't know where though, maybe the talk page of FP which is composed only of the very people who established and support this narrow way of evaluating images for FP? Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, you could read all of the rules for FPC, including #7 that says: Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project. Especially take to heart the part highlighted in Italics. Just because you can't think of a use for an image, doesn't mean there isn't one. The WikiProject is so much larger and more diverse than you seem to think. And that's without including the "future projects" part.
I'm not asking for miracles, just that you only concentrate on each nominated image and determine if it's a good photo/painting/drawing/whatever, and leave it up to the rest of the very large Wiki community to decide where and how the image could/would/should be used. The Wiki community has more ideas than you could possibly imagine. I'm always in awe about how and where images are used. They can turn up in the most unlikely places. At FPC we can only weed out the best ones. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about suitability to be on WMC, but suitability as FP. I can think of a lot of uses of bird photos, including using them on Wikipedia pages, please don't assume things I never said – I never said or implied I was considering images just based on potential use on WP. Those are not the best ones of WMC so I oppose some. Maybe they're the best when it comes to technical photography criteria but that is not what FP is necessarily limited to/about. I'll open a discussion about the subject elsewhere, it's not good to discuss this in picture/photo nominations since it seems like the criteria of how educational an image is is so foreign that one gets sent to ANU if applied multiple times so it probably needs discussion rather than directly be used with little to no adoption by other FP evaluators. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said this was about the suitability to be on WMC, that is why I quoted the rules for FPC - FPC as in what FPs are before they become FPs. We are discussing why you are disrupting the FP selection process, and your reasoning flies around in strange patterns. I give you a direct link to the FP rules and you start to talk about other things. Please just read the FP rules and act accordingly. --Cart (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It starts with Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is…. This doesn't address anything I said above and my comment applies 1:1.
Yes, please read the FP rules and intro/definition. They are among what I was referencing. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor addition: other than not denying that the criteria I used can be is used / is valid etc it also has Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects and Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.. I think more quotes from there aren't needed, these are quite explanatory and it becomes quite clear your assumptions about what criteria may or may not be used for FP are unreasonable. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prototyperspective uses countless words and tries to give the impression that they are the expert and that everyone else is getting things wrong. But that doesn’t mean that what they write is correct. Their interpretation of the FP rules and of COM:SCOPE is (to put it mildly) very one-sided, ignoring both other statements in the rules and the clear testimony of existing FPs and nomination discussions. Other statements by Prototyperspective, such as the one quoted by Zzzs above, even suggest that they are not concerned with the matter at hand, but that their intentions are questionable. As for the objective question of the nature and scope of FPs, I don’t need to repeat what others have said, especially not Cart’s excellent comments both here and in recent FP nomination discussions. Because Prototyperspective ignores the guidance given both on their talk page and in several FPC nominations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.), their behaviour must be classified as disruptive. – Aristeas (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving the difflinks, Aristeas. The main problem with their behaviour is not that they have a different opinion. It is the fact that they approach the discussion from the perspective of being the only person who is right. And wanting to proof this on individual cases, not solving the differences in opinion by seeking a general consensus on the broader issue. Kritzolina (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kritzolina regarding Proto's tendency to see himself as right and others as wrong. It seems that Proto is also unwilling to cooperate and "get the point". If this behavior continues, I suggest that we ban Proto from participating in COM:FPC and strike all of their votes. Zzzs (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also including Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Look into my eyes - 1 - Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto, July 16 1014.jpg. These edits are clearly intentionally disruptive. Block and striking out the FPC votes is probably most appropriate. Multichill (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see an administrator on the same page as me. Just one question, should the block be sitewide or only to FPC? Zzzs (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: I encourage you to own up to your mistakes and inform everyone that, in this particular case, you were wrong. That's all I want to hear from you. Wolverine XI 20:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second Wolverine XI – it's not hard to just own up in this instance. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already said I'm sorry and that I was mistaken to just suddenly use this criteria in multiple nominations below. What more do you want to hear – about which other things were I wrong about that I should admit? Prototyperspective (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wrong about it not being in line with COM:SCOPE. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for apologising + accepting. Certainly a step in the right direction. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also second Wolverine XI: IMO, owning up is better than being banned from FPC IMO Zzzs (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kritzolina: That is one reason why I stated that a talk discussion is better suited than just voting and/or discussing these matters in the nominations. That it seemed like so may come from the fact that I was defending my vote rationale against objections to them so again a talk page discussion is better suited for this as apparently the criteria I applied is very controversial and rejected by other FP evaluators. I generally try to address other people's points so that may give the impression that I see myself as the only one right and everybody else as wrong rather than "solving the differences in opinion by seeking a general consensus on the broader issue" which is exactly what the talk page discussion will be for rather than my 4 FP controversial oppose votes plus replies to points raised in my 3 nominations. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already stated that I would open the discussion on a talk page rather than keep voting which I only did a few times. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the first link I took home what people said and struck my vote since my rationale was refuted with solid reasoning. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still didn't say it. Wolverine XI 20:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong about how community seems to have decided to evaluate FP images. I thought it was not decided so I will cease my FP voting and rather open a talk page discussing whether 'how much educational' an image is can be valid criteria for people evaluating whether they should become FP. It was a bit disruptive to suddenly use this unestablished criteria a handful of times linked above and I'm sorry for it. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can one say I ignore[s] the guidance when I already ceased voting there and even earlier said I will instead open a talk discussion about this? Cart has made good points, I addressed some of them and see a lot of sense in most of them, that's certainly not ignoring, I was not even challenging the decision where Cart commented. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham

[edit]

Abraham (talk · contributions · Statistics) not liking a comment in a DR made this comment that I'm not going to adjetive. I understand that DR can be heated topic, but we should not tolerate this kind behavior in a collaborative project like Commons. Günther Frager (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Townpadne

[edit]

Another sock of #Muhammedfasilkvkave per w:WP:DUCK. Reuploads the same files that previously were deleted as copyvios. Jonteemil (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New aqrtilce acception

[edit]

I wrote an article about a member of the Ukrainian parliament: [[7]]. I used official (state, govermental, financial) links for proofs of truthfulness of information about a member of parliament (Rostyslav Pavlenko). In other words, the link is of the highest level of credibility in my country (Ukraine). Article has been rejected for publication by a User: SafariScribe. I am asking the administrators of the English Wiki-page to help, because I consider the actions of the User: SafariScribe to be biased and inadequate and to harm the project. 94.45.142.2 21:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the wrong place, this is Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia.
Click the If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk in the box at the top of your Wikipedia draft article, if you want to talk to other users about a review that you feel was inadequate. Belbury (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandner: Hi, and welcome. In addition to the above, please stay logged in.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=902790451"