Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 114

Repeated insults, threats and personal comments in DRs by Dronebogus

No admin action required. Yann (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Just to quote a few of the many insults and personal comments from @Dronebogus: out there.

• "yet another indiscriminate “let’s delete everything in a category because it’s AI” nomination from Adamant1."
• "I’m not going through them individually to say “keep toss keep keep toss x3” because Adamant1 clearly couldn’t be bothered themself."
• "This is a gross violation of policy and I’m half thinking of reporting them if it continues apace."
• "The OP is effectively trying to override COM:INUSE as part of a campaign to purge commons of as many AI generated images as possible."

Again, those are just the couple of comments I could find. There's plenty more out there though. Just to add to that, @Dronebogus: has been reported to ANU for his behavior multiple times. He clearly has a history of being overly aggressive, rude, and making things personal for no reason. I'm not going to suggest a an indefinite block since like he did for me above this because I don't think it's warranted at this point. He should at least be warned not to badger, threaten, or disparage other users in deletion requests though. Since, again, it's something he's been warned about multiple times now. Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that this gives a strong impression of being a retaliation attempt for the report right above: How exactly are the quoted statements insults and personal comments? They all seem to refer to specific actions and statements of yours. I.e. they are comment[ing] on content or behaviour, not on the contributor in the sense of COM:NPA.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

They all seem to refer to specific actions and statements of yours. Where have I ever opened "indiscriminate" deletion requests or "grossly violated policy" in relation to this or anything else? Because I don't think I have and false accusations are inherently personal attacks due to the nature of the thing. Especially if they are made repeatedly and without evidence as is clearly the case here. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I recommend this section be speedily closed as trolling, as it is an obvious attempt at retaliatory filing due to Dronebogus opening a thread about Adamant1; indeed, it is the section directly above this one, opened just 7 hours ago. JPxG (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be retaliation when I didn't even propose a sanction. Regardless, I thought you guys were all for holding people accountable for their behavior here. Apparently that only goes one way with you people. Then you get all ass mad when I say your just cry bullying. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I would have reported him anyway since its a chronic problem that he's already been warned about multiple time. There's no rule against opening an ANU complaint about for chronically disruptive behavior just because a similar one exists at the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What chronic problem? Warned when and where? I have my own crap, yeah, but none of it’s relevant here or involves you. Dronebogus (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: I don't the time to find specific diffs right now, but when there was the whole row over AI artwork a while back multiple people including myself repeatedly asked you to stop acting like anyone who disagrees with you about it just hates the technology and/or wants to erase it from Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That was a while ago. This is now, and I wouldn’t say anyone is currently on your side right now. Dronebogus (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

So? It shows a pattern of behavior that you clearly have no concern about or willingness to fix. I thought that was the whole point here. Be the change you want to see in the world. As I've said, I'm perfectly fine with discussing the specifics of what people disagree with me on about the guidelines on the Village Pump. As I think it would help to clarify things. It doesn't seem like anyone involved in this wants to do that though. So I don't know what to tell you. At least do me a favor though and stop with the disruptive, off-topic personal comments in DRs going forward. I'm sick of asking. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I generally try to abide by people's preferences here, but your repeated claims that others' comments are off-topic, personal attacks, et cetera are rather confusing to me; it seems like you say this based on the fact that a comment reflects negatively on you. I don't think it is reasonable to demand that users accept a blanket restriction on mentioning things that you have said or done (indeed this defeats the purpose of having discussions). JPxG (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: I'm not saying any of that because the comments reflect negatively on me. I'm saying it because the comments have nothing to do with the deletion requests or why I nominated the images for deletion. As I've said, I could really care less about the comments on a personal level. I'm not here to clout shark or do things purely to boast my reputation on here with a bunch rondos. The issue purely comes down to the fact that the comments just create needless, extra noise that's a waste of everyone's time to read and respond to. The fact is that personal comments always get ignored by the closing admin.

Full stop, they don't care about the needling. They want to hear actual policy based reason's for why the file should be deleted or kept. So all personal comments do is waste space and if anything, it's your lose because you then don't get to make a policy based argument that the closing admin will care about. That's fine, but at the end of the day we are here to organize a media repository. Not wax poetic about each other's fault or use deletion requests as a glorified grade school playground. At least do it someone else's DRs if that's all your here for. Otherwise make a policy based argument and move on. None of the admins give a crap about your personal opinion that I hate AI-generated media or whatever though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The utter pettiness on display here is yet more evidence that Adamant1 should be indeffed. Adamant1, you are not always right; getting theatrically offended every time you don’t get your way, or someone disagrees with you, is not changing that. Dronebogus (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That's litterally what you've been doing this whole time. So I think your projecting. Regardless, those types of comments are inherently personal and off-topic to the DRs where you made them. I could really careless about it on a personal level, but they inherently disruptive to the process die to the nature of the thing. I don't know about you, but I have better things to do then constantly read through and respond to personal comments that have nothing to do with why I nominated the images for deletion.

You can chalk that up to over sensitivity on my part. But I see it purely as a needless, disruptive time waster. If not an intentional attempt to derail things on your side. The same as it would be if someone constantly commented in DRs about their cat. More so in this case though because people have already told you multiple times to cut the sparious comments about other people's motiviations. I know I have swveral times. Your the one seems to be unwilling to get the point and keep your attitude in check after multiple warnings. Again, I could really care less about it on a personal level though. Its just extremely disruptive to the process and I would have reported you for anyway regardless of the other ANU complaint. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

“No you” isn’t a great counterargument. Dronebogus (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Those quotes at the top don't strike me as personal attacks -- they're judgments of a pattern of mass nominations that several other people have also found fault with. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your free to disagree that the term "attack" there is appropriate. They are inherently "personal" comments though because they relate to the personal motivations of the nominator, not the actual reasons they gave for the deletion requests. That's fine, but I don't think the place to raise such objections is to repeatedly do it on every single DR that the person making the comments disagrees with. Otherwise it's just off-topic, tendentious cruft. Especially in this case since I was more then willing to discuss the "faults" on my talk page and suggested multiple times that whatever the disagreement was about could be raised on the Village Pump. No one wanted to do that though. Including Dronebogus.

I don't think repeatedly making the same "personal" (again as in being purely about the nominator, not the nomination per se) in multiple DRs as nothing more then a bad faithed derailing and/or drama farming technique is really was an appropriate way to handle it though. Especially since again, I was more then willing to discuss things in other places. And like I've said, it's something Dronebogus has a pretty well established history of doing. So.. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose any sanctions since these aren't personal attacks. However, to everyone else, please COM:AGF – unless anyone has crystal clear evidence that this was a "retaliation attempt", let's not go that way. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's rather Adamant1 who is currently doing drama and disruption, sorry. --A.Savin 08:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't propose anything anyway. I think its totally reasonable to expect people to stay on topic in a deletion request and not make it about the nominator's motivations though. That's literally all I'm asking for here and I certainly don't see how it's disruptive or causing drama on my end. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment "Adamant1 once again nominating AI art for deletion because it’s AI" and I'm supposedly the one being uncivil and causing drama here. Right. Dude can't even be bothered to write a single message that isn't a needless personal jab. But sure, I'm the one being disruptive. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Question"This is a gross violation of policy and I’m half thinking of reporting them if it continues apace." Are we not allowed to bring up violations of policy anymore?--Trade (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's mostly the "gross violation of policy" when there's zero I violating any policy, let alone grossly. As well as the "half thinking of reporting them." I don't think someone should go around saying in random discussions that they are "half thinking" about reporting another user to ANU generally, but it's part of a pattern of behavior in this case. Behavior that he's been told to stop doing. So it's more of an issue then it would be normally. Regardless, no one should be going around making comments about how they are considering reporting another user. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"Regardless, no one should be going around making comments about how they are considering reporting another user" That would make it way harder to have any discussion about other user's (perceived) problematic behavior. Not just you specifically, just in general Trade (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What does someone's personal urge to report a user have to do with that users' problematic behavior? If it's really an issue, just report them. There's no reason to go off about how your thinking about doing it though. Maybe it's just me, at least IMO the place to have a discussion about another users behavior is an ANU complaint. Talk pages of DRs aren't usually the proper place for that or resolving personal disputes. Not to say I haven't used them that way, but it inherently does distract from the DR and get in the way of the normal process. Like if someone was committing vandalism by way of a DR I'd just report them for it. I'm not going to waste my time pointing a finger at them well I go off about how I'm considering opening an ANU complaint about it. Otherwise it just doesn't seem like a genuine issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Adamant1 is now blocked for two weeks per above. I think this discussion should be formally closed without action as a frivolous revenge report. Dronebogus (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

---

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

Knowledgebyme (talk · contribs)

User keeps adding {{PD-US}} to images that are very clearly not from 1929 Trade (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

He have never participated in any deletion request nor have he ever responded on his talk page regarding the copyright issues Trade (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

User: Zeus2107

Zeus2107 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continues copyvios upload even after warnings and blocks. Media that were uploaded by this user seems not own work, but copy from various sources and some looks like AI images and cropped and AI enlarge, and EXIF does not give enough data. I'd suggest to delete all uploads. AntanO 13:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. Please check their uploads. Yann (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The user blanked the page. Is it appropriate? I have tagged some images for deletion nomination, but they should have been tagged for copyvios. ~AntanO4task (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Joanmonito65

All of Joanmonito65's uploads are copyright violations and give no indication of free licensing [1]. They uploaded two files (1, 2) to supersede the free-use version on enwiki, then reverted me three times on enwiki after I tried to remove it. [2]. They reverted me after I tried to speedy delete the two files on commons. They have provided no edit summaries and blanked my talk page notice on enwiki. They were also previously warned here for their copyright vios. Thanks, PerfectSoundWhatever (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Deleted all their uploads and left them a final warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate it. However, the file has been re-uploaded (file) PerfectSoundWhatever (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month by The Squirrel Conspiracy. Yann (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 Extended to indef per evidence on en.wiki that it's a VoA. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Now also globally locked. I deleted the user page. Yann (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Ominae

• User: Ominae (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 17 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over three years ago. As a precedent, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman. Ominae made this edit 06:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC): omitting subpage, transclusion, notice to the page creator, year, month, and day. I reminded them of their mistake and warned them in this edit 05:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC) after two previous archived reminders and followed on six minutes later. They neglected to respond per User talk:Ominae/Archive 3#Warning, and made such an edit again in these edits 12:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC): again omitting subpage, transclusion, notice to the page creator, year, month, and day. Please block them.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I believe I've said this before when you've brought other users here for the same reason, but I don't see how this kind of thing raises to the level of warranting a block. This is clearly a user trying to G7 their own upload and not knowing the proper template. Commons can be very obtuse, is most users' second project, and is a multi-language project with a huge amount of documentation only in English or English and a few European languages. I'm more than happy to extend grace to people for not using the correct template when they're genuinely trying to contribute to the project, as seems to be the case here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Yann and Mdaniels5757 appear to have different opinions. Also, the user uploaded the file in 2022, what gives them the right to G7 a redirect to it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted the redirect as it was both unused and there is no harm in deleting it at all. Yes, the user should be requesting deletion as the procedure is, but although badly formed, intention was clear and it was easier to just replace with a {{G7}} tag and warning them once again. They could have possibly just forgotten your previous message, which was over a year ago. Bedivere (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere: Ok, I warned them again. Please don't forget that you yourself blocked AxelHH 05:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page". My previous instructions (also not responded to) were archived at User talk:Ominae/Archive 3#Category:Toophan MRAP and User talk:Ominae/Archive 3#Reminder.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ыфь77

Ыфь77 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) User responded to User:Jeff G.'s perfectly reasonable request not to make malformed deletion requests with an accusation "Я обвиняю Jeff G. в преследовании по политическим мотивам. Прошу оградить меня от его нападок", which according to Google Translate means "I accuse Jeff G. of political persecution. Please protect me from his attacks." The accusation is entirely off-base. I cannot imagine how this could be "political persecution": it is a simple matter of telling the user to follow Commons' processes correctly, in a matter where Ыфь77's behavior can really only be considered either ignorant, negligent, incompetent, or (less likely) malicious.

I'm not sure what I want to see happen here, but at the very least if User:Ыфь77 won't withdraw their charge of political persecution they should be blocked for a personal attack. - Jmabel ! talk 19:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done blocked one day. If they continue doing these accusations, groundless in my opinion, should the future blocks be longer. Bedivere (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel and @Bedivere: Thanks. I am not persecuting anyone except Vladimir Putin, who appears to be using the Russian military to aggressively wage war on the people of Ukraine without good reason. My signature and user page reflect my opinion of Mr. Putin. This has nothing to do with Commons users.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not that I am supporting disruptive edits but I can see why User:Jeff G.'s signature could be disconcerting to a Russian user. Commander Keane (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Roberto9191

Roberto9191 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Created account and immediately promoted 16 Quality Images (which was detected and votes stricken). Most of the falsely promoted images were poor-quality pictures by Marwenwafi. Plozessor (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done, blocked. --A.Savin 06:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Crimsonalfred2022 (talk · contribs) again

User has previously been blocked for copyvio in December ([3]), was reported again in January ([4]), they have plenty of warnings and notices on their talk page going back to 2022 ([5]), and they were indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia on 22 June for repeated copyvios there ([6]). Since then (i.e. even since 22 June), they've continued to mass-upload images with dubious licensing information, all of which are clearly grabbed from somewhere on the web. (They're likely also evading their Wikipedia block through IP edits which are adding some of these files to Wikipedia; see evidence here.)

In the recent uploads, the source is labeled "pinterest" (without a link), author is claimed to be "unknown", and license is tagged as PD-Egypt, but no evidence is provided to support any of this. Examples include: File:Ayman Younes (Zamalek SC).jpg, File:Zamalek - Cairo (1972).jpg, File:Farouk Gaafar 1981.jpg, File:Ashraf Kasem (1984).jpg, etc. Even if the stated dates of the photos are correct (no obvious way to confirm this), my reading of PD-Egypt is that they are still too recent to be in PD in the United States and thus do not belong on Commons.

Some of their older uploads – images of old actors and movie posters, etc – are tagged as PD, but they've put themselves as "author" and the "source" appears to be their own Flickr account (Crimson2022 Alfred), which is merely doing the same thing as their Commons account. At best, the author attribution is wrong, and at worse, it's impossible once again to confirm the copyright status of the original work. Examples: File:Abdel Halim Hafez.jpg, File:Bahiga Hafez.jpg, File:Kham El-Khalili (1976).jpg (this one even has a mysterious watermark in the upper right corner), etc.

The user has 200+ uploads, so I don't have the capacity to investigate, tag, and/or nominate for deletion all their problematic uploads, but this looks like a pattern of long-term ignorance of Commons:Licensing. R Prazeres (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment There are some problematic uploads, but the information provided is better than by many other users. Yann (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In the latest, e.g. here and here, they uploaded screenshots from Youtube videos with no evidence of permission. The information they provide has no bearing on demonstrating compatible licensing. R Prazeres (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month (2nd block), all recent copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Melsele

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

Persistent uploader of obvious and apparent copyright violation. Ignores warnings. Jcb (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done I blocked this user about uploading files. Hopefully they will respond to warnings. Yann (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Paulsmith5752

User talk:Paulsmith5752 that user is uploading nude images and he says "I uploaded it by mistake". and that last image is about genital of child and he said again "I uploaded it by mistake". i dont believe he did it by mistake. he is doing disruptive editing, please give him a block and at least a warning please. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 16:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as VOA, obviously NOTHERE. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:RosaryTeam

RosaryTeam (talk · contribs) is using Commons to advertise their store for AI generated imagery. They will also revert any edit that adds the template {{PD-algorithm}} and Category:AI images generated by unidentified software to their images. Trooper57 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Trooper57: looks like you did not notify them of this discussion on their talk page. I will do that for you. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

because it is not the case of algorithm generated, I have the Adobe InDesign vector files. RosaryTeam (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Paulaencina

Upload copyvios after warning, with different file name. See File:Shirley pepe 1.png and deleted File:La shirley el pepe.jpg (deleted twice) Regards!! Ezarateesteban 21:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ezarate: Please remember to notify the user next time as per the instructions at the top of this page – I've done it for you this time. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Solomon203

Solomon203 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Evidence shows that the user intentionally violated COM:FNC. Unfortunately, TimWu007 already accepted his request and moved to new title. See: [7]. Given that Solomon203 recent contributions have made unnecessary requests for file-renaming most of which have been denied, I recommend that you temporarily stop any requests until you have a good understanding of COM:FNC.--111.253.26.42 08:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@111.253.26.42, did you notice the first line of the Notes on top of this page, "Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first."? --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP user is obviously Kai3952. --Solomon203 (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Was the original name good enough? Probably (unless I'm missing something). Is there any grounds for admin action? No. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Keylansual3882

Keylansual3882 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

The user uploads the same files again (political flags under fair use) after warnings. Taichi (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done 2 week block. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

メイド理世

メイド理世 (talk · contribs) uploaded lots of copyright protected content, see their talk page. After I tag this photo, File:Nanjing, 1 July 2024 (109).jpg, they cropped out the non-copyvio one and just keep the copyvio character.
Per their discussion on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:28码脚型飞机杯（右脚）_(cropped).jpg, Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:後藤ひとり.jpg,_File:山田リョウ、後藤ひとり.jpg,_File:山田リョウ.jpg and current behaviour, I strictly suspect this one is clearly CIR, both for using English and learning about copyright laws. Lemonaka (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Strong oppose, This cropped image is child pornography toys, 2. there no freedom of panorama of 2D works in china. 3. I am like the anonymous shenzhen photographers? 4. why rollbacking this empty kept category??? I does not speak the english language, i can speak chinese, fuck great firewall (GFW) banned this website. メイド理世 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

以后这样我不会在这里上传2D作品了。 メイド理世 (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yann they cleaned their talk pages to avoid being found they have been warned a lot. Please take action. Lemonaka (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

反正没事了，移动在用户讨论存档了。 メイド理世 (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Before I left the above comment, you directly removed your talk page notice, instead of archiving them. After I reported, you move it to your archive. Lemonaka (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think removing talk page notices are particularly egregious offences, but they can be a sign that the user is unwilling to accept their mistakes. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

170.233.193.150

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

This IP is vandalasing Commons. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days. If they come back and continue to vandalize, a much longer block is in order. - Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:El Luchadorio

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

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)

Okay, I'll change the license. El Luchadorio (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything is fixed. El Luchadorio (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

And you did no changes for files like File:Flag of Soledar.svg Siradan (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

OperationSakura6144

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)

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

User:Assifbus

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)

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

Lalchhanhima hmar Zote

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

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

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

Also Duhzuala.Jonteemil (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Both indef blocked. Bedivere (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, please also block Lalchhanhima zote hmar as yet another sock. Jonteemil (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And now also Malsawmdawngzeli. Jonteemil (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

User:AshleyYakan

• AshleyYakan (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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

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

User:JopkeB

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Case 1:

• 2023-07-09 12:06 post by JopkeB: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/07/Category:Market_exploration_shops&diff=prev&oldid=781690305

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:

• 2023-12-12 09:16 post by me: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/12/Category:Services_(economics)&diff=prev&oldid=830118113

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.

• 2023-12-12 post by JopkeB: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clusternote&diff=prev&oldid=830174114

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

User Saadfghjkl998877665599

• Saadfghjkl998877665599 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions): Posts much nonsense, abusive use of deletion requests, vandalism; several other violations against guidelines --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Achim55. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Amar67

• Amar67 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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)

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

Proposed interaction ban between Dronebogus and Just Step Sideways

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)

---

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)

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

•  Support as nominator. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Support as original proposer. Dronebogus (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose how about Dronebogus just takes down his porn hmmm? Elinruby (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Noting commentator has been blocked for incivility. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose  Comment Two discussions over two years does not make an IBAN-worthy problem. Both users should stop being dicks to each other, and one of them should probably stop uploading dicks to Commons if they want to avoid this in the future. casualdejekyllcommons 22:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  So you’re essentially endorsing what JSS is attempting to do here, which is use canvassing and bullying to force me into obeying the opinions of his clique on WPO? Dronebogus (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm getting really tired of your accusations. You keep personally attacking me in defense of your cartoon porn, I shouldn't be subject to these lies and abuse. I nominated those images for deletion because they are outside of the scope of Commons, and for no ther reason. There was no canvassing and there certainly shopuldn't be any sort of sanction on me just because I opened a couple of deletion discussions. This is ridiculous. Just Step Sideways (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Everyone's being a complete asshole here and I don't like it. And you're not immune to that "everyone". But I think the goal of an IBAN here could be achieved just as easily with warning templates - there's just not a pattern of disruption here. casualdejekyllcommons 22:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  To use a cliche, JSS started it and has been consistently worse. I’ve made a few snide remarks but JSS is using every opportunity to double, triple, and quadruple down on insulting or inflammatory comments. Dronebogus (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that JSS is the worse-behaving of the pair of you, but that doesn't excuse your contributions. Also, asking for a formal IBAN and then continuing to throw fuel on the fire *really* isn't a good look. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I know, but put yourself in my shoes: I’m being trailed by a bunch of people who won’t stop picking on me. I’m a little on edge here. Dronebogus (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  You are the one who has accused me of canvassing and hounding, I've made no such accusations at you. I just don't think it is the purpose of Commons to host crude anime drawings of futas jizzing on their own faces or Wikipe-tan as a sex object. This is not your personal fantasy playground. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus: (ec) I'm here because you were whining about this on my talk page at English Wikipedia, after posting 60+ times to ANI in defense of your buddy. You canvassed me yourself. The thing is, I am not down. Elinruby (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Lightburst is not my buddy. Dronebogus (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh. Elinruby (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just “oh”? Dronebogus (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Seems surprising. So too is reporting me to ANI at English Wikipedia for commenting here. Don't canvass me to your Commons proceedings if you don't want me here Elinruby (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• This really should be a non-issue. I don't think the high crime of "being a bit of a dick" deserves a public name-and-shame. But this has clearly failed the heat-and-light standard. Users can and have agreed with both JSS's and Dronebogus's perspectives on these images, and they can express their opinions without slinging mud. I've struck my Oppose in recognition of the severe tendentiousness displayed here, but I think a more appropriate sanction would be some kind of anti-bludgeoning restriction. casualdejekyllcommons 23:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  One: there’s this thing we have called W:WP:DICK (more formally Commons:Civility) that I think is kind of important. Two: is an “anti-bludgeoning restriction” really all that different from an interaction ban? Dronebogus (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

•  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

You're really raising that civility bar with these comments, way to go. Just Step Sideways (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

•  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)

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)

•  Support Abzeronow (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• oppose I agree: just take the porn down and nobody gets, um, their knickers in a knot. 2600:4040:2789:D600:3AC2:2929:116D:97C9 00:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not to insinuate anything but I’ve been getting a lot of random IPs cropping up in relation to this. Seems kind of… “sus”, as the kids say Dronebogus (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  You can hardly blame people for that when you are seeking interaction bans and making ANI reports about people who don't see why you can't host your (Personal attack removed) on your own hardware. Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Elin, you should retract that statement about CSAM immediately. Consider this a formal warning. Abzeronow (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

{(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)

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)

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)

@Abzeronow: I've blocked Elinruby for 2 days for this continuation after your warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

• For the record, that was an accidental edit-while-logged-out. I am not going to make a link between my user and an IP address so you'll have to take that on faith. And if you're feeling persecuted, you might want to consider the possibility that you've done things that are attracting a lot of attention. The easiest solution for you is to stop doing them. 2600:4040:2789:D600:D1BD:C4C8:3764:EA52 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Support --Bedivere (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Support --Mazbel (Talk) 03:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Support --Kritzolina (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Support --Cavarrone (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am a little puzzled that people are supporting this despite there being no actual procedure for interaction bans on Commons, and also that they are just voting but not explaining their position. Very odd. Just Step Sideways (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  IAR (under a different name) applies here too. If you can dream up a sanction, I see no reason why it wouldn't be a valid one. And people are just sick of the whole "your porn sucks" schtick at this point, I think. casualdejekyllcommons 14:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose As noted, there is no formal mechanism for IBans of any colour here. If there was, the community would have already established a method of preventing one party from being able to effectively impose it on another merely by request. Which is what's happening here. Somewhat unilaterally. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is borderline wikilawyering. We don't need formal procedures for everything. There are some examples at Commons:Editing restrictions of topic bans and upload bans which the community imposed even though we don't have formal TBAN procedures. The conditions if implemented are also clearly defined at the top of this section. Community consensus (as is being shown here) is good enough. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Per Elinruby and Balph Eubank💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚
•  Oppose per Eubank; I fail to see how JSS's DRs are out of line or harassment. Queen of Hearts (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  (For what it's worth, I don't find "there isn't a process" a convincing oppose rationale; we should be flexible.) Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Support: Reading the admin noticeboard discussion and deletion discussion, I just see incivility after incivility from JSS. For instance, their inflammatory tone saying "shitty cartoon porn you love so much". Then they double down and state "[their] interest in terrible cartoon porn is a you problem". Then they make a retaliatory Wikipediocracy thread per JPxG where they state they did nothing wrong? Clear refusal to understand the issue. This should have deserved a temporary incivility block at the very least to prevent further wastage of the community's time. Again, the DR is not the issue but the combatitibe attitude which has resulted in disputes. But an IBAN is still fine. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  In the interest of total transparency (be never it said I lack honor) JSS wasn't the OP of that thread, it was some other guy -- JSS just posted in it. On all other points, I agree. JPxG (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think we need a rule against continuing Wiki drama offsite Trade (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Also, some have pointed out Commons has no formal IBAN procedure. However this is just wikilawyering. The IBAN conditions have been clearly defined at the top of this section. We once banned a user from uploading even though we have no formal upload ban procedure, and we banned a user from deletion even though we have no formal TBAN procedure. We don't need to formally define everything. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Support as per TSC and Matrix above. Yann (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• For the record, I blocked Special:Contributions/2600:4040:2789:D600:0:0:0:0/64 for a week. Just IP trolling. Yann (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

•  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)
•  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)

• I think we should restrict voting to active accounts. Dilettante above has only 3 contributions on Commons. Yann (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I won't argue too strongly, since, ultimately, who should opine should be up to commons regulars. I was brought here by an enwiki ANI thread, so you can strike this or ignore me if you'd like.

  However, my view is that Commons has no formalized IBAN policy; the policy conditions are being borrowed from enwiki, as evinced by the original post. As such, enwiki users might have some relevant experience with what warrants an IBAN. Dilettante (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t have a problem with non-regulars voting, but I do think those with relevant experience (such as local admins) should receive more weight Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  User:Just Step Sideways/Not really? casualdejekyllcommons 18:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Pretty much. Your opinion counts for only half if you are not of the body. Just Step Sideways (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Legality? Trade (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

Sorry. Dronebogus (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

•  there is no policies about that! lets make do actions according to book. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 22:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

•  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)

•  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)

  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)

•  Comment: Would an interaction ban prevent a clean start of any of the involved users? RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  The whole point of a clean start is to "recogni[se] past mistakes and avoid[] harassment". If the new account simply edited in new topic areas (for Dronebogus this means not uploading any more sexualised images, for JSS this is not nominating Dronebogus' uploads) and didn't do past mistakes then this is fine. We don't really have a policy on clean starts anyway. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 05:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Dilettante's reasonable arguments. Nothing wrong with the nominations, one should not need 3,358 contributions to Commons to have one's reasonable arguments heard. SashiRolls (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment Not to add fuel to the fire, but apparently sockpuppetry is also involved in the drama 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚

•  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)
•  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)

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)

Let us avoid personal attacks please Trade (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

•  Oppose I don't seem to find it warranted, and perhaps that an IBAN is TOOSOON. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement for any onlookers

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)

Could you add a link to the Commons policy on IBANs please? Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Common sense, perhaps? Bedivere (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

COM:SENSE appears to be an essay. :) SashiRolls (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

What have KiwiFarm LiteWikipediocracy accused Commons of this time? Trade (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

---

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

• Chhanchhana zote picture (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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

 Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Competence is required and I just don't see that. Jonteemil (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: --Trade (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagreed to the speedy request but you did not mention the reason for that. GPSLeo (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

What? Trade (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

this place for "user problems" not "copyright". check: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Photographer Lalchhanhima Zote

• Photographer Lalchhanhima Zote (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Alisahib2001

Alisahib2001 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) re-uploading non-free logos immediately after deletion, despite multiple warnings: [8] [9] [10] and so on. Quick1984 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Lighthumormonger

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)

---

Lighthumormonger: Part I

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Whatever. Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Lighthumormonger: Part II

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)

@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)

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!

• example 1
• example 2
• example 3

Elizium23 (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Lighthumormonger: Part III

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lighthumormonger: Part IV

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Block on enwiki now upgraded to a checkuser block. Grandpallama (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Support that. Nothing about their contributions anywhere seems constructive to the overall project. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support Sounds like a case of en:WP:NOTHERE. Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support Bidgee (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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. [11] Just Step Sideways (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

---

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

"stop harrasing me please..."

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)

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)

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)

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)

• modern primat is a helpful user. Lionel Cristiano (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

 Not done No admin action necessary. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Arial Bold

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)

@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)

I'd support a block if they continue any further. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Most uploads are nominated for deletion due to different reasons. Block is currently not needed. Taivo (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)