Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 94

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

Another Kingwarnen sock?

I believe Affirmativepersonsigns to be a new sockpuppet for Kingwarnen. Considering the case that I initiated above was just closed in the last day or two, and it revealed sockpuppetry, I find a brand new user with two edits and one of them being a revision on a Kingwarnen file too suspect to be random. Fry1989 eh? 17:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that Kingwarnen is a sockpuppet of Jermboy27, just to let you know. Affirmativepersonsigns (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done - indeffed by Elcobbola. –Davey2010Talk 10:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Subaruking21

Hi, Could an admin indef Subaruking21 please as they've been repeatedly uploading copyvios, They were warned in February and then blocked for 2 weeks in June however as of today they've continued uploading copyvio images again. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - Blocked one month. Эlcobbola talk 16:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks User:elcobbola but could I ask why one month and not indefinitely?, They've done nothing but upload copyvios since being here and chances are once their block's expired they'll continue to upload copyvios again.... –Davey2010Talk 16:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • But has anyone explained this to them? As an actual dialogue, not just a pasted warning box'o'doom?
Because Commons is rubbish at this. The upload wizard is dreadful. We have a user here who doesn't understand that when we say "Pick a licence and apply it" that we don't mean "pick a licence and apply it", because we're going to ban you for doing that If you're not the rights holder to that image, which we haven't explained to you. And then when they don't understand, we shout at them. Which is hardly encouraging any sort of education or useful discussion.
AGF anyone? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagree - Their talkpage is full of copyvio notices so it's not like they've uploaded 2-3 copyvios before being blocked. They've had ample opportunity to read what is and what isn't accepted here, The copyvio warning could be more helpful/informative than what it already is but not really my problem.
Anywho I've left a message on their talkpage. –Davey2010Talk 19:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Comportement irrationnel de l'utilisateur L'Élan Wallon

Bonsoir, et toutes mes excuses de ne pas pouvoir m'exprimer en anglais.

Un contributeur récent a aujourd'hui un comportement particulièrement irrationnel (Special:Contributions/L'Élan_Wallon). Il ajoute et supprime aussitôt une catégorie d'un fichier. Ceci sur une centaine d'image depuis ce matin. C'est dérangeant quant au suivi des modifications des fichiers que j'ai dans ma liste.

Je lui ai laissé une message avec une demande d'explication pour ce comportement.

Je lui avais déjà donné quelques conseils concernant les droits et descriptions à utiliser pour les cartes postales anciennes qu'il publie. Ce n'est pas là un problème de copyvio, mais d'attribution de paternité.

Il est également actif sur la Wikipédia en Français.

Je ne sais pas comment réagir.

Merci d'avance pour votre aide.

--H2O(talk) 17:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Je lui ai laissé un message. Me faire signe si ça continue. Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 18:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Merci. --H2O(talk) 19:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
il a continué toute la nuit. --Chatsam (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
J'ai l'impression que L'Élan Wallon veut ajouter les pages qu'il modifie et dont ensuite il annule la modif, à sa liste de suivi… et qu'il n'a pas trouvé l'étoile. Mais, manifestement, il n'a pas vu non plus qu'il a une page de discussion. Ni ici, ni sur la Wikipédia francophone. En attendant, il continu effectivement son manège. --H2O(talk) 06:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Le rasoir d'Hanlon peut probablement être appliqué : il s'agit vraisemblablement d'incompétence et non de malveillance. En conséquence, il me semble préférable de ne pas sanctionner ce comportement mais d'essayer, dans la mesure du possible, de donner des conseils. En revanche, les problèmes de licence sur les téléversements doivent être réglés. Non seulement il y a une confusion entre domaine public et licence CC-BY-SA, mais certaines cartes ne sont probablement pas dans le domaine public. Peut-être une DR serait-elle un moyen approprié d'entamer un dialogue ? Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 07:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
J'y vois également beaucoup de maladresse et d'incompétence. Donc certainement pas de sanctions pour ce motif. Une « DR », c'est quoi encore ? --H2O(talk) 08:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests. — Racconish 💬 10:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Et il reprend le cirque. Aucun dialogue semble possible. Je demande un blocage court en écrire dans l'espace principal. Pour provoquer une réponse, une réaction. Merci. --H2O(talk) 16:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocage de 3 jours sur l'espace fichiers avec invitation à discuter. — Racconish 💬 16:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Bloqué sur "Fichier" poursuit son chemin sur "Catégorie" comme si de rien n'était. Personnellement, c'est la première fois que j'introduis des demandes de suppression en série. --H2O(talk) 16:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah oui ! J'ai ajouté catégories. — Racconish 💬 16:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Dialogue entamé sur Wikifr. --H2O(talk) 10:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Junior2912 (talk · contribs)

The user has been blocked twice for uploading non-free files. After this, the user has continued to upload non-free files, which had already been deleted previously. See this and this one. --Ovruni (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

At least for these last uploads he provided the correct source, so that verification (of copyvio) was easy. Instead of indef-blocking him now, I would recommend as a last AGF-attempt that a Spanish-speaker explains to him that when uploading other's works he needs to have positive evidence that the work had been released under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Done, I have written to him in Spanish explaining about the files that the user has uploaded and the licenses. --Ovruni (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Woife-Berger

Username promotion GR3ATR00T (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

user:Epicalyx Is indiscriminately uploading tons of random videos

user:Epicalyx is uploading hundreds of videos, most of which are completely random but some of which seem to be attempts at pushing a conservative political viewpoint. Many of them have dubious licensing information and/or are out of scope. They are usually uncategorized or poorly categorized. If their behavior continues WM commons will be inundated with hundreds of mostly useless potentially copyright-violating videos to sift through. What should be done about this user? Dronebogus (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Durai.velumani

Durai.velumani (talk · contribs) seems that he is not here for contributing properly to Wikimedia Most of images are against the particular scope such as copyvios, COM:NOTSOCIAL and COM:HOST. The user seems political party promoter since he upload particular political personal's image. Some images are tagged for delete nomination. Admin has to intervene since he ignores instruction here and as well as on ta.wiki. --~AntanO4task (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Eaaaaugh

Discussion about deletion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nuclear_Blast_Animation_Blinding_Light.gif is getting stuck, basically 1 yes vs. 1 no, and user Eaaaaugh is getting a little bit dramatic and excited about it, violating basic rules of voting discussion. Third party opinion, and moderation is requested to get things down to regular discussion. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done I have closed the discussion rubin16 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Jad Rifari

Same of the Copyright violation. GR3ATR00T (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done one uploaded image, even with a wrong license, isn't a reason to do something with the user except from warning and explaining rubin16 (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

IP 74.104.130.117

Insulting using names like others names like "idiot", "Dumbass" and "loser in [1]

Claimed, firstly to be an firearm expert like saying in his talkpage that he [OWN OVER 32 BOOKS ABOUT SPRINGFIELD GUNS AND I KNOW MORE THAN YOU'LL KNOW IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. NOW SHUT UP AND LET PROFESSIONALS HANDLE THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE WEBSITE], and changed several images from a rifle form Category:Springfield Model 1865 to Category:Springfield Model 1866, but only continued his insults like telliing me to SHUT THE F*CK UP CRYBABY" and, after i told him to stop insulting me, he said "YOURE NOT THE EXPERT SO SHUT UP AND MY BEHAVIOR DOESNT CHANGE MY KNOWLEDGE CRYBABY".

Given that this that i showed that he is wrong he admited that he was a mere troll by saying that "AND YOUR POINT IS? TO BE HONEST I REALLY DONT CARE WHAT CATEGORY THE PICTURE IS IN. I JUST LIKE TROLLING WIKI SCUM LIKE YOU AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH I HATE WIKI. THIS WEBSITE SHOULD BE WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. and still coninues with the insults.

Clear case of block. Tm (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

HAHAHA IM STILL RIGHT ABOUT THE 1865 AND 1866 DESIGNATION BUT I STILL LIKE SEEING SCUM LIKE YOU SQUIRM AND SUFFER! HAVE FUN! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.130.117 (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Now he vandalizes also this page. Tm (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

SO WHERES THAT BLOCK CRYBABY SNOWFLAKE? SEEMS TO BE TAKING FOREVER OR MAYBE I WONT GET BLOCKED BECAUSE IM RIGHT HA!

✓ Done Blocked 1 month. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answer. Tm (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

This user might be a newly created sock-puppet of Luis camilo álvarez vega, an LTA that has long attacked the Spanish and English Wikipedias and Commons for years. At the time of writing (23 August 2021, 22:00 UTC), the patters currently replicated by Sifg.360 are (i) its name itself, a shortcut of two of his former puppets (Sirfrederickgol2017, Sirfrederickgol2014 (2) the uploading and renaming of Latin American television logo files to "Logotipo de [insert channel name] ([year to year])" and (iii) involvement in files previously vandalized by Luis camilo's former socks. Here, Luis camilo had presence with LuchoAlvarez 1989, Lucho249 and Lucho366. Here, Luis camilo formerly used the sock Lucho247, Lucho366 and also did 3RR using IPs. --Bankster (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bankster: I reported it at m:srg#Global lock for Sifg.360 for you, you can do that yourself next time.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Davey2010 very much possessive about their files

The offending comment has been removed and the request for a formal IBAN has been denied. Still, it is recommended to both participants in the conflict to avoid each other to keep this settled and to not raise tensions again. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2021 (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.

Hello all administrators

Recently, I nominated Davey2010's files which are so blurry and out of scope. Correct, right? But Davey didn't accept it. He posted a vandalism notice (IDK how)And as per him- My edits were disruptive because I nominated a file which is uncategorized and I stalked him. He as well reverted the DR with a speedy note. Was the rollback right for that? Now first- I don't see any rule which says we can't nominate a file for deletion if it is uncategorized and I got known of the file by clicking the Random File button. It was pretty okay okay but today when I saw on his DR here he said me F**K you you pathetic twat. Now this was going fire so came on ANU. Request to please help block him. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 03:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the comment and wrote to the user rubin16 (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: Is that all? This user is doing this multiple times. This user depresses me. And a simple note will replace that? --Contributers2020Talk to me here 05:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Great, I saw again in the DR edit history to me- Get f***ed up. And literally a simple note? --Contributers2020Talk to me here 05:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Davey2010 attempted also to undo deletion requests on his files which were freedom of panorama cases. I posted a notice on his talk page. This was reverted without further comment. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

In summary, Davey2010 has got warnings by Billinghurst and me regarding the reverts and edit-warring on the deletion requests and by Rubin16 regarding the incivility ([2], [3], [4]). He has now asked as uploader to speedily delete the whole series of these photos. I've granted him this request per G7 ([5]). I think that Davey2010 received the messages and I hope he keeps them in mind. Otherwise he appears to be a very active and constructive contributor. Given that rubin16 has already revision-deleted the offending comment and issued a warning, I consider this settled.

@Contributers2020: I am sorry that you had to experience this but there is no right to get someone blocked. You were right to bring this to COM:AN/U but we block primarily when there is an ongoing problem and as of now this appears to have calmed down. One comment, though: If you notice blurry or otherwise out of COM:SCOPE photos by a regular, I would suggest to talk about this directly on the respective user page. This is then less likely to raise tensions. The FOP nominations, howevery, were correct & necessary. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: Guess it is what it is. Just want to know if I can delete the vandalism notice given by him because this will affect community decision after seeing it when I want to want to COM:RFR or COM:LRR. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 10:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi rubin16 and AFBorchert, First of all I apologise for that comment at the DR, I was angry more than anything but still that's not an excuse and it should not have been said.
I would like to explain something: When I mass-upload my files I personally like to sort them myself so then I know what categories they are in and what files need to be kept and deleted, That's just how I like to do things and that's how I've been doing them for years.
C2020's concerns were valid however I explained time and time again I like doing things my way and in my own good time. If C2020 hadn't interfered in something that didn't concern them we wouldn't be here now (I'm leaving AFB's name out of that statement because had they not been watching C2020s page they wouldn't of ever came across my files although AFBs DR was valid and I have no qualms with it).
Question - Are IBANs a thing here because if so may I request an IBAN between myself and C2020 - If this happens I will reupload all deleted files and will delete the poor ones and the FOP ones but until an IBAN is enacted between us then my days here are over because I don't want to be stalked by this person day in day out nor do I want to interact with them again - They stay away from me - I stay away from them. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Davey2010, I was doing my own work. Your rules will not work here right? When you admit DR was valid, why did you post disruptive edit. Moreover, You can't just speedy a DR or post a disruptive edits if the things aren't going your way. Once again I repeat- I am not stalking you in any way Davey2010. I came across the file via Random File button.

--Contributers2020Talk to me here 10:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Well they've worked here for 5-6 years without issue. This is the part you're missing - YES the DR was valid HOWEVER the files would've been deleted irrespective of that DR .... that's my point .... DR or no DR those files would have been deleted.
That's a lie - On the 20th August you edited Jeffs RFA, 3 days later (23rd) you nominated my files ..... so you clearly went through my contributions, through my category and nominated the files. People randomly may come across my files via the random button I don't dispute but there's absolutely no way these images would've been there no way. I believe you stalked my contributions and nothing you do or say will change my mind. –Davey2010Talk 11:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
You are just interconnecting random things into random things. How is Jeffs RFA is connected to this. Believe it or not, I got that file from Random File. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 11:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 Comment There is zero way that I gave Davey2010 any warning. I simply explained that we would not typically speedy delete DRs. I have zero issue with things that Davey2010 is doing and find them a cooperative and helpful editor in my interactions. The user explained why the were requesting speedy deletion and while it was a reasonable explanation, I denied it and it was similarly not an unreasonable request, that is why we have administrators follow the processes to manage.

This complaint sounds excessive. If this what we are getting to today? This request just sounds petty when the matter was simply resolved by an administrator; can we go back to something productive.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Understood but this thread was primarily about a personal attack which is now revision deleted (see above). I was just giving context here. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Please do not continue this dispute here, COM:AGF applies. I do not think that an IBAN is appropriate here. You had one unfortunate interaction regarding these files over some days but I do not see a longterm issue. IBANs can be problem by themselves as they tend to end up here at this board even for entirely harmless edits done by accident. I just recommend to both of you to get out of your ways for some time and let this settle. @Davey2010: I would recommend to weed out the inferior pictures before uploading them. Sorting them here at Commons using speedy deletion requests generates work load for the admins which should be avoided. And whenever you upload anything here, you have to live with the consequence that standard procedures like deletion requests can be applied. @Contributers2020: It is always best to avoid raising tensions. The impression to follow someone's contributions should be avoided (even if it is not intentional) and in many cases it is best to raise something on a talk page first as long as we do not have copyvios. The important point is here that we want to work collegially. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not going to be stalked by someone 24/7 and I'm not going to upload files here just for this person to pop up and start nominating them for deletion in order to get a rise from me. They'll pull this stunt again and me being me I'll react the same way again. Not worth it so I'm done, Thanks all for your help and support over the years It does mean alot, Take care all. –Davey2010Talk 11:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't continuing the dispute nor am I the one who ever started this dispute but I agree AGF does apply. Personally I'd still like an IBAN but I know that wont happen ... so my proposal below will hopefully put this to rest once and for all. I enjoy editing here, I enjoy spending my time here and I enjoy uploading my images here and no one's going to stop that. –Davey2010Talk 21:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Unhelpful extended material – please keep it settled now
I completely agree with AFBorchert and also request Davey2010 to end this thing. But let it be like a warning to Davey sir not do do personal attacks. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 11:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
AFBorchert - Is baiting such as this allowed to stand ? Precisely the reason why I asked for an IBAN. Oh well you've lost a constructive hard working editor no thanks to them. –Davey2010Talk 12:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • So having been out for the entire day and got a lot of fresh air I'm feeling rather refreshed.
So User:Contributers2020, Can we agree that from this point forward you don't nominate any of my images and you don't follow me around like a lost puppy agreed?.
The crux of the issue here is you meddling around with my images which I don't appreciate .... so if you leave my images alone we won't have a problem and we won't be at each others throats (if after categorisation someone has a problem with my images they can then nominate them),
If you can agree on leaving myself and my images alone I will be happy to reupload everything that got deleted knowing you won't be bothering me but that's ofcourse only if you agree to this.
I see this as a way of moving forward and hopefully we can continue being productive without doing each others heads in. Thank you. –Davey2010Talk 20:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Davey2010 Why would you re-upload the files that got deleted? Weren't they deleted because they were blurry? Didn't you say earlier that they would have been deleted anyway? Pack My Box (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pack My Box, Apologies for the confusement,
I uploaded over 100 images and some were blurry and some weren't however I requested all of the files to be deleted which they were - What I'm trying to say is that I can continue as I did before (upload all files including blurry ones) and do how I did things before but without C2020's involvement (ie go through them, speedy the blurry/poor quality ones and keep the good ones)
I could do this all offline but honestly I find it easier doing it this way and no admins have ever complained about it and prior to C2020s involvement it's never been a problem here, I hope this better explains it :), Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Can we have an admin give an honest and sensible good look at this matter and see it for the obvious trolling it is? Davey2010 is being trolled here and the last thing he needs is to feel that admins are unable or unwilling to do some basic clean up. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if they are really a troll or not. I think they are an example of CIR. Their recent comment below though, does look like trolling. pandakekok9 03:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: Sorry for the late reply. I will agree to you, but with a exception. If a see any pictures which are categorized and are blurry, low quality etc etc. I WILL nominate it for deletion. And if the pictures are not categorized neither speedy after 5 days, it will be nominated for deletion. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 03:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think it would be better if you just unconditionally and voluntarily not interact with Davey at all. Your "exception" doesn't help. If someone tells you to stop interacting with them, you should stop. pandakekok9 03:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    What pandakekok9 said^. There should be no valid reason as to why you should ever come across my files again so there should be no exceptions here. You unconditionally and voluntarily stay away from me and I unconditionally and voluntarily stay away from you. It's as easy and simple as that. –Davey2010Talk 11:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    DAvey2010 You uploaded blurry images. Contributers2020 asked for them to be deleted. They did nothing wrong by doing that. Even you agree that they should have been deleted. This has argument has been caused by your upload and your subsequent poor behaviour. The problem here is your actions. Pack My Box (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    You clearly aren't understanding the issue here - I've explained the issue above to the point where I'm sounding like a broken record. Again if C2020 leaves myself and my files alone we won't have a problem. If he can agree to leave me alone and my files alone we can close this discussion and move on with our lives but at present C2020 has refused to agree to that. –Davey2010Talk 14:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    Why should any user stop nominating blurry files for deletion? That is not the problem here. Pack My Box (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Unhelpful stuff with points which have already been made before
  • Davey2010 Please stop and reconsider what you are doing here. You are making unnecessary work for other project volunteers. As AFBorchert has asked you above, please go through your images before uploading them here instead of asking admins to delete the blurry ones. Please remember that once you upload the images, any other volunteer may ask for them to be deleted for any number of reasons. If you want to have a place to keep your images where no one else will touch them, you should make a Flickr account. Pack My Box (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Pack My Box , Again no. Again I've been doing it this way for years and no admins have ever had a problem with it. I appreciate it may add to the backlog but in all for the recent batch of images uploaded and deleted I would say only 5-10 were bad at most, I don't upload 90 poor images with 10 being good that would be stupid but indeed I'm aware for whatever reason some images can be blurry.
Again I don't have a problem with anyone nominating my images - I simply have a problem with one specific editor going through my contributions and nominating them before I've even had the chance to sort them - Taking that editor out of the equation no one ever comes across my files and no one ever nominates them before I've sorted them so I disgaree I'm not making unnecessary work for anyone. –Davey2010Talk 14:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how long you have been doing it this way. Please stop now. You say "no admins have ever had a problem with it" but one admin has asked you to stop in this very discussion. You say "I'm not making unnecessary work" but you admit that you knowingly upload bad images and ask for them to be deleted which is unnecessary work. Please stop now. You say you have a problem with users "nominating them before I've even had the chance to sort them" but you should be sorting them before you upload them. Please stop now. Pack My Box (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Who are you again ?, Not to be rude but I don't believe I have ever pinged you here nor have I asked for your opinion .... so I don't believe this issue remotely concerns you does it....
But to answer your reply - No not a chance. Ironically the same admin who has never had a problem prior to today ... funny that.
We can go around and around and around in circles all day long however the point still stands - I continue what I've been doing, C2020 agrees to the above proposal, this can be closed and guess what .... we can contribute to the project in our meaningful constructive ways .... imagine that Pack .... Us doing something useful instead of this discussion!, Imagine.
Alls C2020 has to is agree to the above proposal, That's it.–Davey2010Talk 14:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: , Check and sort out your things offline is really the reasonable thing you should do. If you are doing for many years change it now. If you still do it online, I also gave a simple proposal- you're not gonna speedy the file after 5 years right?? 5 days is enough for you to sort your things up and delete the bad files. Accept this proposal or there is nothing I can help with. And Davey, Pack my Box is a Commons valid user and have full rights to tell anything or suggest anything about you or your practices/behaviours. You're literally become a 11 year old trying to get what you want and never listen to other people's points. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 17:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but no. I'm not changing my ways and what I do for the sake of one editor who by all accounts seems to have an obsession with me.
You can leave me alone, I can leave you alone, You can leave my files (uncategorised and categorised) alone and I can leave your files (uncategorised and categorised) alone. It's as simple as that.
If you don't agree with this or continue harassing myself and or my files then you should be indefinitely banned for harassment which is what this turning into.
You can leave me alone, I can leave you alone, You can leave my files (uncategorised and categorised) alone and I can leave your files (uncategorised and categorised) alone. - I cannot make it any more simple than that. –Davey2010Talk 17:20, 25 August 2021 (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.

Possible socking

Editor receives a TBAN from deletions, IP (same geography, same timings) files a DR, an hour later the TBAN'ed editor posts a warning box.

The IP has filed DRs for two low-volume uploaders, both of whom have an overlap with the editor.

Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

93.143.108.177

User:93.143.108.177 cross-wiki vandalism after I blocked them on enwiki for block evasion, personal attacks, and generally being a nuisance. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

TylerKutschbach disruptively editing, edit warring, refusing to listen to other editors despite numerous warnings

TylerKutschbach (talk · contribs) has been taken to ANU multiple past times, most recently in July 2021 (for blanking categories on files), and before then in June 2021 (for manipulating AfD discussions), April 2021 for edit warring, November 2020 for blanking categories on files, and August 2020 for the same reason.

Tyler has received numerous warnings, both at ANU and on their talkpage, to stop their disruptive behavior. Despite this, they continue to blank categories from files, edit war without discussion (see their reverts on numerous Minnesota-related election maps (e.g. File:Minnesota Presidential Election Results 1988.svg and File:2020 United States Senate election in Minnesota results map by county.svg, which they have refused to discuss in any serious depth. They also abuse the DR process, opening new DRs on files just a day after it was closed as "keep" with no new reasoning: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rhode Island Presidential Election Results, 2020.svg. They have been blocked before for category blanking and DR abuse, yet they continue with these. I believe that some sort of sanction, and likely an indef, is necessary to prevent further disruption and maintain a collaborative environment.

Pinging users who have previously participated in ANU threads about this user: Ricky81682 Smial A.Savin Tuvalkin AntiCompositeNumber MisterElection2001 -A-M-B-1996- Túrelio Ibagli Blackcat. Elli (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I support an indefinite block. They were blocked on English for similar antics but it's been a year here. The problem is changing and messing with very old election maps without providing sources is such a complicated concept it's hard to explain. The simple act of explaining what they are doing would be sufficient. The fact that rather than uploading a separate file they are just uploading over the current files and then trying to delete the file so it's all gone is beyond ridiculous. If anyone was doing that with other images, we would be up in riot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment the user was repeatedly warned, thus a long block is inevitable. -- Blackcat 09:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for warning, Elli. Yes, in my opinion, too, this user should get a longer block this time — regardless of his interest in the subject matter (therefore per se not a vandal), he clearly refuses to work in a collegial manner and to accept even the most basic community guidelines, while being profficient enough to be able to technically enact all the cat blanking and DR filing (therefore, not a matter of competence). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. 1 year block for them. --A.Savin 21:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

K.Mukherjee1996 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is engaged in uploading images (claiming herself) that are all proven to copyright violations and deleted. The user has been repeatedly warned, but still continuing the same. Latest, example File:Khushi Mukherjee.jpg where the uploader is claiming that they are the copyright holder as per image description, but no proof of it. Similar claims were also made for many of their previous uploads that were deleted due to non-availability of license. Run n Fly (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Now COM:SELFIE perhaps might apply, although it's INUSE on en:WP and they're working through an AfD on the article to decide if this is WP:NOTABLE or just self-promotion.
But the issue here (if any, I can't see) seems to be about promotion, not copyvios. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: The file meta data is missing. Thu user had earlier engaged in uploading images claiming to be taken by herself, but they failed. See User talk:K.Mukherjee1996 for the earlier notices for File:Khushi-mukherjee-5ec647ca2e0bf-1590052810.jpg. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
So if their first uploads are deleted, we declare them to be persona non grata and don't permit further uploads, or we impose new non-policy requirements on them? That is not how we're supposed to work here! (Although I recognise that increasingly we do). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Now see File:Khushi Mukherjee.jpg is copied (with a negligible edit) from Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/p/CSn-RKZi1rC/). Its a clear COM:CV. It should be deleted immediately and subject to a block. pinging @King of Hearts: or any admin for help. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Just because an image can be found externally, does not mean that it is a copyvio. Here it is obvious that the uploader claims to be the same person as the Instagram user, so the npd tag is correct and they have a week to verify their identity. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Based on what policy, and where has that policy been communicated to this uploader? (Because the upload wizard certainly doesn't!)
Yet again, we're changing the rules on the fly. OTRS is not a general requirement for uploads. If OTRS becomes a requirement for a particular upload, then it's incumbent upon those editors so engaged as to be posting deletion notices and AN/U postings to first communicate that to the innocent uploader. But Commons not only can't do that much, it has even renamed OTRS to make the process even more obscure! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I've recently written Commons:But it's my own work! and added a link to the most common talk page notices for permission issues (DR, copyvio, npd). I wish we would make our policy of requiring VRTS for previously published own work more clear, and proposed to update the UploadWizard text, but it looks like the relevant piece of text is on Translatewiki which I'm not sure how to change. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • So what? It's an obvious selfie, from their own Instagram. There is no reason why that shouldn't be uploaded here (for licensing reasons at least, although COM:SELFIE might still apply), and yet you're seeking to block them for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
File data get lost when you upload an image to some social medium, so when you then download it from there they will be missing. Not everybody knows that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons mobile App

There is a lot of problems on uploading images with Commons mobile app. When are you going to resolve those hindrences?--Shagil Kannur (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shagil Kannur: Hi, and welcome. We have Commons talk:Mobile app for reports of problems with, or other talk about, the Commons Android app, preferably with specifics. Pinging @Misaochan as project maintainer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Attashahnoory

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Mohammed Khan Chowdhury sockfarm

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: were you meant to file this in COM:ANV but ended up filing it in COM:ANU? SHB2000 (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000: No, it was too complicated for ANV. Now that all four users are globally locked, and their contribs here have been cleaned up, this request is ✓ Done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. All the accounts are globally locked. I tagged them and created sockpuppet category. Taivo (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Neburner11

Neburner11 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  received an end-copyvyio note and was also blocked for uploading copyvios after that, is now uploading copyvios again (falsely claiming syndicated news images as own work). —SpacemanSpiff 17:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a month. Taivo (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

sockpuppetry

I have indef-blocked Alexanderolotu51 (talk · contribs), who first got my eye due to uploading low-res screenshots of child-actors, for SP-abuse, after I found that he used at least 4 sock-puppets to re-upload his copyvios, all of which now have also been indef'd.

Over at :en there was even a formal CU investigation en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexanderolotu51/Archive, which found nearly the same SP-accounts. --Túrelio (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Celtic Minded (talk · contribs)

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.

The above block was out of process. Commons policies allow for legitimate alternate accounts and were an SPI case created, it would be rejected by policy due to an absence of evidence of misuse (per "Running a check will only be done to combat disruption on Commons"). In the light that this is likely to be a long term contributor wanting to protect their main account from several types of retaliation from "friends of" an English Wikipedia Arbcom member, this seems an entirely legitimate reason for someone to use an alternate account. There is no evidence that the account was being used to vandalize the project, manipulate votes or otherwise cause harm or game the system. Considering the high-level status of the Arbcom member, it would be impossible to even recommend that someone wanting to use an alternate account to contribute here would want to email checkusers or VTRS in order to explain why it is a legitimate account as those methods are obviously not confidential from a trusted Arbcom member.

The block should be removed and the user can choose whether they ought to abandon it, having had their say but may wish to correct the record or explain their use of this account in their own words. --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ditto. Ill-advised at best. Stinks, frankly. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
As I have written at the talk page of the user, any administrator may lift my block. I am convinced this is not a user in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
COM:BP has no provision for "block on sus". This explanation looks terrible and is not a justification for the use of sysop tools. --Fæ (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Even though it is obvious that User:Celtic Minded is not their first account on wm projects I don't see an extent of abuse that would justify an indef block. Of course the block might be reinstated by any admin if necessary. --Achim (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean "when evidence is forthcoming" otherwise that would be wheel-warring. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Right, I'm not a native speaker... --Achim (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to Achim and others. The contrast between en.wiki and Commons couldn't be clearer in how they handle wrongful blocks like this. They are especially harmful given that a local project's tolerance of harassment is unlikely to change while they persist in believing outsiders should be kept out, and insiders too unless they make available their entire backstory to anyone who might not like what they have to say about other insiders, especially those in high places. It is of course extremely ironic that it was an analogy of an often abused en.wiki justification via a mere link and cut and pasted stock phrases that was used to silence me, and it was simple common sense and a fully and properly explained human piece of unique and context specific reasoning that was my release. Well done. My faith wasn't exactly shaken, but it has been swiftly restored. Celtic Minded (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Andddddd Celtic turned out to be a sock of a globally banned user. Good judgment sysops, never change.

Even if Celtic didn't turn out to be a sock, I still believe the block imposed by Ymblanter is a good one. Registering just to comment in a drama they aren't even involved in is a sure sign that they aren't really here to contribute to Commons. The unblocking admin didn't even ask if Celtic is planning to really contribute to Commons or not (like uploading a photograph). This kind of behaviour by Celtic don't deserve AGF, especially when there are a lot of new, true contributors who are sadly being bitten by established members of the community. pandakekok9 02:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Yeah, a sock of a user who runs a much nastier off-wiki forum that I've just been informed has an entire subforum dedicated to talking shit about me in particular. Thanks to the local admins and the steward who had the good sense to see that they were an obvious block-evading troll. Are we done here? I think we're done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2021 (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.

User:DrKay

No consensus for any action here--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2021 (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.

I need for investigation over hounding, personal attacks and incivility for DrKay (formerly DrKiernan). But they isn't yet an administrator, what I need to find and report these evidence? --110.74.195.65 07:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

110.74.195.65 is another IP sock puppet of User:49.150.110.214/User:Frontman830, operating from an open proxy already blocked on the English language wikipedia. It's part of ongoing cross-wiki harassment campaign against me. DrKay (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Incredible accusation against :en-sysop w/o any evidence. IP blocked. ✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
IP 14.192.148.170 also blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@Túrelio: How dare you, always I've been concerned about DrKay's bad evidence, is it a lie? --176.62.188.158 08:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, there’s plenty of evidence. Did we not all see the last report documenting DrKay’s hideously abusive act of typing curly brackets that should have been square? One can’t expect to get away with such crimes forever!—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Is that you, Greta? IP 176.62.188.158 also blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Ignore about Greta Thunberg's quote, so I need to check evidence you've looking for on Wikipedia, in DrKay's block log. --182.176.149.66 08:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Why should we care about short-term blocks a decade ago on another project? IP 182.176.149.66 also blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Wait, but what did you expect this evidence that DrKay mistakenly blocked on Wikipedia? --200.106.184.10 08:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Commons is not the place to discuss alleged disagreements from :en. IP 200.106.184.10 also blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

New evidence for allegation on harassment of Bettydaisies by DrKay, see it here: [6]—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.129.240.44 (talk) 00:55, August 27, 2021 (UTC)

That's not harassment. That's a legitimate copyright concern. @Túrelio: 181.129.240.44 needs to be blocked too. pandakekok9 02:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Please, stop do this, but need to ask for a few questions about DrKay's evidence, but even I assumed bad faith inside of me.
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.

Requesting to protect a wikipedia common

A wikipedia common page is I edited and explained the logic of my edit . A user was continuously reverting my edits. Requested him to come to discussion in talkpage which he didn't,. Next using unsigned account by using ip address he started vandalizing the summery of the common. The Wikipedia common is very important . Hence I would request you please check and initiate extended confirmed protection to the common, Such that only genuine editors can edit. Shall wait for your valuable reply. Concerned common File:Kolkata Imgs.jpg Mainakchatterjee.tech (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerned common File:Kolkata Imgs.jpg Mainakchatterjee.tech (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It may be the same user who explained their reasons to you on User talk:আকাশ নাথ সরকার, but is currently not logged in. You are both reverting instead of asking for help. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I have reset to the original image (collage) version from 2009, as the current change is contested and may violate Commons:Overwriting existing files. Editors should first reach a consent and then create a new collage/file, which may then replace the older version, if projects agree to do. --Túrelio (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mainakchatterjee.tech, after changing 1 image in a collage created by another user it is not appropriate to claim that you created the whole collage. --Túrelio (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the other user is correct that the Kolkata Bridge is not in the city, and the lede in en:Wikipedia is wrong. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)You should never remove authorship of other users derivative works like you did here. Secondly, Commons:Overwriting existing files is linked when uploading and overwriting files, I suggest you read up on it or the same issue will arise again in the future. Thirdly, both of you (IP and the op) should be blocked for edit warring. Bidgee (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Kolkata Gate, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata_Gate Is within Kolkata, It is now the one of the most attracted place of Kolkata as of today and is accepted golbaly. I already requested him to come to discussion in talk page which he did'nt. I am sorry for claiming the authorship, I was unaware of the protocols. The image is of 2009 that consists of different places of Kolkata was right but In todays synario Kolkata Gate is very much necessary to be incorporated as it is a pride of Kolkata Mainakchatterjee.tech (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Kolkata Gate is apparently in a suburb called Newtown. A suburb is not the city. It makes no sense to name a bridge after a city it's in, one names it after a city it leads to. I can understand that you still want to include it in a collage about the city, but the best way to do that is to create your own. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox

If nothing can be done here, it should go where it belongs: WMF T&S. And it has. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2021 (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.

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

  • Beeblebrox is actively using off-wiki sites to encourage attacks on Commons contributors, refer to Commons:Village_pump#Beeblebrox, they have not denied these facts
  • They are using edit comments for abuse, see diff 'stfu' = Shut The Fuck Up
  • They have sexualized the village pump thread about direct payments by making an attack on my account name, calling me "OnlyFae" making it appear that I'm an OnlyFans sex worker

The use of edit comments for abuse is directly against our policy as these are considered part of the edit, and the abusive sexualization of other editors is harassment (COM:BP). Beeblebrox's use of off-wiki sites to target a Commons contributor, after they have been told they are frightening, is also clearly intended to be bully and harass and though this is not considered in local policies it clearly does put the other actions in context as a violation of COM:BP under our local definition of Harassment.

None of this is a "joke". Beeblebrox knows how their bullying will harm, frighten others and the off-wiki trolling is a way for them to close down discussions they dislike. If anyone wishes to review some of Beeblebrox's off-wiki history, I have a sample of posts targeting me spanning the last 2 years which I will email you, though these are public if you wish to search for them.

I ask that Beeblebrox's account is sanctioned to demonstrate that this open bullying and misuse of the project is unacceptable, regardless of their "trusted status" on other projects.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


Note This ANU thread is actively being canvassed off-wiki in the same discussions that Beeblebrox has posted. --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  •  Comment Support Not impressed by this edit summary either. A blatant on-wiki breach of COM:NPA and seems to be a long-term course of conduct clearly amounting to harassment. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is, naturally, none of the things it is being presented as (harassment compounded by personal attacks), while actually being something else (the attempted weaponizing of Commons processes to discredit a user on another project) by now-discredited individuals on aforementioned project. Revenge, they may have heard, is a dish best served cold; but not, as here, still in the freezer department and well past its sell-by...) Bon appetit. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Y'know, it's a very poor rhetorical technique to attempt to deflect from one user's real failing by mentioning supposed ones in others. It's cowardly (and unwise before an intelligent audience) and especially so by assuming that other Wikmedia projects never make mistakes, which as we all know, is false. And when it comes to discrediting, I think the subject of this thread has done such a good job by his own words that he doesn't need a peanut gallery to defend the indefensible. OK, maybe not here, but WMF Trust & Safety traditionally protect vulnerable users from harassment, or are supposed to. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    538 edits to this project 88,171 to Beeblebrox's home project. This request for sysop action is not a popularity vote for Beeblebrox, nor should a case of open bullying being subject to more personal attacks, unfounded abusive allegations or "jokes" by a gang of laddish "mates". --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    Instead of counting edits, let's count indef blocks as a testament to usefulness instead. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    Why? It only takes one insane Admin or an incompetent ArbCom to block a useful contributor, and the mud sticks. And people will assume that that is somehow meaningful, It ain't. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    Tell you what, let's count desysops instead. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    You really are looking for any excuse to justify an unjustifiable position, aren't you? Pssst! No-one's buying it, and as I've pointed out previously, attacking the messenger is piss-poor technique. No cred points at all for that, because that is not the currency of Commons. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For the record, as long as we're counting, I count at least four people in that forum thread that Beeblebrox is gleefully cavorting with who have been indefinitely blocked at a minimum, from English Wikipedia. It probably escapes regular reader's attention, it has become so normalised (other ArbCom members who post there do at least try to maintain a dignified detachment from all the gutter fun), but when you think about it, that is very odd company for a Wikipedia Arbitrator to be seeking out at all, much less trying to form social bonds with, and especially through such a horrible shared activity. Celtic Minded (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything wrong with Beeblebrox's posts on the forum, in my opinion. The fact that Fæ continues to lurk on that forum when they feel they are threatened there doesn't really help their case.

    OTOH, this comment is an uncalled-for insult, and only serves to provoke people. I'd like Beeblebrox to retract that and apologize to Fæ. pandakekok9 12:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

    • I keep an eye on it due to the history of harassment against me, including death threats, dating back a decade. I was advised to log these events. That is not "lurking", that's Beeblebrox's way of gaslighting me for being a target of long-term harassment trying to protect themselves. Beeblebrox is fully aware of this history. BTW you don't have to "lurk" anywhere to read Beeblebrox's posts, they are public and show up on Google search, you don't have to log in anywhere they can be routinely reported using the Google alert system. As Beeblebrox posts in threads which also deliberately use my full legal name, they also show up in checks like employment interviews so can and do cause real-life harm, permanently. That Beeblebrox is deriding me for fearing these consequences shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness of their part in harming others. --Fæ (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support This is clearly harassment on Commons and off. Teh number of edits or other projects do not matter. The "stfu" comment is enough to warrant action.--Jetam2 (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that forum is insanely hostile to Commons, up to an including not correcting a furious (and very established) en.wiki Administrator when he posted there looking to forment some kind of mass attack or even a takeover as revenge for a perfectly valid image deletion. You would hope the presence of Beeblebrox could do something to stop such things happening, since there was a non-trivial chance they weren't just venting, but that hope is probably misplaced, and in reality, next time Beeblebrox might even be cheering on from the sidelines, in some effort to fit in with people he clearly wants to be quite good friends with. Would he be open to giving some reassurances here that he will never knowingly do anything on that forum that could go against the interests of Commons, and furthermore, will he always be an open advocate there for the principles of good governance and fraternal partnership? A voluntary reassurance that Commons doesn't have any reason to think it should take measures to protect itself from someone who, given his position, really should be a trusted colleague by default, and if he has any criticisms, should be delivering them in the appropriate way. Celtic Minded (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • For someone who has only registered 2 hours ago, and their first edit being this page, I don't think you're in the position to speak for "the interest of Commons"... pandakekok9 15:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Says the guy who sees nothing wrong with an en.wiki ArbCom member making posts in an offsite forum that mock a Commons user, and when called out on it, doubles down here with more trolling, in the apparent belief he is untouchable even here. Why would the latter be wrong, and the former not? That's the problem with your comment above - Fae can hardly just ignore behaviour that was pretty clearly designed to target Fae. To quote Beeblebrox: "Just so we're clear, we all already know you lurk here". There's that use of "we" again. He's literally flaunting the fact he is a proud member of a hostile forum that Fae in particular wouldn't remotely get a fair hearing in, and he's gloating at the fact that he knows what he writes there gets back to Fae, and indeed it gets to Fae. It wasn't even a particularly helpful comment about the nominal topic, that forum's claimed purpose being to educate the public. It was just a mean and vile generic pile on, clearly part of an ongoing personal fued. I mean, come on, anyone who sees that and doesn't recoil in disgust at the realiation that is supposedly the very person who is charged with dealing with harassment on English Wikipedia, probably doesn't have the interests of any WMF project at heart. I have long marvelled at the amazingly unethical nature his posts at that forum and half wondered if he isn't intentionally trying to get globally banned from the whole movement, perhaps because he is just totally and completely done with Wikipedia, but he just doesn't have the guts to retire. I am quite sure people on that list have done far less. Celtic Minded (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support indefinite block pending acknowledgement by Beeblebrox that he is obliged to follow this local project's policy on no personal attacks. This is actually an open and shut case to me. If people here think that editors should be held accountable for posts they make offsite, and I have no reason to think they don't, and since Beeblebrox doesn't dispute he is the owner of that account, then the mere fact his post there actually opened with a straight up personal attack "In their mind they are the most beloved user Commons ever had", and one that pretty much attacks Fae in one of the worst possible ways (seriously, try and think of a worse thing you could say about someone, and you get an idea of how bad the insult has to be, to make this one look tame), that it is egregious enough to warrant a serious response. And that only becomes even clearer now that we can see from later posts that he made that attack in the full knowledge and apparent hope that Fae would see it, that it would provoke a reaction, and thus provide him and his friends at that site some form of entertainment at the distress caused. Nobody can ever know whether someone's distress is real or fake, but you can put yourself in their position, and ask yourself if you would feel harassed if you were being targetted in this way. And by a senior Wikipedia functionary at that. And you can put yourself in the shoes of an observer who is looking at this project and wondering why an editor who makes an attack like that, and then actually follows it up with the sort of dismissive and inflammatory reactions above, would receive no sanction. Even if it means absolutely nothing to him, even if he might actually go on to parade around English Wikipedia as if it were some kind of badge of honor to be blocked by Commons, as seems to be being suggested is the goal on that forum, that doesn't mean the message doesn't need to be sent. Everyone is meant to be equal here, and you certainly don't get immunity if you are a powerful user on a sister project. Fae deserves better. Even if all he wants (and can realistically get from local Admins) is the reassurance that Beeblebrox doesn't have the freedom to do here what he apparently likes doing on that forum, it's a small act of kindness that would show the movement is serious about being inclusive and taking harassment seriously. Hopefully an indefinite block here would be a necessary wake up call for Beeblebrox, or at the very least if he doesn't reflect and find he has done anything wrong, it will make the English Wikipedia community think twice about whether or not the outcomes of their ArbCom elections (and by extension the way their duly elected ArbCom polices itself), are genuinely expressing their highest hopes and ideals, or their basest impulses. Celtic Minded (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    Comment. I blocked this user indef; they are clearly not here to contribute to the creation of a free media repository, an analog of w:NOTHERE; also, likely we see a block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    "I am not willing to serve this community which in incapable of protecting me from harassment" on your user page. I think you should carefully consider your position. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Already  Supported some action per above but it is oft said loud and clear that functionaries on all WMF projects are expected to set an example of proper conduct and behaviour, and this is the worst I have seen from an Arbitrator, ever, anywhere. There should be no welcome here for such attitudes. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Some questions. The words of Beeblebrox were clearly unjust. But this conversation also raises political questions. 1. Given the importance Fae attaches to off-wiki canvassing, can Fae promise that they have done no off-wiki canvassing of this conversation? 2. Does Wikimedia Commons really wish conversation about one Wikimedia project influences someone else's policies? Should this then be applied to things like e.B project bans in the different directions? 3. Other precedent. Is it healthy that people like Mr Celtic and myself, who show great experience in Wikimedia projects but have never before appeared, arrive in advanced discussions like this? With gratitude for your kind attention, Hermann301 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's all my fault. the great and powerful Fae is utterly blameless and has not made a habit of accusing me of bad faith in every single discussion I comment in. What this is really about is me mocking their ridiculous idea that they deserves "tips" for their volunteer work here. Canvassing, by the normally understood definition, canvassing is encouraging a certain group to comment in a specific conversation. Commenting on an off-wiki criticism site is not canvassing if one does not do that, and I have not. Fae clearly keeps abreast of what is said over there, so he can make this same tired accusation every time. Unless commons is intending to ban all users from commenting on any offsite forum, there's not much to do here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Maybe not much to do here, but I would like to see WMF Trust & Safety's attitude towards a supposedly trusted member of the Wiki community harassing another. Especially an Arbitrator whose DUTY it is to set an example of good behaviour, and your lack of remorse, repentance and apology merely reinforces my long-held opinion that ArbCom is a failed effort, a busted flush, and as long as any one of its members fails so abjectly to uphold the best values of Wikimedia, s/he should go and do someting else. In Mongolia, perhaps. I'll start compiling my independent report tomorrow. T&S can kick ass when they need to. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
And I'm the one who is engaging in intimidation here... This is a bad joke. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm just telling you how it will be. Perhaps if you'd set the example that an Arbitrator should, this thread would not be here. I didn't even realise you were an Arb, but I checked the list, and my God, there's some dead wood in there. The Augean Stables need cleansing. No threats, just some karma perhaps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
"What this is really about is me mocking their ridiculous idea". Yes it is. The how, why and where, and what you've done since. None of which reflect well on you. And now you're going to seriously claim you were somehow provoked into doing this, even though it's clear and obvious you started it, and you clearly wanted this to become something that Fae saw and felt compelled to try and do something about? You can't be unaware what that looks like, and what you yourself and your en.wiki colleagues usually do to people who engage in that type of behaviour, assuming the target is someone you value as a project member. Why is it that you couldn't simply comment on the proposal, here or even at that forum, if you think that's what people here or at en.wiki want and expect of their Arbitrators. Why the mockery? And if you're tired of him accusing you of trying to harm him, and if you're claiming (without evidence) that in actuality, it is he who is harassing you, what exactly are you doing about it? As an en.wiki Arbitrator, are you sure you want people to think that you are incapable of doing anything about it other than mockery? I'm quite sure you meant to hurt Fae somehow, but to me, it just makes you look rather impotent and prone to conflict rather than resolution or avoidance, and so it sets a rather bad example. I can't see anyone wanting to file an Arbitration Case at en.wiki if they are being harassed, if they see that the people on the panel are this incapable. "Unless commons is intending to ban all users from commenting on any offsite forum, there's not much to do here." This appears to be a deflection. The only proposal is to sanction you, and not for the mere act of commenting either. Celtic Minded (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Please tell me this was meant to be a really REALLY funny joke ? .... Because if it wasn't then I weep for all mankind right now. If you don't like what people say about you off-wiki ... then maybe don't lurk that site ? .... My name's been dragged up on one particular site and bizarrely I even made it to 4Chan some months ago .... but you don't see me whinging and whining over it.
I'm disappointed with the stfu remark but lets be honest I've said worse as has everyone else .... Anyway I'm not seeing anything actionable/sanactionable/blockable or even anything worth caring over tbh. –Davey2010Talk 21:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure this counts as you perhaps whinging about it? At the very least, it seems to prove that "just don't look" is not a winning strategy. After all, you must have either gone looking to see if anyone was talking about you on external forums, or someone made sure you knew about it (either for malicious or well meaning reasons). You were forced to make a choice, are you bothered by it, or can you ignore it now you know about it. And some people can. Good for you if you are one of them. But like it or not, that's not what the Wikimedia projects are all about, and local projects aren't permitted to create their own exemptions to the policies against harassment. Beeblebrox has already admitted he knows Fae reads that forum, and perhaps has very good reasons to do so, reasons of personal safety. So we can and we should proceed on the basis that what we are sanctioning here, is Beeblebrox deliberately launching a targetted verbal attack on a member of this community, and without even the justification of the merest hint of a constructive reason. This is what harassment looks like. Beeblebrox isn't going to just come out and say on an external forum that he thinks Fae should be killed. That would be silly. And we have to at least hope he doesn't want Fae to die, either by someone else's hand, or his own. But the animosity he has for Fae clearly runs deep. It's a hateful thing, to target someone, to literally try and drive a wedge between them and their chosen hobby, to turn enjoyment into misery. And for what? No reason they Beeblebrox seems to want to articulate, let alone act upon the right way. If you're fine with that, then OK, but you have tied your own hands here - if you ever hear of Beeblebrox saying stuff about you on external forums, you can't say a word, regardless of what you might think of the comments. You'll have to bury that deep inside you. And hope it doesn't eat away at you, and maybe, in some small way, one day lead to you harming yourself. Harassment is corrosive, and it effects more than just the intended victim. I got wrongfully blocked as part of this, and I am quite sure it had something to do with someone not wanting this incident to get the debate it deserves. Are you cool with that? If so, keep your oppose. If not, reflect on it. Celtic Minded (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Noting that I was dragged to one site and popping up on another isn't whinging about it ...., Well if you don't look you don't know what's posted, if on the other hand you do look you can simply ignore what's posted and move on with your life. I haven't read the rest of your message because I simply cannot be bothered. Have a great day!. –Davey2010Talk 23:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
        • It is whinging though. You're showing it bothered you, enough to carry it around as if it is part of your being. No crime in it. Everyone understands that that kind of person is deliberately trying to find something to say about you that they know will cause a reaction and leave a lasting impression. I hesitate to say this lest it seem like I am trying to do just that, but this is only to show how easy it is. Even on my casual readings, I already know for example that you have a bit of an issue with a short temper, so I'm not quite understanding how or why you of all people can be claiming it's that easy to just let stuff slide. Hopefully that doesn't get you angry. If so, I apologise for playing with your feeling just to make a point. But if you had read the whole message, you would have understood the importance of it. Don't be bothered about what people write about you externally, but do try to be bothered to read what someone here says to you, it is the decent thing to do, since this isn't a vote, it's a debate. Celtic Minded (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
          • In all fairness I did reply on that particular site so I guess it bothered me at that time but I dealt with it there .... I didn't come here complaining did I ?. Again I'm not whinging over it I'm just stating that something was posted about me off-wiki but I didn't start creating threads over it ....., Anyway have a great day. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox's response here is deeply worrying. No apology for deliberately comparing me to a sex worker. The forum they have been posting in, has my full legal name and information on how to find my home address. How would you feel, would you think you were being bullied?

Beeblebrox knows exactly what they are doing, how to get others to troll me on their behalf. It follows the same pattern of off-wiki abuse every time they provoke the trolls to harass their chosen target off-wiki in this way. I have not made an accusation of "canvassing", this is bullying and harassment. Beeblebrox is aware of the police case for the attack made against me. This bullying has real consequences, it is frightening and all Beeblebrox does is make defamatory accusations without any evidence rather than responding to the facts of their own actions, using an off-wiki forum as a weapon deliberately to cause real-life harm and distress.

Beeblebrox has been doing this for years, unable to leave me alone but "hiding" their actions by using an off-wiki forum. The pattern is extremely clear for anyone that wants to examine the evidence. Why would anyone defend this public bullying which even Beeblebrox does not bother to deny, but instead makes weird unfunny "jokes", unsupported counter-accusations and gaslights me like I'm the bully for daring to complain?

After the information about my full name and how to find my home address was published, Beeblebrox is openly enjoying it, egging on and supporting the trolling with: 

Re: Fae wants a taste of that sweet, sweet WMF money
gross...
Anyhoo, Rodhull is now threatening to get Trust and Safety to open a case on me. But I'm the one doing the intimidating. :hmmm:
Beeblebrox » Sun Aug 29, 2021 9:05 pm

Is the Wikimedia Commons admin community really content that this open bullying is "normal" for Wikimedia? I've set my house alarm tonight, I'm frightened that someone might throw a brick through a window or shove a firework through my letterbox. --Fæ (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Fae, just what is your problem with OnlyFans? You seem to put yourself as somehow better than anyone who's been working through it. Now for someone who has made an online career out of weaponised victimhood, that's one hell of an attitude to be taking. Which Pride do you go to? Some sort of 'Pride Olympics', where it's strictly amateurs only and anyone who's 'trade' gets shown the door? Are you familiar with the expression "Don't punch downwards"? Because that's what you're doing here. And unlike Beeblebrox's pretty mild comments, this is really offensive (If anyone hasn't read them, go read the real text, not Fae's pearl-clutching reportage). If you want to take that sort of sneering attitude towards sex workers, there's a Bible Belt you might want to look at. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Sexualizing other editors is entirely avoidable, you don't call other editors f--kers or w--kers, or in this case a sex worker, no matter how healthy you think sex is.
Anyone that reads the off-wiki evidence will see that Beeblebrox is using "plausable deniability", they are not the one sticking the firework through a letterbox, but they know that my details will be posted, because it happens every time they promote a discussion off-wiki about me, and they continue to make "funny" posts after those details have been published. This is weaponizing off-wiki trolls to cause harm and do the dirty work of direct intimidation, it is bullying. No matter how it gets reframed this is not an accident it's a years long pattern. --Fæ (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
You know it was Beeblebrox who burned down the Reichstag too? And he shot JR. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
What don't you understand about this being frightening? The evidence is in front of you. It's not a joke. --Fæ (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This minimisation and dismissal of Beeblebrox's behaviour, not least by Beeblebrox himself, to me seems utterly frightening. Bottom line is that this sort of thing should not be happening anywhere. Believe me, I've suffered from similar too, and I will tell you this: it's demoralising, its depressing,and it brings you down to a level that makes you wonder whether you really want to stay alive. Nobody but the victim of such disrespect and hate has the right to judge the serious effects it can have, or is qualified to do so. Dismiss as a "drama queen" or whatever, but YOU'RE NOT ON THE END OF IT. When it comes to accountability, my final word is this: Nobody's fireproof, not even an Arbitrator. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the OnlyFae jibe says more about Beeblebrox's sneering attitude toward sex workers, than a person's quite reasonable objection to being mockingly compared to a sex worker for the mere act of proposing direct donations in exchange for Commons contributions. Clearly this is all part of some long running personal feud where Beeblebrox tries to knowingly provoke Fae and doesn't much care whether that takes place off site or on Commons as long as he gets his desired reaction, but I wonder if he would make the same OnlyX jibe about anyone here who thought that was a neat idea. If not, why not. And I wonder if he is even aware, or even cares, how many Commons editors are only in a position to donate imagery here for free, by making money from it in indirect ways, such as by crediting their images with their professional identity, or only releasing part of their collection. And let's not just breeze past the punching down element of an en.wiki Arbitrator no less, making sweeping attacks on the literal mindset of a proud Commons user, which is anything but mild. What else can you say to personally attack a user that's worse than that, worse than claiming they see themselves as some kind of superior to all others here, that wouldn't attract a sanction? Stfu is what is mild compared to that sort of deliberately hurtful attack on a person's very being, something that of course can never be proven or denied, assuming Beeblebrox doesn't literally have a post where Fae literally says he is or thinks he is above us all. That's a smear. That's mud that's meant to stick. Meant to provoke. It targets someone who doesn't feel that way, clearly, because you perhaps can't offend a member of a team more, than by claiming they think they're above their team mates. Beeblebrox is entitled to his opinions if that really is his genuine opinion, but like all others who actually do often try to claim superiority over others, he isn't entitled to immunity for expressing a deliberately hurtful opinion in a provocative manner, for no other reason than to cause distress. Beeblebrox had his chance to claim there was some other higher minded reason for any of this. He has offered nothing except some vague claim that it's Fae who is harassing him, that somehow he moved him to do it. That there is blame to share around, apparently. Well, we await the proof of that and if it is forthcoming, it should be acted upon. But even if it comes, this isn't an either or situation. He still has to answer for his chosen means of dealing with this alleged harassment, it it has even occured. This community has to punch up, when a user as high as Beeblebrox is in this movement, does the opposite. Celtic Minded (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Worth noting that we do now have an accusation of sort from Beeblebrox. He claims here that Fae was deliberately trying to frighten him by making this report. Indeed he is actually claiming he is frightened now. It seems obvious this isn't a serious accusation, it's probably pointed sarcasm, and it stretches credulity to think Beeblebrox doesn't know that accusations of using legitimate processes to cause fear would be a serious matter, as is thus using sarcasm to mock Fae's legitimate concerns rather than simply stating they don't believe they are being genuine. It's all just so childish. I just can't see how Beeblebrox can realistically claim all of this isn't just more unedifying deliberate trollery, and if so, why he would expect this community to just roll over and take it. Even if he was to now claim that he has finally seen the error of his ways and is genuinely going to try and comport himself properly here with regard to Fae. No trolling, no mocking, no whataboutism, just plain and simple statements of fact and a genuine desire to resolve any actual resolvable disagreement that might exist here, which I doubt he would, I just don't see why anyone would believe him. I will repeat, Fae deserves better. Local sanctions are a thing for a reason, and nobody should feel afraid to sanction Beeblebrox just because he holds a high rank on another project or he might get even worse with his off site activies if he was sanctioned. It is time to use them. If he gets worse, it really isn't a threat to say that would be the point the WMF would have to be asked to consider if he has done enough for a partial or complete ban for his harassment of Fae, because what other options are there? I am aware of none. This could all maybe still go away if Beeblebrox just grew up, took responsibility and accepted his part in all this, and said something that was genuinely transformative. Celtic Minded (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
"What goes around, comes around"? Please tell me where I can see that Beeblebrox has trolls off-wiki publishing details of their name, their home address, their phone number and where I then against those same posts choose to make funny jokes and incite the anonymous trolls to degrade them more, because of how much I enjoy hurting others while gaslighting them on-wiki that it's all their fault. This is not a vague claim without diffs, this is the permanent published record.
Do you really think this is "normal" and what we should all expect from trusted users with access to WMF confidential information?
Beeblebrox is weaponizing trolls off-wiki to doxx his chosen "enemies". That's not normal, it's targeted personal abuse and deeply disturbing harassment. --Fæ (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Twee fouten maken een goed? Waar is hier het morele kompas? Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Guido den Broeder. --A.Savin 03:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose As per Serial Number 54129. Also, let us beware of meatpuppets, on- and off-Commons joejob campaigns and more. OTOH, Guido's gentle advice is sound as well.
    Yours Zezen (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Serial and the others. This is ridiculous gaming. Ceoil (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fæ is one of the most productive contributors to Commons, maybe the most productive. He asked the perfectly reasonable question of whether it would be OK to put a notice on his user page to try to raise some money to cover his costs. He didn't presume it was OK: he opened the subject in what I think was a completely reasonable and appropriate manner.
User:Beeblebrox chose to be pretty mean about this in his response. The "OnlyFæ" remark may have been clever, but it was uncalled for. I completely understand how Fæ saw it as sexualizing, and either that was Beeblebrox's intent (way out of line) or something he should have foreseen. And since instead of apologizing, Beeblebrox piled on, I'm leaning toward that having been the intent.
Sanctions on Commons are meant to prevent future misconduct, not to punish. I think this merits a warning to Beeblebrox, but not sanctions at this time. Beeblebrox, knock it off. I think you owe Fæ an apology, and if someone on a forum you run has doxxed Fæ, I hope you will have the grace to remove the post in question. And if Beeblebrox continues the nastiness, I'd be in favor of sanctions. - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: What forum does Beeblebrox run? Serial Number 54129 (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no nothing to do with running that site, and I did not start the current thread about Fae, I just made a couple comments in it, pretty much all of which Fae chose to reproduce here as "evidence" that I am trying to actively get people to throw bricks at their house or something. Let me know if you see any posts that actually show that... Beeblebrox (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
From Fae's posting I read that Beeblebrox has in person been posting sensitive informations. In fact, Beeblebrox has said nothing. Other forum-users have also not posted any sensitive information, only made reference (without any link) to public sources. Fae has in the past linked account to real name in Wiki-world, but now wishes all mention of name forbidden. Hermann301 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 has asked me on my talk page to clarify in light of the comments that followed mine. I'm not sure what needs clarification, and it would be pretty tedious for me to go statement by statement. But to clarify a couple of points that might be the ones SN is referring to:
  • "I think this merits a warning to Beeblebrox, but not sanctions at this time. …I think you owe Fæ an apology…" I stand by that. I still see no need for sanctions. I still think a warning is in order. Beeblebrox's remarks that Fæ came here to complain about were cheap shots. A quick, simple apology would have been in order.
  • "…and if someone on a forum you run has doxxed Fæ, I hope you will have the grace to remove the post in question." Since what I refer to in the if-clause did not happen, obviously the then-clause is moot. It would still be gracious for Beeblebrox to encourage the removal of any doxxing post of a Commons contributor (he is, after all, an admin on en-wiki which, like Commons, has rules against doxxing one another); if as some people seem to be suggesting here there was no such post, then even that is moot.
  • Serial Number 54129, does this address what you wanted clarified, or was it something else? - Jmabel ! talk 07:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox,

You have not apologized or stepped back. Your own words show you are unashamed of what you are doing off-wiki, working with banned users and trolls with a long history of targeting Wikimedians with abuse and harassment. Not for one second have you shown an ounce of concern for my safety or the safety of my family, instead you are gaslighting me, so it's all my fault that you are posting about me off-wiki. How could anyone explain or excuse what you are doing or why you have been allowed to do this in public for years? --Fæ (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  •  Support. Is this where we vote for the WMF to globally ban Beeblebrox? Because I'm in. He was mean to me once (en diff) and you know I hold grudges! Also, a few years back, the WPO tried doxxing me, also via pics of/on my fridge (lulzily, but they were serious, for realz!). Anyway, I demand that the WMF suspend all monies to them! ElC (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello, small text. Anyway, so yeah, I'll admit that it was pretty stressful for me when the WPO was trying to dox me, though the fridge pics attempt was a welcome lulzy reprieve. But in fairness to them, unlike in those Cowboy days, they don't seem to really be doing that anymore (much). Damn prepz! ElC (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
"burner sock accounts" --Fæ (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, are you speaking to me? ElC (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Gee fizz. Can we please stop the petty sniping at one another? GMGtalk 20:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Uh, I didn't intend for it to be taken that way, GreenMeansGo. Sorry for the drastic tonal shifts. I genuinely was confused by the indent, because it looked like they were replying to me. ElC (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for tripping over my tongue. I said "it was replying to me" (amended), but what I meant to say then was "it was a reply to me." I can't write! ElC (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • (sigh) I was just about to cadge some jakebos for a shiny new Pegasus ProxyBot tracker and now you want our funding cut? o.O (you really can't get more impersonal than being a bot-watcher...) SashiRolls (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Beeblebrox: For context, yes, there have been serious discussions in the past about trying to provide @Fæ: with better equipment, because they often do a volume of image processing that is difficult to do on the type of hardware required to edit most other projects. They're pretty much the resident expert when it comes to batch uploading tens of thousands of files. I have no personal spat with either of you. I'd hope you'd both consider me at least a neutral acquaintance if not a colleague. The best outcome here seems to be that you both leave each other the hell alone, and let the drama die.
We don't import disputes from other projects. We're not prejudiced against users because they've be blocked on other projects, in cases that don't involve clear cross wiki abuse. But we also don't hold any special place for those who have advanced permissions on other projects. You can both equally be blocked.
Just leave each other alone. We don't care if you don't like one another. Take that crap somewhere else. GMGtalk 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Deescalation is usually wise. Sorry, I realize I sort of hijacked this Commons AN thread (where you vote!) so much already, but in all seriousness, I think an equipment (etc.) grant from the WMF would be perfectly reasonable. But, the idea of some sort of a tip jar, I do feel like that's a can of worms and a stark anathema to the values of the movement. As an aside, I miss my cat so much. After he died (in my arms), I wept for days and days. But so many great memories, too. Bitter sweet visit to Commons for moi. ElC (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I presume you have examined the off-wiki harassment? If you want to email me in confidence about other options than writing on-wiki about this harassment that's fine, but don't paint this as an argument between two parties.
There's no argument here. I doin't think I have ever approached Beeblebrox about anything, certainly not in years and never on this project. I asked Beeblebrox to stop using an off-wiki site to bully me, because they were causing me damage and distress. They carried on with several off-wiki posts after that, and clearly have been enjoying the distress that having my full name and a guide to how to look up my home address and phone number caused me, because they were making jokes after it was done, after I explained on-wiki why their part in it was harassment and before I feel I had to open this ANU request.
COM:BP states "[accounts that] create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked", there's no exemption for a long term account that is doing this by inciting others to do the work for them. Anyone that examines Beeblebrox's actions on-wiki, and then their directly associated posts targeting me off-wiki can see that they are using an off-wiki site in an attempt to drive me off Wikimedia projects and are encouraging others to cause me distress, certainly I do not see how anyone can read making jokes after abusive material is posted is anything other than Beeblebrox's approval and support for it.
Ignore the "friends of" sockpuppets attracted to any discussion where we might take off-wiki trolling seriously, there is only one person this sysop request is about, there is only one person and their appalling bullying behaviour the evidence and facts are about. The harassment is a matter of public record, it's not like the anonymous threats I am regularly targeted with, our policies can and do apply.
Your "we don't care if you don't like one another" comment entirely misses the point and appears to ignore the evidence. Bullying does not work that way. I had no views about Beeblebrox and they only views I have now are about their pattern of on-wiki and off-wiki posts targeting me. Literally I know almost nothing about Beeblebrox why would I? --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't frequent sites like what I presume is a reference to WPO. I don't really understand why others do. From what I can tell it's mostly just a toxic cesspool of commiserating banned users, none of which are worthy of my time. I'm sure you can probably find someone there crapping on me too. There are plenty of things that keep me up at night, but that's not one of them.
I can't regulate what users do on other sites and other projects. It doesn't look like there's likely to be a strong consensus here for a block. But we don't very much appreciate people popping over just to take pop shots at users over some personal feud. Whether there is consensus about this issue here or not, I can safely say that neither I nor any other admin really needs a consensus to block a user for being petty and unproductive. This thread should fairly well serve as appropriate notification that this kind of behavior is not particularly appropriate nor welcome. GMGtalk 13:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Correction: There's no personal feud. Please stop mischaracterizing the evidence.
Beeblebrox is targeting me, it's not a feud. I have done nothing to force Beeblebrox to work with banned users and trolls. Asking them to stop does not force someone to do more. The facts speak for themselves, the evidence points one way. If Beeblebrox is protected from ever being sanctioned by cleverly posting to an off-wiki site rather than acting on-wiki, our anti-harassment policy is pointless because this project will always be a hostile environment. As a result of volunteering on Wikimedia projects, I am on the public record as being called a paedophile, have had on-wiki and off-wiki death threats, had my home address, phone number, and date of birth published off-wiki and everyone will carry on pretending it never happened. To top it all, Beeblebrox, because of having privilaged access, knows this history of harassment against me, no doubt has access to the history of the police investigation into threats, but based on their own posts off-wiki finds it funny and wants to make it a joke.
Why are you content with that outcome, why should I now agree this is resolved and pretend none of this is fact and the harms this causes are permanent? Beeblebrox has not even bothered to delete their off-wiki posts, or offered to stop doing exactly the same thing next week, next month, next year.
Why not at least propose a permanent interaction ban based on this evidence of targeted harassment and weaponizing an off-wiki forum to create a hostile environment? --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2021 (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.

Uploads from RUDEAU.G ?

Hello. I don't know if all the uploads from user:RUDEAU.G are free or not (probably not), but they are all tagged "own work" and it's not correct (for example : File:Organigramme de l'executif pour le centre directionnel Part-Dieu.jpg is not a own work). You can also see on his talk page that a lot of upload were deleted in 2018. I can't see the deleted files but File:Carte de combattant volontaire de la Résistance de Raoul Rudeau.jpg is probably the same as File:Carte de combattant volontaire de la Résistance.jpg ? I let you watch. Supertoff (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Emperor1991z is uploading, disruptive editing, account creation forming massive sockpuppeting for Yuiyui2001

Reason: This user is uploading Philippines-related maps as well during the user creation again for within impersonation, but its copying archived versions its files been reported a group of sockpuppets by Yuiyui2001. Can these all files that contributed to revert this? --AichiWikiFixer (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Choojvdoopie

I have commented in a recent DR involving this user, but noticing the complaint here by Cordylus (talk · contribs) read this comment by Google translation from Polish here. This is personal abuse, Choojvdoopie calls Cordylus a 'snotty brat' and tells them to go to a therapist or buy anti-depressants. This seems to cross the line, but open to views as considering other cases, maybe there's a way to defend it. --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a way to defend it. By being a hypocrite. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This was in response to Cordylus calling their actions 'worse than fascism'. Their username seems unacceptable though. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The "what goes around, comes around" defense? If everyone attacks each other constantly, I guess we would not need any sysops. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
No, I never compared him to fascists, I cited the saying and even marked that it is just a saying. It is a general, well known idiom about how overzealousness causes problems. But I understand, as idioms are hardly translatable. This is exactly what I said: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nadgorliwo%C5%9B%C4%87_jest_gorsza_od_faszyzmu Cordylus (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
1. Fae is right here: no way to defend it, while the account name is a thinly veiled pun on the hard-core sexual "fighting words": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chuj#Polish + https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dupa#Polish, which was understood and quickly acted on by the admins on their home language wiki. (I am being circumspect here on purpose, as per the "what happens in Commons, stays in Commons" rule, but I checked it now and these universal ACCOUNTNAME and NOTTHERE admin reasons were provided for that indef.)
2. @Cordylus is a more established, 10 year account, and they are right about the other idiom being benign.
3. There is a related LTA subject matter affair that I am aware of, but I will not mention it here, as per the rule quoted in Point 1.
4. BTW, is there a rule in Commons to use English only when such conflicts arise, if only to make it easier for the overburdened admins?
Bows, Zezen (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I was wrong in a few cases with photos, but some photos I found on very old ite, so I recognized that uploader illegal copied photos from this site. Other facts, like not giving name of photo's author, prompted me to the fact that the author used the photos illegally. The photos have been deleted, so, the milk has already been spilled. The uploader could calmly talk with me, but he preferred to take it out on me, his emotional behavior irritated me. He accused me of bad intentions, even though I explained his mistakes to him and he admitted them. He only continued to blame me, for example being overzealous. He also contributed to deletion of deletion. He wrote me that my behavior was worse than of the Nazis, seriously, he began to experience it strongly this happening. He owes himself, if not for me it could have been done by someone else, everyone has the right to report the photos. I will not allow me to be called worse than a Nazi, therefore I suggested seeking the help of a psychiatrist, since he experiences the loss of her photographs so much. Creating me a great villain is bad way for discussion with me. I am sick and tired of the explaning from my words to uploader. I do not want to be rude, but like someone experiences the loss of photography so much, he should take Levomepromazine or Prochlorperazine. I propose to complain to Afghan or Rohingya ppeple, with them situation, they will definitely sympathize with him. If the author had been calmer, I would explain everything to him and even apologize to him, but comparing me to the Nazis and emotional tone in his statements, definitely discouraged me from any rational discussion with him. --Choojvdoopie (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
First of all, the photos were deleted not because there were problems with copyrights, but they got deleted, because you deleted their licensing templates. They appeared as an unlicensed and this why they got deleted. Because of that there is a discussion about restoring them: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ASemafor_wjazdowy_do_stacji_Wa%C5%82brzych_Szczawienko.jpg I beleive that you would be angry too, if your contributions would get massively deleted in the crooked manner that practically counts as a vandalism, as stated here by an admin: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Choojvdoopie#File:Semafor_wjazdowy_do_stacji_Wa%C5%82brzych_Szczawienko.jpg. But even with all of that I never sent any insults to you, like you did. Even here you totally unnecessarily mock me by implying that I am mentally ill and need medication - just because I criticized your obviously wrong (what is documented) actions. And even here you are lying that I compared you to Nazis, even if I never even mentioned any Nazis. I explained it in my earlier post. But this is not the first time you are lying. Here you claim that you "didn't know" that your name is vulgar, which is not possible as you perfectly know both Polish and English and it is enough to just read this name to find is vulgar: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism#Railway_vandal? Cordylus (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter for me if you compared my behavior to the Nazis or the fascists. For me, such comparisons made me stop taking you seriously. It is unfair to compare my actions to any totalitarian regime. My grandmother dead as a result of some doctor's experiments in concretration camp. You lied the same way because, because many templates in your photos were wrong, like photos from Koszalin in German time. So is adding templates about publishing photos before 1994 was lie, becaise many photos was published in website. If you were to add correct descriptions and templates, nobody would delete it. So you can blame only yourself. You made mistakes and someone deleted your photos, that's not a cause for insults. Other user also lied, because I don't name you "a snotty brat", but I I found you acting like spoiled kid witout his favourite toy. Your emotional behavior really made me think you had mental problems, because normal people have more problems than deleting stupid photos. No one normal cares about such trifles. Don't you have any major priorities in life? If you call someone a "fascist" in these situations, I fear how you react at worse times. --Tyreponiyb (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

SHB2000 and unnecessary moves

SHB2000 moved a file I uploaded from File:Victoria water taxis in the harbor 2.jpg to File:Victoria water taxis in the harbour 2.jpg citing "Canadian spelling". This is my own photograph, my own upload, and I objected. In addition, the file was linked externally, and the link is not working anymore. I expected the user to apologize, but they insist is was a valid move because the object is located in Canada, see the discussion User talk:SHB2000#File move. I am afraid this reluctance to admit their own error means they misunderstand the file move policy and will benefit from some time without a physical ability to move files.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, but don't we use whatever spelling is used locally? The policy on what not to move files say:

Files should NOT be renamed only to translate the filename to another language and/or because the filename is not correctly capitalized. Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages.

But this is not another language. This is a dialect of a language, not a language itself. Giving a hypothetical example here, but let's say place x uses a name called Arboor and uses x spelling, and place y uses Harbor and uses y spelling. They both use different spellings, but place y calling a place with "Harbor" would make no sense here.
It is different if it were different languages, but this is not. Place names should always go with the local dialect. I apologise for making such a fuss for a single letter, but dialects ≠ different languages. SHB2000 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
But in saying that, if let's say Mexico for example, then that isn't a valid reason to go with "México", just because that's what it's called in Spanish. If I put a pt example, you would want to be using Brazilian Portuguese for Brazil, not Portuguese Portuguese for something Brazil related as that is not a language, but a dialect. SHB2000 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
And given that the place name is actually called Victoria Harbour, not Victoria Harbor, that instantly meets Criteria 3. That would also mean that even in American English, it would be Victoria Harbour, not Victoria Harbor. SHB2000 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The meaning of the pplicy is to restrict unnecessary moves. What you are doing now is to twist the meaning. This move is completely unnecessary. Every British, American, or Canadian understands what "harbor" means. It is not a typo.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
COM:FR does not state that it only has to be typos. Perhaps see the quote:

To correct obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms.

And in this case, the obvious error was in the "harbor" bit. The name of the harbour is, and I repeat is Victoria Harbour, not Victoria Harbor, and making it eligible per Criterion 3. SHB2000 (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • don't we use whatever spelling is used locally?
No, we don't. We should have considerable inertia over making such changes. Only when the change makes clear improvements in clarity or accuracy should we do this. Otherwise we get stuck in just this sort of cycle, making largely pointless changes back and forth because one subjective group favours a particular spelling. There's no confusion here: both spellings exist, one file isn't going to make a "wrong" spelling vanish forever. At the best this is trivia, at the usual worst, it's a timesink for everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I understand that, but this is a place name, not a trivial thing or anything. If I moved a file named File:XXX color yyy.jpg to File:XXX colour yyy.jpg, that doesn't comply with the file renaming policy, and I understand that but this is a place name. Before I got FR rights, I've requested some file renames for Victor Harbour to be renamed to Victor Harbor such as this or this and it didn't spark any controversy. SHB2000 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll have to side with Ymblanter and Andy Dingley here. This seems like a largely useless and potentially antagonizing practice. TommyG (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Whilst Victoria Harbour is officially spelt with a u in this instance I don't see why we should be this picky over the spelling - Harbour and Harbor have the exact same meaning and personally I believe we should respect the uploader here too - If Ymblanter wants it titled "Harbor" then who are we to say otherwise especially when as I said the meaning is the exact same.
(Edit conflicted with everyone above but I entirely agree with everything Andy's said)–Davey2010Talk 14:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay so I apologise for that file move, and I'll use this as a learning experience. But I would ask that the file moving policy should be made more clearer of dialects of languages (especially for en and pt.). Since it seems going on for a minor spelling issue isn't going to help or do any benefit. If you want Ymblanter, you could revert my file move (I presume that'll need an admin to override it?). I'm sorry that I wasted some of your time on this, but I still think the policy should be made more clearer. SHB2000 (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I will move it back now. I am actually fairly neutral on the name, but because of external links (and potentially other names with harbor I uploaded - probably several dozens just for Canada) I prefer to keep the files where they are.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not a place name. "Victoria Harbour" might be a proper name phrase (and should be capitalised as such) and so should be spelled as sourced for it. But "the harbor at Victoria" is not a proper noun phrase, nor is "Victoria water taxis in the harbor". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
To SHB2000 or any other file mover that may feel that file renaming policy is unclear, I would like to interject, that I personally view the phrase In general, Commons aims to provide stable filenames… as the primary overriding directive of COM:FNC, and I can only suggest that others do the same, as to avoid unecessary renaming, unless it is clearly and obviously necessary. So much of the time, simply improving file descriptions and captions could be just as or even more beneficial than renaming. --Askeuhd (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Speaking as a die-hard Canadian speller myself, I agree that the move was unnecessary—even if the filename had mentioned “Victoria Harbor” I’d consider it a marginal case, unlikely to cause confusion. (Meaning I might act on a request, but not on my own initiative. OTOH I would move a category so named, were I to come across one.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

SashiRolls

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

this user edited my posts three times, the last time being after i had given him two warnings not to do so:

  1. special:diff/587922617 inserted a file in my post
  2. special:diff/588705512 inserted the file again after it had been removed
  3. special:diff/589204309 forged the section heading

editing other users' comments is a serious offense, and this user did the 3rd edit despite two warnings. besides, this user had been given a last warning by User:Jameslwoodward in dec 2016 special:permalink/226112700: "The next piece of abuse or accusation that you write here will be your last edit on Commons. There is no reason that a community of volunteers must tolerate abuse.". -- RZuo (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As diff 1 and 2 show, I unhatted the discussion (3 participants) which you hatted twice. It is not unreasonable to ask questions about personality rights I don't think. Then, you hatted the discussion a 3rd time and asked me not to unhat it again (for the first time, by ES & by TP). I have not, nor do I intend to. You seem to be agitating all over the place, here and on en.wp (recently at RfA on en.wp, see further your diff #2 or direct link... Why? SashiRolls (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, what probably happened is that RZuo misunderstood that the link in diff #3 was to an old version of the page this morning which gave the full context of the discussion in case anyone was looking to stir up trouble against me. SashiRolls (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
the 4th time this user editing other users' comment: special:diff/589232610.
i request an immediate block of this troll.--RZuo (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess I'll comment since I saw this back-and-forth happen at VP. IMO no action needed. Nothing here was ideal, but nothing here was egregious. Changing the heading of the usertalk post wasn't collegial, but it's been removed now. Likewise bad practice to edit other people's section headings at ANU, etc. As for the other two edits, it looks like it was RZuo who hatted and removed part of SR's post repeatedly, and then opened a section here saying ... exactly the opposite (that SR edited RZuo's posts)? Regardless of whether SR's posts to that VP section were off-topic, there are better ways to deal with it than edit warring over hatting it yourself. Make an appeal to someone else, put it in a separate section, ask SR to move it, or just say "this is not relevant to my question" and then ignore it. I don't see that either SR's 5-year-old warning from James or RZuo's comments at enwp are terribly helpful here. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
"removed part of SR's post repeatedly"
Rhododendrites'd better check again what this user did.
inserting something in my comment is misleading. inserting it again after i found out and removed it is absolutely vandalism.
it should be noted too, that this user is keen on leading the discussion off the topic. this ANU discussion centers on this user's forgery of my comments.
as for the collapse of the off-topic discussions, anyone including Rhododendrites is free to justify how the collapsed parts are related to the topic of video codecs and then undo the collapse. -- RZuo (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I did check. SR didn't add anything to your VP post. If you're talking about the image which he added to the section above your comment (a common location for images), then if you were worried someone looking at the source text would think you added it, why wouldn't you just move it so it's closer to SR's comments instead of edit warring to repeatedly remove it? Yeah, it's a silly image that was at best tangentially related, but why escalate the situation so much? Whether it's off-topic isn't the issue. You're accusing SR of editing your posts, but you're interpreting adding an image to the section as "editing your posts" and your reaction to it was just as disruptive as his restoration. I'm not defending SR here; I'm saying none of this is ideal, and there's no action needed here. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
enough muddying the water.
w:Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments: "you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving or interpolating your own replies to individual points. This confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." this should be common sense.
i'm not obliged to preserve vandalism on my posts. when i see something that doesnt belong to me, i delete it.
"a common location for images". so? when the original post author deletes it, that means it's not welcome.
as i said, the first time could be simply misleading. the second time is willful vandalism. and the third and fourth times are deliberate trolling.
restoring my comment that was vandalised is not editwarring. RZuo (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

RZuo

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

Despite my attempts at quiet de-escalation, it appears that RZuo is not taking a hint.

Please realize that the file they are eager to convert is one that everyone (except RZuo) at DR seems to agree should be deleted along with dozens of others... this is the dispute RZuo brought over to the RfA on en.wp and into my quiet suggestion that they add the {{personality}} template to their remake of a file that is about to be deleted.

RZuo's says he warned me twice about something and I did it again. This is false. He calls edits to my own TP, including deleting his post in an effort to get him to go away and do something productive -- (as I have in the past hours over at fr.wp) -- "vandalism" and "trolling". This is no way to greet a new Commons user who has made 1000 contributions in the last few months.

Further inquiry is likely needed into RZuo's behavior. If Commons does not prefer for the complainant's name to be mentioned when folks accuse (as is common on many noticeboards), I'll just add this subsection so that everyone knows that RZuo is really concerned about this "twerking" video codec.

— SashiRolls (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  1. my village pump post that was repeatedly vandalised by this user is about video codecs. it has nothing to do with anything else.
  2. the 4 diffs i linked are all clear instances of this user editing my comments, either by inserting something or by forging the heading.
i am sick of being harassed by this troll (who happens to be banned from another wiki project for being uncivil and disruptive). -- RZuo (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Enough. The file whose CODEC you are concerned about has now been deleted for the second time. The only interaction I have *ever* initiated with you is in the thread at the Village Pump related to this file (see discussion about "Hot twerk choreo.webm"). By contrast, you have come to my talk page with warnings and have opened a "case" against me because you didn't like my comment about the content. As a result of the harassment, I changed my class this morning as I was in no mood to vaunt structured data at Commons to GLAM-folks who certainly don't want to deal with such aggression. -- SashiRolls (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Septem9th

Septem9th (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploading multiple images of dubious copyright status. Repeatedly removed copyvio tags for the images. DHN (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Warn. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, sorry 🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septem9th (talk • contribs) 22:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Harassment

Hello, after having resolved the very same issue on en.wiki, Now I'm being harassed by User:Lone-078 is gay here on Commons (see my talk page). Can someone help me? --Lone-078 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Wmpearl reuploading images DRed and unsuccessfully UnDRed

In August of 2019, I DRed a bunch of US paintings because there was no evidence they were PD in the US, including a bunch of paintings uploaded by User:Wmpearl; cf. Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2019/08/20. After they were deleted, they were contested unsuccessfully at UnDR; Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-12#Paintings_by_artists_who_have_been_dead_for_more_than_70_years. Now I look and it turns out they've all been recreated without discussion. For the most part, there's no further evidence that they are PD in the US; File:Maritime Alps, Vence, No. 9 by Marsden Hartley.jpg, an American work, even has the completely bogus {{PD-old-70|Unclear-PD-US-old-70}} tag on it. It's been some work retagging these for deletion, and Wmpearl has been here since 2008 and should know better, both about US copyright law and not recreating works that have been DRed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Junk DR Filings...

I am noticing a moderate number of seemingly junk "Deletion Requess" from a user:- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tonton_Bernardo&target=Tonton+Bernardo

I had considered asking them to stop, but would appreciate a custodian/admin here, taking a look at warning appropriately. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sherman wiki.png this is just trolling for the lulz. Support TBAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a month. Can be extended next time. Yann (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

DrewWill2021

Hi, please delete this summary, and revert the edit as well. Thanks in advance. Unnamed UserName me 10:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked this user for vandalism - they can appeal the ban but they aren't here to contribute positively Gbawden (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I've rev-deleted the insulting edit-summary. --Túrelio (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Brobt

User has a history of serious warnings, has attacked me for no apparent reason after I asked to provide a citation. Detoxtexts (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Detoxtexts diff to the attack? rubin16 (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16Edit summary in this file. Detoxtexts (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC) thumb
 On hold Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/GnomonTimber rubin16 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Detoxtexts is blocked as sock. Yann (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Lhoussine AIT TAYFST

Uploading files with missing source information to verify copyright tag or those likely still under copyright after final warning. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 17:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month, all files without metadata nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Halitkya

Halitkya (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
This user uploads copyrighted files persistently. Also this user wrote the Turkish swear words in the description of these files. File:Resim 2021-09-09 205848.png File:Resim_2021-09-09_205452.png Uncitoyen (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, some files nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Rubin16

Admin User:Rubin16 closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marianne Casamance with a completely false statement. I asked them to remove it, but instead they doubled down and repeated more false statements in their response. They are now ignoring requests to remove these and archived the discussion Here.

If Rubin16 did not even fully read the DR before closing it, or wish to take responsibility for their comments, which their replies suggest, then somebody else should re-close it.--BevinKacon (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. The close was correct, and nobody got lied to or defamed. Rubin16 directed you to the Village Pump in case you still have questions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

So nobody is willing to take action here? Has Commons really fallen to the point we keep almost 2000 copyright violations with a made up reason?--BevinKacon (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, "user problems" noticeboard is more for problematic behaviour, edit/wheelwarring, abusive uploads or something. Rubin16 did nothing like that I think, he only closed a long-overdue RfD as kept, and I don't see an obvious "completely false statement" either. But if you still doubt the copyright status of that files, I would advice you to open a discussion at COM:VPC. Or, if you are sure that Marianne Casamance has uploaded as many copyvios, you may request her block (if it's true, that would be in place). But in any event, I don't see reasons for an action against Rubin16. The RfD was controversial, it's clear that you cannot satisfy everyone, but sooner or later it has to be closed. Regards --A.Savin 01:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation

User:Brooke Lewis here in Commons, I have reason to believe, is not the person of that name, but rather somebody or somebodies from her public relations staff, who has uploaded a copyrighted photo as "own work" and is otherwise committing undisclosed paid editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and will delete her last remaining upload. At moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

2405:4802:200:0:0:0:0:0/39

Socks of Đăng Đàn Cung. Excessive vandalism. LX | Talk 05:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the range and closed 4 DR-s. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparent sockpuppet spreading cross-wiki hoaxes

I've recently chanced across a user who has been engaging in what seems to be an extensive agenda of content falsification across several wikis (including en-wp, Wikidata, Commons and others), probably a quite elaborate deliberate hoax. The editor in question is User:Sibinia, together with several IP socks that are almost certainly the same user ((e.g. 2a01:598:a970:6051:d504:1ad7:9cab:a04d, 93.133.11.192 and others). They are probably a sock of User:Kriestovo Nysian, who was globally locked for similar "cross-wiki abuse" in 2020.

The hoax agenda is all somehow related to the Silesian town of Nysa (Neisse) and Silesia in general, as well as alleged connections between it and early Slavic Christianity. In particular, Sibinia has been pushing the claims:

  1. that Nysa was ruled by "Prince-Bishops of Nysa" (a false claim, because there never was a bishopric of Nysa; the prince-bishops that ruled the area where the bishops of Wroclaw (Breslau), while Nysa was a principality that formed part of their secular possessions)
  2. that Clement of Ohrid, the 9th-century apostle of the Slavs, was one of the alleged Prince-Bishops of Nysa (a nonsensical claim, because neither the principality of Nysa nor any bishopric in the area existed during Clement's lifetime)
  3. that a certain old Slavic manuscript of which she has been posting images (File:Wyznanie Klemensa1.jpg, Category:Wyznanie Klemensa) represents a original text authored by Clement while working in Nysa (Sibinia has steadfastly refused to provide sourcing for this manuscript, though she has claimed it is from a certain library in Dresden; it may or may not exist in that library, and it may or may not be related to Clement, but I see no evidence of any connection between it and Clement's alleged activity in Nysa)

Pursuing this agenda, Sibinia and her IP socks have

  • changed multiple references to the bishopric of Wroclaw into references to the non-existent bishopric of Nysa [7], [8]
  • manipulated multiple item and category pages on Wikidata, and category pages on Commons
  • posted the image of the alleged Clement manuscript in multiple places [9], [10];
  • posted images of another old Slavic manuscript with the claim that it was in the "Silesian language" from en:Opole (Category:Silezki_Apostol), when the source [11] describes it as a Serbian work from en:Jazak, Serbia.
  • posted photos of a 16-century coat of arms seen on an object of the rulers of Nysa, claiming without any source that it represents a letter of the early Slavic Glagolitic alphabet (see File:Koffer Bischöfe von Neiße 3.jpg)

These falsifications are probably only the tip of the iceberg. I'd strongly recommend blocking this user and nuking all their contributions, both uploads and category edits. There may be many contributions that look prima facie legitimate, but as the above examples show, we have to expect multiple forms of subtle falsification in the sourcing, titling, categorization and descriptions of items, which would make it quite difficult and time-consuming to sort out the legitimate from the abusive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I checked a few edits, and they were either hoaxes or outright vandalism or at the very least pushing some fringe POV. I blocked them indef, but a large effort is needed to clean up their contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Obvious sock (or impersonator) User:$ibinia now continuing the abuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the two images on WCommons the vandal has uploaded should be deleted, as they are likely fake. Veverve (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear All,
Yesterday I came upon one or two of such uploads and thus I AfDed the first one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nauku Czytania i Rozumienia Pisma Slonsko Slowenskogo Gotow.pdf and commented on the latter: Category talk:Silezki Apostol
Today I spot-checked some more and thus I am pretty sure it is the case of the regional POV pseudohistorians, see: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbos%C5%82owianie, the (in)famous "Turbolechites".
Here is a sample FB from where they spread their THETRUTH: https://www.facebook.com/maciejcharyszyn11/posts/120917363575075 with one of these files.
In short, their campaign is much similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon: a mixture of (Panslavic) ideology, religion, and Righting Great (Historical) Wrongs.
Expect more of them here and in individual wikis. Zezen (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

LosPajaros Rapidly Uploading Copyrighted Image

LosPajaros has been rapidly uploading images, all of which appear to be copyright violations. A number of them have been removed as copyright violations already, but they don't seem to have stopped. I posted to their talk page, but that doesn't appear to have stopped them either. Don't want to jump the gun or bite a new user, but maybe a short block is in order to get them to pause, so there's less to clean up? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. User blocked for 3 days, after he/she uploaded another copyvio even after a strong warning. --Túrelio (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Túrelio, they're at it again. I'll go through and tag the pictures for removal as copyvios, but a longer or indef block looks to be needed.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Now blocked for month. Taivo (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I have tagged several uploads by User:Aneeq7775 as copyright violations, and will assume that all the rest of their uploads are as well. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of their uploads were copyvios or low-resolution duplicates of Commons files. I converted one of your speedy requests into a deletion discussion and deleted the other uploads. Aneeq7775 Please stop uploading photographs that you did not take yourself. Downscaling or upscaling existing photos does not create a new work for you, nor are you allowed to use images for a collage without permission of the copyright holders. If you continue to uploads such images, your account may be blocked. De728631 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

A rude user

Hello, after having launched a deletion procedure for a dozen pictures with obvious no valid permission (all declared as own work) and corrected a couple ones (all of them uploaded by User:Redbeard1965, a user who think (I quote) «that this copyright rule for uploading images in Wikipedia is so stupid!», I received on my talk page some personal threat. --Malvoört (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef'ed and revdel'ed. Thanks --A.Savin 21:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Shariar 375

User:Shariar 375 has been uploading images which they claim are usable under a Creative Commons license, but without evidence that the copyright holder permits i; user is adamant that no evidence is required. I have been marking some of the uploads for deletion, with the user removing the associated tags/templates. Based on interaction on my talk page, I think it's just a matter of incomplete appreciation of copyright matters. Nonetheless, at this point I am reluctant to continue engaging them since they've come to believe that I'm just harassing them.

I request that another party examine all of Shariar 375's uploads for copyright issues, and perhaps provide that user guidance on these issues which I could not. RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest a quick 12-hour block of Shariar 375 for them to read our policies. They keep removing the deletion tags, even if they have been told to stop and put their opinions on the DR instead. pandakekok9 06:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I blocked them for 1 day for file ns only so they can edit the DRs if they like. --Achim (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Serial fake image metadata and copyvio problems

Nearly all the image of Shaan Vinoth (talk · contribs) are suspect - not able to examine all but there is little of value to fake metadata particularly when it comes to images of life forms. Shyamal L. (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. All his/her uploads are nominated for deletion due to different reasons. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Nguyễn Hữu Duy Khánh

Continously (re)uploads unfree files and false claims to be own work. Unnamed UserName me 04:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Chetatata

User:Chetatata has uploaded a lot of photos of Philippine birds, most (but not all) attributed to other photographers. I suspect this is a case of genuine innocent misunderstanding of copyright, rather than deliberate copyvios; it is even possible they have the permission of the photographers, but there is no proof of this. Could someone with a good deal of tact (which I fear I don't have!) check the situation, please? Note there is also one old book illustration (currently #3 on the upload list as I type) which is OK as it is copyright expired. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Opened DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chetatata. I've deleted the book illustration as a duplicate and left two alone which were credited to "Cheta Chua", which I assume is the uploader (and found no contradictory evidence online). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: many thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

NZ Flag Maven

This user is obstructing their images from being categorised, removing the applicable category I added to each of them. I have contacted them twice. The first time, they gave a nonsense response about how "My reasons are my own" and then blanked the page. The second time, they blanked the page without any response. Fry1989 eh? 14:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The user also has received a final warning for vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • They're allowed to blank their user page.
@GPinkerton: on this. Their uploads are clearly WP:OR. Now there has been recent discussion on what is a "proposed flag" and how does that fit within COM:SCOPE? (COM:SCOPE is a policy here, WP:OR isn't). Opinions vary as to where Commons should draw a line. But these seem to be their proposals for flags, they don't indicate that they're flags which any other off-WMF group has advocated for. As such they're either outside of or pretty close to it for COM:SCOPE. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Why have I been pinged here? What relevance has this dilation on other websites' policies to me? GPinkerton (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Are you saying that you now agree that Commons policy applies to self-made artwork as the policy itself states and that such material is out-of-scope? Are you notifying me to tell me you will be changing your vote in deletion discussions where you have argued the exact opposite or what? GPinkerton (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Blanking their page in and of itself isn't the issue. The issue is that they are doing it to ignore a reasonable question about why they do not want their images categorised. As for their images, I have made my position clear in the past that I believe on-wiki user proposals should be treated no different than off-wiki proposals, so long as there is a legitimate public question about the status of the national flag. In the case of Australia and New Zealand, there is. Fry1989 eh? 16:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
This position is completely against policy. "A legitimate public question about the status of the national flag" exists literally everywhere; how is one to judge whether or not someone's personal view of what some place or other's new flag should be is "legitimate" or otherwise? The fact that some countries generate more rejected national flags than others is no reason whatsoever to add to the huge numbers already in existence by dreaming up still more! Just the opposite! All these images should be deleted at once; there is no point in trying to make excuses for or to seek to "legitimate" this flagrant and systematic abuse of the website. GPinkerton (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Wanda Tiga

Keeps adding nonsensical deletion requests to files after being told not to do so. Discostu (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned, DRs closed, copyright violation deleted. We need a close watch on this user, seeing the large number of nonsense DRs. Yann (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wanda Tiga. Yann (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiLoverFan1007

WikiLoverFan1007 (talk · contribs)

New editor, straight into bulk deletion nominations for invalid reasons. I hear quacking, but I don't personally recognise the accent. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

They seem to be taking an interest in Polandballs, BFDIFan707 (talk · contribs) and Russavia (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, obviously not a newbie. Vandalism only account. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Seeing this, this account is probably a sock of User talk:Wanda Tiga (see above). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wanda Tiga. Yann (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Onukrit

First edit appears to be a revert of a speedy deletion notice of Achim55 and then has reverted my edit on putting a copyvio tag. I suspect that this is a sock of Ssr0197 since the first edit to the file appears to be far too random. To add on top of this, the user's first edits on simple were promotional. SHB2000 (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

And now it appears that this user is blanking this thread. SHB2000 (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Appears that Achim55 has now blocked the account, so I guess that this is ✓ Done? 13:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC) SHB2000 (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ indef: Socking SPA. --Achim (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

License removed

One user continues to remove licensing information from File:Jan Eliasson 2010-06-17 002.jpg. It may be that this user is holding a grudge against me and I would prefer if somebody else reverted this user's edit. User's user page has some information about the background. Thuresson (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I've reverted them and then read their userpage which seems to suggest the CC licence isn't valid ?, I have no idea and am about to head out - If anyone disagrees with my revert I'm more than happy for it to be reverted.
The content at [12] states "License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, By: Daniel Holking, WaterAid Sweden" however it may not be as straightforward as we think (at least if you read their userpage anyay). –Davey2010Talk 10:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was nominated for deletion last year but kept. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jan Eliasson 2010-06-17 002.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 Comment User warned. The source still gives a CC license today, so the author's argument doesn't hold much water. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
My apologies Thuresson I was obviously unaware of the DR etc. Indeed licences are irrevocable so Mr Holkings wishes are irrelevant. Also I'm running on less than 6 hours sleep so not all with it today so apologies. –Davey2010Talk 14:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, the same page as the image is sourced from also says "OBS! Bilderna upphör som pressbilder den sista augusti 2012 och får då inte längre användas fritt", which effectively revokes the license after August 2012. Whether this is valid or not is probably debatable, but since it appears this disclaimer has been included on the page from the beginning, I think the original creator has a valid complaint. Now, this is probably arguments better suited for a DR but I think it's kind of disingenuous to just ignore this disclaimer. It's correct that a Creative commons license can't be revoked after the fact, but like in this case, where it's been clearly stated that the license is only valid up til a specific date from the image was first published? I would say it's not quite as clear cut. TommyG (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you receive my article?

I submitted an article titled ELECTRIC VEHICLE EMERGENCY RESPONSE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENTS

I am not sure of the submission date, but I think it was 8/15/21

So far I have heard nothing about this article. I don not know if it was accepted but not yet put on to Wikipedia or rejected or just lost?

I still believe that it would be a good article for Wikipedia and would like it published.

Pleas let me know what is happening and what I should do.

Thank you

Stephen Tubbs <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasman3 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Gasman3 This project is the Wikimedia Commons, where we host media like photos and audio. If you submitted an article to Wikipedia (likely the English-language edition), you'll have to inquire there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd assume this is in relation to File:ELECTRIC VEHICLE EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENTS.pdf and File:ELECTRIC VEHICLE EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENTS AWARENESS BULLETIN.pdf. clpo13(talk) 22:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Gasman3: Your articles were uploaded successfully, but we do not automatically give feedback or povide a peer-review service for new uploads. Moreover, neither Commons nor Wikipedia will publish original research papers and essays by the uploader. E.g., all Wikipedia articles are summaries of facts of findings that have already been published elsewhere. Also, PDF documents that are essentially raw text are not within the project scope of Commons, so your files have been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gasman3. If you would like to create a new Wikipedia article on the subject, please read Help:Your first article first. De728631 (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, User:Thopo Hembram is uploading multiple low quality images collected from different websites. I have tagged them for copyright violation. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this warrants a block yet, I've given them a cease warning, so a block would be warranted if anything is uploaded after that waning. Also you should notify the editor of this discussion per the notice at the top of this page. Bidgee (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Block is now warranted, uploaded 8 files four minutes after the cease warning, with more still being uploaded. Bidgee (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
And he is not stopping. I am tired of tagging his uploads for copyright violation. Its wasting all my time which is required for other fruitful work. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for two weeks by User:King of Hearts. Bidgee (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Now blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Unknown Devian28

User:Unknown Devian28 has been uploading images from Youtube which they claim are usable under a Creative Commons license. Please have a look at the user uploads and talk page. Today he uploaded a new File:Devjoshivlog.jpg, did a license review, misusing, misleading MGA73. I couldn't find out if the abusefilter is triggered or not. Please look into it. Thanks, for your consideration.--C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 10:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Uploads deleted and user warned. Please remember to notify editors when you discuss them here; see the instructions at the top of the page. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

27.66.47.19

Other account: Ngũ tôn Diêm La. Excessive vandalism. Long-term abuse. P/S: Could you guys also hide all the revisions as they are basically insults. 2A02:3030:5:29C1:A86A:CC28:D8F2:D4B0 10:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#27.66.0.0/16. --Túrelio (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Child privacy issue

Hi. I'm not sure what the policy is on this, but I came across a self-portrait of a child that they claim they took yesterday. They included their full name and said they are 9 years old. I'm thinking it should probably be deleted since Commons:Personality rights makes it clear that children cannot consent to releasing photos of themselves: "A child or a person judged incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction should be considered with even greater care, as they probably cannot give valid consent even if they appear to." The file is (Redacted). Please advise. Thanks. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357 COM:Oversight next time, not here. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: The only reason I hesitated to go straight to Oversight is I couldn't find any Commons policy on child privacy. Can you direct me to it? You deleted the image under F10, which appears not to apply since they are a contributor on Wikipedia and uploaded the photo for use on their user page. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Pitzzaboy

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Seven Pandas

I believe that is is not good Wiki behaviour to repeatedly call another user a hypocrite. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2 الحداد.jpg. What do third parties think, please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Non admin comment - I see nothing bad here ... just a clash of different views. The standards bit shouldn't of been said but one feels strongly about workplace safety and the other participant not so much .... Agree to disagree and move on. –Davey2010Talk 17:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: Hi, You are in bad position to complain here. I also think your reasons for opposing this DR are not very fair. Just say you don't like it instead of inventing your own rules would be better. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: I don't care what you think.Seven Pandas (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Ironically Seven Pandas neither does the majority of people at that page either. Honestly the best thing Charles can do right now is withdraw this and go back to improving this project in some useful way. –Davey2010Talk 01:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Stepro

It seems the signature in question has already been amended. I don't see that it's very likely any admin is going to issue sanctions if the user doesn't go back and amend any previous use of the signature in question. There thus seems little remaining relevance to this forum. Also, this forum is for issues that require administrator action, and not for issues that require general community input. For such topic, prefer a more general forum like the Village Pump. GMGtalk 14:43, 29 September 2021 (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.

I consider this user's signature offensive. They have agree to change it if others agree. Wikipedia user name policy states that 'Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible; e.g. by containing profanities or referencing controversies' are not acceptable. [13]. Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Stepro, I thought your sig was OK and got the humor in it, for whatever that's worth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I have heard of the first part but it’s something that most photographers know not to use since it is offensive. It should be removed, signatures should have some guidelines of what to use and what not to use. Bidgee (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't find my signature offensive. I believed that this is a very common photographers joke. There are tons of T-shirts, mugs and the like with this slogan are sold, see Google. But as I have learned, this can be very unknown in other regions of our world. For this reason, and the fact that it could be misunderstood, I changed my signature back. --Stepro (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
My personal Opinion: I find it too offensive, but changing to "(I shoot people and sometimes cut off their heads at pics.)" or to "(I shoot people ... with my camera)" would be okayisch/tollerated. (Not sure if others would agree on that.)
@Stepro: Maybe you can weaken the joke?
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The joke relies on the omission of photography or cameras. It is no longer a joke in your versions. Pack My Box (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I can get the humour in "I shoot people" (meaning "they take photos of people"), and "sometimes cut off their heads." (meaning they crop their heads in the photo), but since Commons is a multilingual community, I don't think most non-native English speakers would get the humour out of it. SHB2000 (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if someone is or isn't an English native speaker. This topic proves that even native speakers may not get it. Personally I didn't find the signature offensive (IMO one may suspect a joke), but after I found out about photographic context I find it pretty funny. Anyway, the old signature was definitely too long. --jdx Re: 09:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
It depends on culture though, and context as well given words mean different things in different parts of the world. But still the sig is too long. SHB2000 (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone think that Stepro is literally shooting people or literally cutting off people's heads? Charlesjsharp what part of the signature do you find offensive? Pack My Box (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Charlesjsharp It is a well known joke about taking photos. Why would you possibly accuse Stepro of making light of such terrible real life events? Pack My Box (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a big puzzle to me, too. Bringing the joke "Shoot people and cut off their heads" in connection to Daesh without any further substance is like as if we would block all accounts with number 18 in their username, reasoning that they were all likely to be Hitler lovers... Regards --A.Savin 16:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@admins: Is it really necessary to continue discussing this topic forever after I have explained the background and confirmed it via Google link and voluntarily changed the signature long ago?
And is it really necessary to have Charlesjsharp accuse me of malicious intentions that are absolutely not true and that are actually an insult to me? --Stepro (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  • My PoV as a non-native English speaking person (but regular at FPC). When I read this signature, I understood the sentence in the meaning of "beheading", thus it made me click on the link to understand (if that is the goal of the joke, it's a success). When I saw the gallery with a lot of faces, it made sense to me what was meant by "cut off their heads". I was not offended personally but understand other people can be, because that's quite a challenging message. That being said, the author on the file page is "Steffen Prößdorf", offering a CC4.0 license. No problem here IMO. Same name to use to credit the author, if this FP about motorcycling spreads in the press, whatever the country. Concerning the signature on the FP nomination, I have no opinion if it should be modified or not -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp oh come on, they've changed it, no big problem now. Why are you still making a big fuss out of it. SHB2000 (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2021 (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.

User:Davey2010

Agreeing with Gbawden and A.Savin, I am closing this as there is nothing to be done here. The re-opening of the DR was ok. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2021 (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.

File:개자지.jpg was nominated for deletion on the basis that the quality was poor. I believe the quality is adequate, but more importantly, it was in use on another Wikipedia. COM:INUSE says "Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough". That was the case here and the file was ultimately kept. Now comes Davey2010 immediately starting another deletion request. Davey2010 said "Since the last DR the file has been replaced so is no longer in use" but that is only because Davey2010 removed the file from the other Wikipedia himself. I have no great fondness for this particular image but this seems underhanded and deceptive. Pack My Box (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Picture with the Korean name is NSFW, it would have been nice to know that before I clicked. FWIW, I don't think it is low enough quality to be deleted. Certainly if it were not a sexual image, it is unlikely anyone would even consider deleting it on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • In Davey's defence I might have done the same. Its pretty common for new users to upload photos of themselves (selfies, photos of their penis, etc) and immediately add it to a WP userpage, draft or article to make it INUSE. This what this new user did - added it to a gallery when there were sufficient images already (and it seems a bit off topic) What I would have done differently is nominate it for deletion under COM:PENIS instead of saying low quality. I would be inclined to delete despite 2 keep votes - the keep votes are focusing on the low quality nomination instead of COM:PENIS and COM:WEBHOST - this user hasn't positively contributed to the project - all they have done is upload 2 photos of their penis Gbawden (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Gbawden is 110% bang on - The user only came here to upload a picture of their penis and only went to that article to add their penis to it ..... hardly constructive PMB.
I perhaps should've stated I had removed it however I knew if I had I would've had pointy !keeps so I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't but either way irrespective of the nomination my actions certainly didn't need an ANU thread out of it seriously. –Davey2010Talk 11:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
PMB's since been indeffed per en:WP:NOTHERE so I guess all of this is now moot. I apologise for not being more open but as I said it was one of those cases where if I openly stated I removed the file I no doubt would've had someone readd the file back and had a plethora of keeps stating "in use now". –Davey2010Talk 11:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Gbawden, nothing to do here. Regards --A.Savin 11:59, 29 September 2021 (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.

User is making thousands of errors with an automated script, refuses to discuss

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_86#User_making_rapid-fire_semi-automated_edits_with_errors_in_them.

He's still at it: User_talk:Sarang#Script_error. Will someone please stop him from breaking templates and removing information over and over again? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Koavf: I notified the user, as you are required to above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks and sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Sarang should either revert all problematic edits they've made or be blocked indefinitely for causing unnecessary disruption to the project. For instance in this edit Serang amongst other things removes the "1=" parameter from Template:En even tho this is a default parameter (Whether this parameter is needed is a discussion for VP/Proposals).
Everyone is responsible for their edits made with scripts and in general editors should not make pointless and unnecessary edits that make no improvement to the Projects. I really don't see any way around this other than revert or be blocked. I'm all ears. –Davey2010Talk 23:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The En template even says "Please prepend "1=" to the text", and it's a potential booby trap for people who change the text and don't add 1=. Removing it is of at best questionable value.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Why not revoke the templateeditor flag? SHB2000 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't stop them from the issues (e.g. removing "1=" from language templates and software used and removing categories) that are happening on the photo page, templateeditor flag is for editing protected templates in the template space (e.g. {{Information}}). It is concerning that they seem not to be taking on board the issues people have raised on the talk page and here. I think a short block might be required if they do not engage and address the issues raised. Bidgee (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I sadly have to agree. While blocks are only used as a preventative measure, it seems that discussing collaboratively with the user has failed. Or if something less harsher, then a block from editing the template space (although blocks used on a certain space are rarely used). SHB2000 (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If the user is using an automated script, they should be using a different account for that. Otherwise, the user deserves to be blocked until they acknowledge and fix the problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 Question If I understand Template:En#Parameter_#1 correctly 1= is only required if there is a = in the text. I personally prefer simpler (without 1=) codes. Pure source-codes edits without visual effects should not be done, but that's imho not the case here (because adding {{Igen}}).
@Koavf: Please specify why 1= should not be removed? According to Template:En#Parameter_#1 {{en | some text | }} will be understood but {{en |1=some text | }} not. That might be a reason to remove 1=.
I currently don't see that there is a public decision on this problem, there are reasons to add it and reasons to remove it and reasons to not allow any change.
I think this issue should not be discussed under User problems, it should be discussed and decided person-independent. (e.g. at Template_talk:Internationalization_template_doc)
As soon as there is a decision, and someone ignores the decision of the community (independent if it is illegal to remove or add or even every unnecessary change (in both directions) of 1=), then it can be discussed here.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 07:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC); small change at 07:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
{{en | some text | }} is wrong. It should throw an error, since it's it's silently ignoring a pipe character.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It is not at all true that me or all the other users of the script are "making thousands of errors".
When there happens a single error caused by the script, it will be repaired immediately!
It is a false accusing that any template became broken, or a single information is removed.
Depending the edit mentioned above as an example (there a better one), I cannot see any "project disruption".
In 2015 and 2016 Perhelion, an administrator, began to develop the scripts to clean the file description from obsolete ballast and errors (erroneous formats, e.g. of date). Often unexperienced users describe simple facts with much too complicated constructs and the wrong templates (or using templates in a wrong way), making it difficult to read. Often users don't care for a correct and proper supply of the Information parameters.
In all the years, users are reacting differently when a file of them had been cleaned. Most send a 'thank', some became angry when their file had been touched, some are asking when they do not understand. Very seldom a user cannot understand the explicating answers and just in one case, that of Koavf, insists in fighting.
About the Language templates:
When a positional parameter is provided without the positional number e.g. 1=, and somebody changes it, he will see imediately at the preview when he causes an error by inserting into the text an equal sign without adding the positional number; as always, a user is responsible for his edits, and for his errors.
It is a silly argumentation that using all possible positional numbers will help anybody; when Wikipedia does not need them they are obsolete - not disturbing but also of no use, even not clarifying anything. On the contrary, when an erroneous pipe might be written the number can cause an error, as explained at the {{docu}}. Five years ago, Perhelion removed these and other obsolete parts from the file descriptions.
Many templates, esp. elder ones, are provided with a lot of default parameters. For example, Information bears the empty |permission= and |other versions= parameters, but when a description contains the license description in the == {{int:license-header}} == paragraph the permission parameter will never be used; therefore it is removed by the Perhelion-script. (When somebody wants to use it, it can always be added again and provided with a value).
Conclusion:
When people give really rational arguments that the "1=" part should be kept, I will try to get Perhelions script changed – as I will try to fulfill the wishes of others (whether I understand them or not, whether I see any advantage in them or not). And of course it can be dicussed again whether the adding of the SVG image generation is "pointless and unnecessary edits, making no improvement".
At the moment I just see that a user uncapable to understand simple correlations is acting hostile against work that I would call useful. -- sarang♥사랑 07:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me Bidgee but you are talking definitely nonsense that I had been told previously!
  • No "software used" had been removed there - it had been corrected, and
  • no category had been removed there - the categories coded in each one of the single 16 pillar files had been moved to the category of them;
Perhelion just removes since five years the obsolete category "Location not applicable". But Koavf inserted this disputeable category again, and into any one of the 16 single files instead of once into their category, as it would be good habit of users common with wikipedia. -- sarang♥사랑 08:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Really? Originally it had "This text-logo was created with Inkscape-default" to "This text-logo was created with an unknown SVG tool.", why did you change this? Your edit summaries are lacking and anyone who has valid questions, you become passive aggressive. Bidgee (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bidgee: You are talking from things you seem not to understand. "This text-logo was created with an unknown SVG tool" is a deprecated tag because the necessary tool had not been defined with {{Igen||+|s=tl}}; it will create a red box and categorizing to a maintenance category, the assuming of Inkscape is mentioned but not verified. My edit occured after the SVG code had been checked by the script which found that Inkscape had not been used. As a fact, no creating tool could be detected, therefore the only correct tag is "... created with an unknown SVG tool". This correction cannot be called an error! Sorry again, but nonsense does not come true when repeated. Your question "why did you change this" I answer: when something is wrong I try to correct it. -- sarang♥사랑
@Prosfilaes: Be aware that you cite half of a sentence putting them a bit out of context. The hole sentence is Please prepend "1=" to the text, otherwise any "=" characters in the text will break the template. And the reson given does not apply for Sarang's edits, therfore it is imho questionable to not applicable if the sentence can be applied here. Also it should be mentioned that imho User:Koavf never mentioned Template:Internationalization_template_doc#Usage as a reference.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 08:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
If I tell you "please don't go into the backyard, there's a dog out there", don't give me crap when you go into the backyard and step on a rake. The template says "Please prepend "1=" to the text". Why change perfectly good, working pages to go against what the template recommends?
As for "as always, a user is responsible for his edits, and for his errors" that's manifestly user-unfriendly. As always, users provided with a more trap filled system are going to make more errors, and that's going to make for a worse Commons. If a program provides good output, there's only two reasons to change the input; to make it easier to work on the program, or to make it nearly impossible to work on the program. The only reason to make these changes on Commons is reason one, so people making future changes to that page have an easier time doing so and are less likely to make mistakes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: "it is imho questionable to not applicable", yes it is: the template says that 1= is required. Did you see the documentation? Note also that these descriptions are dynamic: anyone could add an equal sign to any of these templates at any time. If you are using these templates that are intended for arbitrary running text in any language, then use 1=. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: 1= should not be removed because the template documentation says so: it's required. The reason it's required is for compatibility with certain characters that may cause a problem with the functionality of the template. There is no reason to remove it and there is a good reason to retain or even insert it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarang: Fixing the description of SVG diagrams and identifying the actual tool used to create it is helpful. However, removing the “1=” part of the {{En}} template is not. The use of “1=” follows the best practice recommended in the corresponding documentation to avoid errors whenever a “=” is inserted (happens often enough by including links). Please make sure that “1=” is not removed by the script you are using. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking that this should be discussed at the Language templates whether the 1= should now become mandatory. I never heard if a problem because of the missing 1=; of course, it can give a problem when the parameter string is changed and gets an equal sign that it did not have before, and the editing user forgets to add the now necessary 1=. Yes, it can become a trap, but there are many other traps when other templates parameters are changed ignoring side effects. Honestly, I never heard about problems from a change of a language text string, and it seems to me that this is a discussion of a mere hypothetical error possibility without any consequence in reality. -- sarang♥사랑 10:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No, this is to be discussed here as you remove the “1=” constructs in great number using automated scripts. Such mass edits using scripts against documented best practice require a consensus which does not exist. Please begin to listen here. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

replacing inkscape to unknown at File:Aduno Gruppe Logo.svg

The change from Inkscape to unknown is an error in a previous version of the skript, everything unknown fall back to inkscape, see Special:Diff/300080503. So Inkscape has been an Skript-error, which was corrected by Sarang. If you check the source-code it is not the output of inkscape it might be a Template:Inkscape-hand, but since it is unknown {{Created with other tool}} might be the best option. Anyway the source is a pdf so Inkscape is very likely wrong, it would be {{Extracted with Inkscape}}, which does not mean that the pdf-file was created by inkscape, but only converted by inkscape. @Bidgee: please check the sourcecode of view-source:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Aduno_Gruppe_Logo.svg then you should notice that is not saved by Inkscape.

I think this issue of correcting SVG-tool can be closed as missunderstanding Sarang's edits, by non-svg-users.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 10:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Regarding this subtopic of Special:Diff/591937115: I think everyone agrees that Sarang's edit was correct, but not well enough explained  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

removing 1=

I think the explantation why 1= should not be removed is not done adequatly to User:Sarang, I tried it now at User_talk:Sarang#Erklärung_der_Meinungen. @Prosfilaes and AFBorchert: as I said earlier {{en | some text | }} works but {{en |1=some text | }} not, therfore it is opinionbased what is superior. And genererally it is unusual to write "1=". The reson given at the template does imho not apply to sarang's edits, which makes it imho unclear if the sentence is applicable. The text at the template imho need to be discussed and might need to be revised.

I have the feeling that both sides do not fully understand the other side.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 10:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody needs to write “1=” for the first parameter of {{En}} if there is no “=”. But if it is there, it should not be removed by automated scripts. Automated scripts should be conservative in their action, they should not impose some new standard. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
{{en | some text | }} is wrong, IMO. I can see the argument for fault-tolerance, but there's a random character that's getting ignored there. It's not a winning argument for me.
Along with AFBorchert, it's okay for scripts to change code to adhere to strict code formatting standards; it's one way to work with people butting heads about code formatting in a programming environment. It's not okay for random scripts to change things that don't matter where there's no consensus that they should do so.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: I am not convinced of the necessity to have the 1= in language templates just for the possibility that somebody will later change the text and use an equal sign; when a link template, or any other template with an equal sign is used, it won't disturb the main tamplate! Only adding "free" signs, outside of any template, will break the template when not also the 1= is added.
@AFBorchert: The script checks whether the text string contains a "free =" and of course does not remove the 1= when it is necessary.
I always try to keep things as simple, understandable and readable as possible; when it is really a heavy threat that the missing 1= make problems because users are adding free equal signs to existing text, I will change the script, that with the next transfer of my sandbox to Perhelions version the danger won't be spread. -- sarang♥사랑 10:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

+1 - Agree entirely with AFB - Personally speaking if I were adding English manually then I probably would use "{{en|English text}}" (because when using templates that's what I'm used too) however the system by default adds this parameter so from my point of view by removing this parameter with a script you're not gaining anything because come tomorrow over a thousand or a million more files would've been uploaded meaning the default "1=" parameter would've been added ..... You're essentially fighting a losing battle .... hence why I suggested Commons:Village_pump/Proposals up above. –Davey2010Talk 10:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sarang: Sigh, please listen. Keeping “1=” follows the documented best practice. If you want to mass-remove it, you need a consensus for it that you do not have right now. Please change the script or obtain consensus. It is that simple. We will surely not tolerate a continuation of script-based mass edits against current practice. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
O.K., the next transferred script will stop to care whether the "1=" is necessary. It will neither remove obsolete nor add necessary "1=". I will need some days until I can ask for another transfer of the script. I have no tool to insert again the "1=" into files where the script had removed it. Is that sufficient? -- sarang♥사랑 11:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sarang: Thanks, that sounds good to me. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Is there a consensus of not removing "1=" from {{En}}, as long as not decided differently at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals and not blocking sarang if they follow this rule in future?
I assume Sarang would take a (short) time to fix this issue in the script, since it was added by User:Perhelion.
It is still unclear if adding "1=" is allowed? (not sure if we need now a consensus here)
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 11:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: to make it clear: the script does not add the "1="; any user may write language templates with or without unneeded "1=" as preferred, in future no automated removal will occur by the script.
IMHO this issue is not worth a discussion whether it should be allowed to remove it automatically in the progress of a general clear & SVG treatment.
I thought it a good idea but when the "1=" is so much loved I can leave it. -- sarang♥사랑 12:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
sarang you should undo your edits where you removed the parameter given people above disagree with this. Undoing these edits and not repeating them in the future would certainly be a step forward. –Davey2010Talk 12:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Demanding they be undone sounds like the perfect being the enemy of the good. It's clear it's not trivial for sarang to do that, and it really doesn't matter if it's not being done going forward.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I spoke against Sarang, also the explanations of both sides were valid and imho equally justifiable.
@Davey2010: I'm not sure if adding "1=" should be forbidden, therefore undoing Sarang's edits should undisputed not be done, see the first paragraph in Help:SVG_guidelines#SVG_sourcecode_edits_without_visual_change. Sarang imho never only changed the 1 in the language-template, they always did a visual improvement.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 12:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Prosfilaes & User:JoKalliauer - As I said given the parameter is the default here there's nothing to be gained by removing it - If it actually causes issues then Sarang should go to the Proposal venue and seek to have it removed. The removal of said parameter should be forbidden - They've made what I can only describe as unnecessary changes and like I said the software adds this by default so removing it manually again is a losing battle.
The following should happen:
  1. The parameter should be restored (IE Sarang should readd the parameter back manually)
  2. Sarang should then go to VPP and seek consensus to have this parameter removed from the internal software
  3. Once consensus is formed Sarang can either manualy remove these themselves or a bot can be created and it can remove these at a much quicker rate.
  4. Problem solved.
In regards to the SVG changes - No idea if these are an improvement or not but my main and only gripe is the removal of a very much used parameter. If the system by default didn't use it then fine I would 110% agree with Sarang edits (as anyone would) but if the system is using that parameter by default then no no one should be removing it until they have consensus to do so in which case if they did then a bot should do this anyway. Also apologies for sounding like a broken record but yeah trying to get the point across, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It has always my doing, and I agree with JoKalliauer that useless edits with no visible change - and no change in the workflow or performance - should be avoided. The guidelines forbide me and others by good reason to make edits as Davey suggests. When there is an error I'll repair it - but there is none. Disagreement of people with other ideas is not a reason. -- sarang♥사랑 14:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
sarang Could you explain to me why you removed the =1 parameter and why I shouldn't revert you right now?. You made a change without consensus so by rights you should be reverted but I want to hear your opinion/reasoning - Why remove the =1 parameter in the first place?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Regarding "1=" I think Sarang agrees to not remove it any more (after fixing the script). Undoing those edits should not be done see User:Krd's explanation at #source_code_standardizations.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

source code standardizations

Looking for example at Special:Diff/592377971 I have difficulties to see what is the actual content change, as it is cluttered in a lot of surplus changes. There is no reason in changing field names to lower case, changing the field order, removing empty fields, changing category order, converting user name to template, etc. Please stop it. --Krd 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Krd: If something is not defined on Commons I try to follow the rules of Wikipedia. (Except there is a reason or tradition to make it different.) In the german Wikipedia User:Aka has the most edits (3.2 million), and in most of his edits he does syntax-standartizations (replacing underlines with spaces in Wikilinks, removement of trailing spaces, adding spaces after *,...).
I see syntax-standarization as desired, as long as it is not pure source-code-edits. The order of the info-template should imho be standardized to find the according values, when editing. If categories should be alphabetically ordered is disputable. I personally would not support it, also least it avoids double categorization twice into the same category. (withdrawn  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC))
I would like to generally discuss source-code edits of SVGs and of description-pages at a more general place, but imho there is no consensus about it. I know SVG-editors that do thousands of pure source-code-edits, and often break SVG-files (Vulphere, Thomas_Linard), which is much worse and leads to dataloss, and never improves something (only file-size-reduction with the price of dataloss). However I have no rule to warn them, therefore warning Sarang about not-pure source-code-edits, with improvements, seems to me a bit warped.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
You are mistaken at all points. Aka does correct typos that are visible to the reader, and source code cleanup that is visible to the editor and does help the editor. The edit in question is nonsense because there is hardly any editor for a file page at commons but the uploader. We should respect that the uploader formatted the file page in a way they prefer, and even in Wikipedia there are rules that prohibit to change one allowed and valid variant to another just for the sake of itself. Even if there were consensus for such cleanup, they should be done by a bot and not by user showing up on watchlists with incomprehensible edits. --Krd 16:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
They should also not be done to pursue an arbitrary editcount.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree to User:Krd's argumentation.
@Jeff G.: Sarang also adds/replaces {{Igen}}, that is visible to the reader, so the additional source-code-standartization is not increasing the edit-count of Sarang, or do you mean the picture-counts of User:Vulphere and User:Thomas_Linard which I mentioned earlier, but that would be a different discussion.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 17:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Virtually all of my edits are visible to the reader. -- Regards, aka 17:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I echo everything Krd and Jeff have said above. Please self revert your script edits or the next step should be a block. If i introduced controversial edits and refused to do absolutely anything about it I would expect a rather long block for my edits so the same should apply here. –Davey2010Talk 18:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding source code standartizations: I would like to hear @Sarang: 's opinion on that.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Source code (may be HTML code, an article of Wikipedia, SVG code, template source, the parameter-supported description of a file or template documentation - or anything else, as a table description, ) has always to follow some standards. Standards can be helpful for the creator and for following readers and editors. But never should be an obligation to follow strictly only the standards! As wikipedia says: there are recommendations but no rules. When there are rules, it is always allowed to disregard them when there is a good reason.
In my personal opinion more standards would make work easier - but nobody should be forced to follow them regardless. Of course, where free format is allowed, everybody creates his own style and it is more difficult to recognize. It will be nice when users keep their output readable for others, but it is not conditio-sine-qua-non.
About Special:Diff/592377971 and similar, I see that missing Image generation had been inserted, and by the way some cleaning occurred. May be when somebody feels the need to check the alterations it will need some time, but in general is my opinion: when a file must be touched and edited, to make also some cleaning in that progress is a good idea. Or is it not always good to change redlinks to real links? Ok, others may have another view for that; but nobody can call cleaning a bad thing which has to be forbidden. -- sarang♥사랑 09:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for repeating myself: Regarding @Jeff G.: edit, which was echoed by @Davey2010: :
Virtually all of User:Sarang's edits are visible to the reader. (mostly by adding {{Igen}})
@Krd: Do I understand you correctly: Also User:Sarang's edits are similar to User:aka's edits, you have the opinion, that commons-file-description-pages are compared to Wikipedia hardly edited, and therefore additional source-code-cleaning is not as important as in Wikipedia and should be avoided to easier check diff-links?
I'm not sure how important diff-links with minimal edits are, the number of edits and watchlist-tickles do not change if you do some additional cleaning or not.
Imho it makes sense that the order of parameters in the source-code agrees with the order of the displayed template.
Among the (imho unrelated) noise/misunderstandings of others, I see User:Krd's and User:Sarang's opinions as valid. Both are well-known experts in mass-editing. This decision is imho a precedent-case with imho far-reaching consequences (it affects especially mass-edits of several users).
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
May I clarify: the complained edits with the Perhelion script are not mass edits (other script users know), it works that when I meet an SVG file where I think it useful to have the Image generation added I invoke the script; it checks the W3C state and makes an edit proposal which I have to check before it is published. The script not only adds a parametrized Image generation transclusion but also does some cleanup – in most cases to the advantage of the file description;
Sometimes I perform also mass edits with VFC, rather seldom in special cases.
I do not know about User:aka's edits – what is the matter about? -- sarang♥사랑 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sarang: With mass edits I meant similar edits that are done to 1000's of files (e.g. using the script), not necessarily using an (automatic) tool for that. Maybe I used the word "mass edits" incorrectly.
I only mentioned aka, as an example of famous edits (in the German wiki), who makes always visible changes, but also does some minor source-code optimization, such as removement of invisible underscores in wikilinks, similar to Sarang's edits. Sorry, please forget about aka, it seems to be more confusing than to clarify.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not quite sure whether I understand correctly: is it also complained that the script generates a standardized edit summary - always the same text? The script's main functionality is always the same, but the visible output depends on the situation (as detected SVG tools, W3C errors, graphic lab involvement and much much more). Should the summary be more specific, when not only Igen is added (plus some general cleanup)?
If there should be a need the script can vary its summary, even to more lines; many users are using the script, so all their usages will then generate an expanded summary, with specified parts telling what is visible. -- sarang♥사랑 05:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
If you aren't sure what edit summary is appropriate for a script, how are you exactly sure what the script is going to do? Are you at least reviewing the results before going full speed? I do wonder how Sarang was supposed to know that the script would create an error (does it?) if there isn't a category for those types of errors. Seems like further discussion is needed at Template talk:En. The otherwise markup changes are silly to me and seem unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Can't say I'm surprised by the comments below as well as the actions here overall but then again Commons always has been a joke and that apparently isn't going to change any time soon. It's genuinely a shame that Commons is so **** when it comes to things such as this. We might as well give Sarang a ******* barnstar at this point for the disruption caused!, I'm done caring. –Davey2010Talk 23:19, 22 September 2021 (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.

I would like to propose that Sarang is banned from using any cleanup scripts on this project until they have a better understanding of what is and what isn't acceptable to clean up. They may reapply at ANU in 6 months. –Davey2010Talk 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Given the recent mess, disruption and harm caused to the project they should be banned from using any cleanup scripts for 6 months. Given reverting isn't an option I see this as a way forward and see this as an opportunity for Sarang to learn from this and to hopefully not repeat it. –Davey2010Talk 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A storm in a teacup. There has been no mess, disruption nor harm caused to the project. Sarang har agreed to discontinue his practice of simultaneous Wiki code "cleanup" along with legitimate edits, and this is a more than adequate conclusion. TommyG (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Well there has - Removing a required parameter is disruption and it causes harm to the project. Agreeing to stop is all good and well however the damage has been done and cleanup of their edits may now be required. Put simply I hold no confidence in them. –Davey2010Talk 15:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sarang was not "making thousands of errors". Replacing |1= with | is an error if the parameter's argument would trigger a syntax issue, but otherwise it is harmless. It is better if the |1= convention is not replaced, and Sarang has now agreed to stop doing that replacement. That should end the issue here. I see no reason to revert the changes that were already done. A special purpose bot could do that replacement and make other pages conform to the convention, but I would oppose that as unnecessary and tickling too many watchlists. I have had disagreements with Sarang in the past, but he has always been rational. I do not see replacing the parameter convention as fundamentally unreasonable. Reviewing the complaints on Sarang's talk page gives me pause. The complaints talked about the convention being required, but that is clearly not the case; not using the convention works in most cases. The posts did not explain the benefit of the convention. I can read "Don't remove 1=, as it helps ensure that whatever text follows it is recognized as the correct parameter" as being somewhat opaque. If someone understands the issue, then the meaning is clear, but if someone does not know about the equal sign issue, then the meaning is not clear. Furthermore, Sarang's English skills are good, but it is not his native language. The issue needed better communication at the start. Glrx (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2021 (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.

Of course, everybody may change one's own files, including free adding/removing "1=" as long it's not only an invisible change. -- sarang♥사랑

Continuation

Thanks User:Davey2010. According to assume good faith, I assumed that among al those discussions and missunderstanding (on both sides) the output of the discussion was unclear to sarang. (Imho I would conclude that most invisible changes by Sarang are allowed.) I summarized my understanding of the outcome in User:Sarang's mother-tongue on their talkpage, and left a warning to stop removing "1=" in language-templates. If I misunderstood the above discussions, please correct myself.
However be aware that the script correction might need some time. Also it is responsibility of the user to use it correctly, it might happen that till correction still few edits errors might slip in, without noticing. (That does not mean such edits would be allowed.)
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
After reading Special:Diff/592488152#removing_1= again I noticed, that I concluded Regarding "1=" I think Sarang agrees to not remove it any more (after fixing the script). But User:Davey2010 is correct the edits should imho not be done any more. (Because the responsibility for edits is not by the script-editor, but by the script-user.) This is a more strict regulation, which was not well communicated, which is not sarang's fault. I also declared it now also at the template.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:JoKalliauer, You did indeed state "I think Sarang agrees to not remove it any more" and not one part of that sentence is difficult to understand so why are we here yet again?. It should be obvious to absolutely everyone that the =1 removal should stop immediately not just be stopped for the EN template.
I hate to say it but Sarang should at this point be blocked for gross-incompetence. I'm not the sharpest tool in the box I think we're all aware of that but if you're told umpteen times to NOT remove something ... you don't remove it .... it's that simple Johannes.
imho they should be blocked at this point as just seems there's either no understanding or they're simply not listening. –Davey2010Talk 20:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

No language should be prioritised over any other, when practicable. No user should be disadvantaged because of the languages they can or cannot speak. If you have hints that a user doesn't speak your language, make an effort to get your messages to them translated. The onus is on you, not the user. See Commons:List of administrators by language to find an administrator that does speak the other user's language.

@Davey2010: regarding "not listening": Sarang has good English-skills also his mother-tongue is German, however iff he is not good enough in English is our fold and not his if he does not understand it. (Imho sarang would have sufficient english-skills to understand, however the treat got so long, that the additional language barrier might have been too high.)
Since, till shortly, nobody told him in his mother-tongue the discussion might have been to vague to blame him. I now clarified it in German on his talk-page, to eliminate this possible problem.
Since this is a discussion is about a german-native-speaker it would imho be a valid reason to discuss everything here in German. So if you want that Sarang understands you, you should ensure that he receives the message in German. however this reply is English because it is an comment mainly/mostly to Davey, a native-English-speaker.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 21:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi  User:JoKalliauer, That's a very fair point, Thank you for communicating with them in their language greatly appreciated, I still maintain they should be blocked as they were told repeatedly to stop and they well I assume they understood this in English but maybe not,
Now that you've very kindly intervened and helped the user we'll see how it goes. Thanks again ,–Davey2010Talk 22:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Note. On 22 September 2021 at 08:33, Sarang commented out a section of the cleanup script that processed the |1= replacements. See diff commenting out lines 219 to 254. The 3 problem edits cited above are dated 23 September. I can assume that Sarang believed the issue would not happen again. He might have been more careful checking results, but I see good faith here. Glrx (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Glrx: Thanks! With knowing this technical issue, I can now see good faith. (I know User:Sarang quite long, and I was a bit astonished about his continuation, but now I see that it was a unintentional technical issue.)  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This discussion here is really a storm in a teacup! If the content of a language template is not displayed, because there is a = in the text but no 1= in the beginning, the file is automatically put into Category:Language templates with no text displayed. There is usually only a small number of files concerned (of the several millions we have) and they may readily be fixed.
It needs to be noted that having a 1= in the beginning of the parameter value makes it more difficult to understand the source code for inexperienced users. For instance, I fixed many errors of the following type: 

{{en|1=Some text}}
{{fr|2=Some text}}

Hence, there are advantages and disadvantages to both, having or not having 1=. --Leyo 08:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I just corrected a series of 6 files from Language templates with no text displayed and I saw that very different reasons brought the files into that maintanance category - "1=" is all than a general help! -- sarang♥사랑 12:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Leyo

current edits of User:Leyo (yesterday and today)
@Leyo: Ich informiere dich (d.h. keine Verwarnung, das überlasse ich anderen), dass (1) die Entfernung von "1=" in Special:Diff/593213032 gem. Disk oben nicht erlaubt ist, desweiteren sind meines Erachten viel gravierender (2b) reine Quelltexteditierungen wie Special:Diff/593080058 sowie Special:Diff/593161067 sind nicht gewünscht[1][2][3].
Wenn es nach mir persönlich gehen würde, solange es sich um wenige Edits handelt: Wo kein Kläger dort kein Richter, aber oben wurde über Sarang beschwert und mehrfach um Blockierung gebeten.
@Leyo: Da deine Edits auch betroffen sind, magst du was dazu sagen? Sind das nur Skript-fehler oder sind das bewusste Edits?
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I did not properly check the edits, I stroke wrong comments  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 06:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: First, I thought & understood that removals of "1=" by the script are forbidden; but cleanings 'by hand' may include also removals of superfluous "1=".
Second, Leyo's addings of "1=" was in all cases necessary because of a free equal sign in the parameter value — not reine Quelltexteditierung but unavoidable error repair.
Third, AFAIK Leyo did not use the mentioned script, he used either another script or edited 'by hand'.
You cannot blame Leyo of forbidden insertions; when you look more carefully you will see the necessity.
Will now everybody get inquired when an error happens? Im Stil einer Hexenverfolgung? This is not Wikipedia as I liked it -- sarang♥사랑 21:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
As sarang says, bullet-point 2 do appear to be cases of user-visible improvement. For example, File:Blason ville fr SainteVerge 79.svg previously displayed as:
Français : (missing text)
but with the change:
Français : https://armorialdefrance.fr/page_blason.php?ville=16963'
The situation where a parameter-value contains a "=" is the exact case where we are required by the MW software to use the "1=" construct. DMacks (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, I understood the issue, but just overseen the "=".
Sorry for bringing up another misinformation, I had overseen the "=" in the text and did not check the old version, sorry that's my mistake. However removing of "1=" in (1) Special:Diff/593213032 still looks undesired. (But that's just a single edit.)
✓ Done Leyo's edits were correct, just I did not properly check those edits (I've overseen the "=".).  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 07:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: I can see that Leyo does not access the script "simpleSVGcheck" by his commons.js, he seems to use another Perhelion "cleanup" script. Everything else I can only guess. About the alterations by Special:Diff/593213032: I could not find whether that script removes "1="; when Leyo did it 'by hand' he cannot be blamed: he had to edit the description parameter because of typos, and it had always been a good habit to combine textual alteration with the removement of obsolete (template) parts. Not everybody is always reading this project page, I suppose that very few people know about the new rules developed recently which forbide such cleanup. I foresay that within the next years template-knowing users will do many of such removements, without knowledge that they are breaking a holy law. -- sarang♥사랑 10:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

JoKalliauer, you made false accusations, even without previously having checked what syntax fixes such as Special:Diff/593161067 actually do! Sorry, but this was an incredibly premature action. --Leyo 19:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC) PS. I have done several thousands of similar syntax fixes.

References

  1. ↑ User:JoKalliauer/Mass_editing#Pure_source-code_edits
  2. ↑ w:de:Hilfe:Kleine_Änderungen#Was_keine_kleinen_Änderungen_sind
  3. ↑ Help:SVG_guidelines#SVG_sourcecode_edits_without_visual_change

Technical basics to 1=

There happened a substantial misunderstanding that I try again to clarify.
I know that this is not the forum for such explanations, but everything started here with a severe misinterpretion of template documentation.

Disambiguation:
Every parameter specification in every template consists of two parts, the parameter name and the parameter value.
It is essential to know the difference between these two parts to understand template documentation.
  • Parameter names can always be specified empty (=no value), in most cases without consequence - like not done.
  • Parameter values are either optional, suggested or required.
Parameters are either named or positional.
  • Named parameters can only be specified by a name (or alias), an equal sign and the value: the name is necessary.
  • Positional parameters can be specified either by their position, or by their number followed by an equal sign prepending the parameter value:
The 'parameter name' of a positional parameter is represented by a numeric value.
While the name of a named parameter is always necessary for its specification, the name of a positional parameter (=the position number) is only necessary when
  1. the parameter is specified outside its positional order, or
  2. the parameter value contains free equal signs,
otherwise it might be used – but it is not necessary.
When a template documentation calls a parameter 'required' it depends the parameter value;
a parameter name (or position number) can only be either necessary or not necessary.
It is complete nonsense to tell a parameter name (or position number) "required" —required can only be a parameter value.

I hope that this may help for better understanding in future -- sarang♥사랑 21:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

Shouldn’t this: […] due to a proposal of a subcompetent user who misinterprets documentation […] be considered as a personal attack? --Thibaut (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither an attack nor personally against any user – just the fact that resulting of misinterpreting template documentation by somebody not able to understand them and unwilling to accept explanations the mentioned proposal with wrong assertions caused new rules of questionable advantage.
Nothing against users with limited properties, and nothing against the new rule, just telling about the funny history of the Law of 9/22.
Stating the undeniable fact of subcompetency cannot be an attack! But when you think that it sounds unfriendly I can remove the word 'subcompetent' -- sarang♥사랑 08:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_94&oldid=596857133"