Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~102
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• No license since 11 July 2025: ~42
• No permission since 11 July 2025: ~255
• No source since 11 July 2025: ~117
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-07: ~111

Other:

• Duplicates: ~4,864
• Advertisements/spam: ~7
• Personal photos/selfies: ~58
• Other speedy deletions: ~70
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~13

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~3
• Interface admin: ~12
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~4
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

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

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 sbuject matter (therefore per se not a vandal), he clearly refuses to work in a collegial manner and to accept even the most basic cimmunity 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)

• Could an admin please action this? Elli (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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: [1]—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.

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)

Mohammed Khan Chowdhury sockfarm

• User: Mohammed Khan Chowdhury (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User: As Allamin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User: Mohammed Khan Chowddhur (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User: Mazedul islam parvez (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Sockpuppetry, copyvios, and promotion/advertising. See also en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammed Khan Chowdhury and archive.

  — 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) block user 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)

• Also, File:Norman Pritchard.jpg is definitely not own work, it's likely a PD image but I can't figure out the right country/provenance for it. —SpacemanSpiff 18:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

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

IP 74.104.130.117

Insulting using names like others names like "idiot", "Dumbass" and "loser in [2]

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

• Sifg.360 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log)

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. --Contributers2020^{Talk 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? --Contributers2020^{Talk 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? --Contributers2020^{Talk 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 ([3], [4], [5]). He has now asked as uploader to speedily delete the whole series of these photos. I've granted him this request per G7 ([6]). 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. --Contributers2020^{Talk 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, –Davey2010^Talk 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.

--Contributers2020^{Talk 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. –Davey2010^Talk 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. --Contributers2020^{Talk 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. –Davey2010^Talk 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. –Davey2010^Talk 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. –Davey2010^Talk 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, –Davey2010^Talk 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. --Contributers2020^{Talk 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. –Davey2010^Talk 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. –Davey2010^Talk 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.

Uploading copyright images

K.Mukherjee1996 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user 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)

• Why have you tagged this as "missing permission"?

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)

• Its not verified that uploader is the original person, so it stand now a claim and needs VTRS/OTRS as clarifed by King of Hearts.
• She is not innocent. Earlier she has been warned by other editors apart from myself and File:Khushi-mukherjee-5ec647ca2e0bf-1590052810.jpg was re-uploaded thrice and File:Khushi Mukherjee 2021.jpg was ultimately copied from a website.
• Its entirely upon the community and the admin to take the decision regarding blocking or allow after multiple warnings. I only put up the case. Thanks Run n Fly (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• So you admit that "innocence" is now a factor in whether we permit uploads or not? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 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)

Possible socking

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHoodz4u&type=revision&diff=583300893&oldid=427180659

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.

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fuzzy&action=history
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hoodz4u&action=history

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)

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

• User: Attashahnoory (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Evasion of block of Mohammad Mir shahnoory. See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mohammad Mir shahnoory.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:17, 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.

• Alexanderolotu104 (talk · contribs)
• Alexanderolotu432 (talk · contribs)
• Alexanderolotu652 (talk · contribs)
• Alexanderolotu709 (talk · contribs)
• Alexolotu615 (talk · contribs)

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)

Beeblebrox

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)

Globally-banned user AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:50, 30 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)

Globally-banned user AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:50, 30 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)

Globally-banned user AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:50, 30 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. –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Globally-banned user AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:50, 30 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)

Globally-banned user AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:50, 30 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)

•  Info Comments from globally-banned user have been struck per m:WMFBAN. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose First, we do not sanction accounts to make a point. Second, Fæ is known to have harassed other users themselves. What goes around, comes around. That said, Beeblebrox should know better. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:33, 30 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 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)

Beeblebrox, you have been doing this for years. You know from past threads that you have been posting in which trolls will doxx me, in this case pointing out how to find my home address and phone number, which I have never relased on-wiki, but it is being repeatedly associated with my account for anyone that wants to make real life attacks. You are actively bullying me and after I asked you to stop on-wiki you carried on and made jokes after the doxxing information was posted.

You are deliberately inciting trolls off-wiki to attack me and make jokes targeting me after they do it. You are posting jokes after trolls are bragging they are using sock accounts to disrupt this project and this discussion so there is no chance of properly holding you to account while your peanut gallery of off-wiki pals take pot shots with burner sock accounts. By these actions and similar targeted posts over a period of years, you are complicit in whipping up hatred and ensuring the decade of abuse that you know I've suffered, not only continues but increases by your deliberate actions off-wiki.

The evidence of your own writing off-wiki shows you enjoying how this harms me and puts my safety at risk. I don't understand why you would do this, I don't understand why anyone would do this to another volunteer.

You have not apologized or stepped back. Your own words show you are proud of what you are doing off-wiki, partnering 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) 18:20, 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)

• @ElC: Not necessarily super duper helpful. GMG^talk 18:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• The quality of their photographic "contributions" (look at userpage) perfectly matches the quality of their comments. --A.Savin 19:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yay, I'm beloved! ElC (talk) 19:54, 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)

Celtic Minded (talk · contribs)

Yeah, we're done here. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:13, 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.

---

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.

Choojvdoopie

• Choojvdoopie (talk · contribs)

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)

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)