Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 42

Can someone please help?

This new User Macrobrachium loaded as a "newer version" a new and totally different image of an image over an existing image HERE that is not at all the same (not a crop, etc., either) as the original image. That is, the user used the same identical image filename but a totally different image. Can someone fix that mess. Both images should be kept because they are different (though I am not sure the validity of the license of the new image), but kept with different names so they don't interfere with each other. Thanks for a helping hand as I have no clue how to fix that mess. Mercy11 (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I see someone fixed it. Thx! Where is the other crustacean image now located at? Mercy11 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's now at File:Atya lanipes.jpg. It needs a license, etc, so I left instructions for the uploader. INeverCry 01:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by user onto deletion process

I lately prepared five of my uploaded images (the five that have corrupt filenames that I couldn't reverse) for deletion validly requested by me being the uploader, instead of marking them "Speedy". In the last hour this user preformed a "closure" on each of the deletion commands 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 (invalidly - without having the deletions satisfied and without a reason or mandate to overrule the deletion request) and left a false closure comment replicated in each of the pages. I'm not familiar with this high-level disruptive pattern luckily, but assume such behaviour is dangerous for our cause in the way it opens doors to possibly more such repressive and ill conduct. Clearly uncustomary seeming, it is a severe burden for me and a waste of my editing time because I apparently will need to restore the requests, which are harmonious with earlier discussions. The user's actions are recorded in this log. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 08:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I sympathies with your attempts to keep the file names intact; but unfortunately we have no such policies. Eventhough your argument that it is the author's right to choose the "title"; the "title=file name" is not well defined here. That's why I added "Original title=<the name chosen by you>" in the file description and advised you to do so in others too. The more you can do is (if you really need it) to add {{Information field|name=Title|value=<the name chosen by you>}} in "Other_fields" at {{Information}}.

Please read https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode #7 b. "Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above." Jee 08:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this general note, but the legal dimension is the last I'm involved in and isn't part of my work here, it seems to me quite irrelated, as a volunteer contributor that relies upon community guidelines and the benefit of the project and not upon general legalcodes (which are OK). Obviously, adding the code you're suggesting is no solution, because for these uploads only the author's title applies, otherwise I wouldn't go caring this much about the title modifications. Orrlingtalk 09:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Orrling, ever since you were thrown into a semi-petulant tizzy by the file renamings, you seem to be making less and less sense. If the fallout from this leads to your departure (forced or voluntary) from Commons, you will really have no one to blame but yourself... AnonMoos (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What is going on here? :) Jee 09:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have moved it away from GBG.jpg, which is a completely meaningless name, to the previous filename, File:Göteborg inner-city canals.jpg. I have also move-protected it. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why; I've explained that GBG is a most common abbreviation for that city in the local language (as NYC is in English, for example). That image doesn't need a more verbose name than this as this is a representative image of the respective place. Orrlingtalk 13:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's meaningless to anyone who isn't intimately familiar with the place then. Same difference frankly. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well. This is actually a fair point. :/ But I'm bugged by the name you insisingly chose. --You know, blind copying of the text from the file's description-box isn't quite the meaning of (meaningfully) naming. Please use "Göteborg canal". Thanks. Orrlingtalk 15:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Goteborg, the name seemed reasonable to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the file mover right of Orrling. Pleclown (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Attacking and changes without comunity consensus

Unfortunately I have to report, that Liamdavies is very harshly attacking another wikipedists in the community discussion and doing mass changes without finished discussion in a way, that he suggested. Thanks for quick solve of this problem, — Jagro (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I second this appeal. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Jagro: You should notify a user when you bring an issue to AN/U concerning their actions. I've done so. In this case, it might have been better to let him have a chance to respond to your concerns voiced at his talk before bringing the issue here. AN/U is meant to be a last step to be used if other attempts at resolution have failed. INeverCry 20:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I linked to here in my most recent addition; Liam is informed, now. The discussion (rather, the last installment of it) has been hapening since March in the linked page (Prague) and had a recent resurfacing/forking in a separate one (Hongkong). Seems that User:Liamdavies cannot comprehend the notion of concurrent category trees, and has gone now, finally, to move categories in filepages and child categories^{(-- Tuválkin ✉ 20:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC))} using Cat-a-lot, instead of adding new ones. Either he’s being technically clueless or pointingly spiteful (diff), but he should stop, either way. Not wanting to talk on Jagro’s behalf, but ANU seems the one thing that had not yet not been tried to solve this matter. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to the party. Yes, I was probably harsh to Sju, but they have seriously pushed my patience with continual dismissing and - obvious - failure to look at a word I have said. I would ask that any admin acting on behaviour look at Sju's continual belittling of others as well (I understand this is petty, but feel it to be pertinent). I am merely creating a parallel tree of categorisation, I am not undoing any categorisation, and my actions (of creating a parallel tree) are almost unanimously endorsed by the CfD. My changes are also removing a huge amount of COM:OVERCAT, there were (are) many cases of both parent and child cats being in the megacat Category:Trams in Prague by registration number, breaking it down by model removes this. (Examples here: parent and child, both residing in the same cat - clear COM:OVERCAT. There are many many many more examples of this.) Liamdavies (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To the uninitiated, tl/dr: Some of us (apparently everybody except Liam) think that things «the megacat Category:Trams in Prague by registration number» is a good thing and should include one category for each fleet unit. Some systems will have fewer subcateries while others, like Prague here, a lot. This is a feature, not a bug. Liam was told how to adress his concern (how to find images of a given tram by model, regardless of individual fleet number) without touching this, but he has been unable or unwilling to avoid conflict. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As I just highlighted - but you ignored - the megacat is riddled with COM:OVERCAT. My changes are addressing both my concerns and removing the massive amount of overcat. How would you propose to deal with the overcat issue otherwise? Liamdavies (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I explained to you how overcat can be avoided (or undone) in both discussions (Hongkong and Prague) and gave you one established example (Lisbon). Now, avoid forking the matter yet another time. This discussion here is about your actions against consensus, not about categorizong. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, this other discussion proves that User:Liamdavies can be reasoned with and consensus can be achieved. What he is doing to the flat category of Pragque trams, though, by either malice or clumsiness, is unexcusable and needs to be undone. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

All arguments to the the Liamdavies'es proposals are wroten in the appropriate discussion and it is not practical to shatter the discussion. If the participants are not able to understand or accept each other, some experienced users or admins should help to mediate or arbitrate the discussion there, we should not to duply the discussion here. Let's keep aside User:Liamdavies'es verbal attacs - we can understand and pass his frustration. Let's focus to constructive solution of the probems.

I personally accepted the Liamdavies'es complaint that the detailed categorization (as well as modular principle of categorization itself) have some disadvantages but I objected that it has some big (maybe even bigger) advantages also. Though a compensation of the disadvantages with some overcategorization or paralel or quaziparalel flat-categories can seems to be a solution in a short-term view, it disrupt heavily the modular structure of categorization and such paralel categorization impedes an effective maintenance of the content of the current category structure. I expressed sympathy for User:Liamdavies'es wish (and supported it in principle) but i objected that it is not a sufficient reason to destroy or thwart the current very useful and presice categorization structure (as his recent steps did).

Unfortunately, Liamdavies started his massive changes maybe in good will but without consenus and with some errors.

• he removed the numeral sort keys from the subcategories which were moved within the categories "by registration number". This fault can be fixed by bots but we need an support by admins to give the work request for bots. I suppose, this fault was not intentional and Liamdavies will have no objections.
• he undercategorized his new categories. The new categories can be useful and kept. However, the category "Tatra T3 in Prague by registration number" should be surely a subcategory of "Tatra T3 in Prague", etc.. If it isn't, that is a clear fault (which should hide that the new flat categories caused a factual overcategorization). I fixed the category structure already but we should decide whether the massive overcategorization of thousands of images should be fixed by bots immediately or we should wait for some more effective tool which should enable to look through subcategories more effectively (see the next point).
• I would like to appeal to you all for supporting of the bug message which asks an option of direct displaying of the content of subcategories as a systematic solution of Liamdavies'es wish (shared by me and others) without destroying the modular categorization structure and its benefits. I think, such tools would be not very difficult (and maybe exist externally already) but they should be integrated to MediaWiki directly. --ŠJů (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Btw., I can confirm that en:Wikipedia uses the word "overcategorization" in substantially broader meaning than Wikimedia Commons does and that too detailed categorization can be considered as "overcategorization" in that broader sense. However, such "overcategorization" can be uncomfortable but is not incorrect in principle. Liamdavies requieres a real overcategorization (in the narrower meaning used at Commons - ie. flat-categorization of images even though appropriate more deeper subcategories exist already). Anyway, we can search for consenus on exceptions if we reach an agreement on it but it supposes that the participants of the discussion accept and understand the basic principles of categorization and are willing and able to listen each to others. As it appears to me, Liamdavieses problem was a lack of that in this discussion, but naturally, it is diffucult to judge objectively - he has apparently a similar opinion about my participation. --ŠJů (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please to confirm the bot repair request: Commons:Bots/Work requests#Repair of Category:Trams in Prague. --ŠJů (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to support the bot work (ie. removal of Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague from Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague by registration number‎). Why shouldn't Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague be a parent category for Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague by registration number? Bidgee (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bidgee: ???? Please read once again. Surely, Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague by registration number‎ (if exists) should be a subcategory of Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague - that's what Liamdavies [omited https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Tatra_KT8D5_in_Prague_by_registration_number&oldid=113536318] and I [repaired https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Tatra_KT8D5_in_Prague_by_registration_number&diff=next&oldid=113551120] already. The request for bots is "Images which are included in at least one direct subcategory of Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague by registration number‎ should be removed from Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague". That should repair the mass overcategorization caused by Liamdavies (here). Do you mean, it is not clear enough? --ŠJů (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, this isn't discussion about categorization, this was notice for administrators about mass changes without consensus and attacking another users in a way, which can NOT be tolerate on any WM project. But it stays without any reply from admins and user didn't stop his work after messages from 3 users and discussing with them… BTW user was noticed on his talk page by me and I hope, that reminding feature working well and link to this discussion was provided by it. — Jagro (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you didn't inform him of this discussion, INeverCry did. Also per the notice on AN/U "Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence", the only evidence you've given is a borderline uncivil comment and his contributions, please give us diffs of the alleged behaviour. Bidgee (talk)

“Alleged”, you say?… -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you've made an allegation that you've given very little diffs to support. As I've stated, it's up to you to give the evidence of the alleged behaviour, it isn't up to Admins to search though every contribution Liamdavies has made (our time is limited as volunteers). I'll be closing this in 24 hours if you can't give the diffs for the allegations, one diff isn't enough and I've warned him about that comment. Bidgee (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I’m sure your valuable time is scarce, Mr. Admin, Sir. The choice of word, "alleged" (instead of "percieved" or some such, if you really want to play judges), seems however to be unrelated to matters of expedity, and more like an unneeded potshot at the initiator of this section. So Jagro (not me, I just come over for the popcorn) gets roasted three times now for not warning Liam, for there’s time enough for that, and on top of it he’s being called a presumible liar («you merely allege, my good man — for the Truth shall be decided by the Admins!»). If you had given this 0,001% of the admin attention given to the Prikasso Affair, you’d notice that Jagro refers «mass changes» like this, linking to LiamDavies’ special/contributions page. There’s no single diff to be shown, because Liam made one change on each of hundreds of pages. One times hundreds of destructive changes he had been warned by several other users not to do, in a discussion started in March 2013, and which he admittedly did on spite and in apparent incomprehension of the everybody else’s needs. That, Mr. Admin, is the matter. Want hundreds of diffs listed here? -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your uncivil sarcastic comment is unhelpful. "Pricasso drama" has nothing to do with this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, keep it up and I'll close this discussion, it's all talk with very little evidence (diffs) over a content dispute. Bidgee (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jagro, I'm sorry but I suppose, the main purpose of COM:AN/U is to solve the problems (i.e. repair the damage and prevent a new damage), not to escalate the personal controversy and insist on personal revenge or punishment. That's why I focused the factual solution.

@Bidgee, you seem to be not willing to find the 1660 last edits of LiamDavie in his history page (as was directly linked by Jagro at the top already) even though the problem and affected items were described thoroughly - should we link all 1660 diffs separately here?

For the case that some competent admin will visit this page: the mentioned "mass changes without finished discussion" are Liamdavies'es ca 1660 edits since 9. 1. 2014, 16:21 to 9. 1. 2014, 20:44 UTC. The problems on the edits are:

• he created 10 new categories (an example) which were undercategorized which caused a future mess and overcategorization (see Improper categorization of categories is a cause of over-categorization for explanation). The changes were not accepted in the previous discussion, especially the undercategorization of the new categories is clearly against commonly established rules of categorization and it damaged heavily the categorization structure.
• he copied ca 1000 or more images from the categories of individual vehicles to the category of the type (an example), although the categories of individual vehicles are (should be) categorized by type, thus additional categorization of individual images is a clear overcategorization. Such overcategorization impedes an effective maintenance of the images through a modular categorization system.
• he removed ca 635 categories of vehicles by number from the established category Category:Trams in Prague by registration number and removed their sort key (an example). That was a real harm and disabling of the category. Such a change was clearly not accepted in the discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would like it noted that Sju's acusation that I created COM:OVERCAT is disingenuous, and it was actually that through edits such as this that created overcat to them blame me with, and action the bot request. I would request he be warned for such behaviour; it is completely unacceptable to create a situation then blame others for it. Liamdavies (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• The afformentioned overcat situtation which Sju created and I removed has been reinstated by TM, as have my comments been removed by TM. Attempts to deliberately create COM:OVERCAT to undo edits and blame me are uncalled for; I did not create COM:OVERCAT with my edits and to create a situation of COM:OVERCAT and then accuse my is libellous. I request that directions be made to both Sju and TM not to make edits creating a situation to impinge the credibility and competence of other users, it is both disingenuous and deceitful. I created two distinct category collections (which Sju subsequently - correctly - grouped Category:Trams in Prague by registration number by type and by model Category:Electric trams in Prague. The edits in question can be found here: [1] & [2], [3] & [4], [5] & [6], [7] & [8], [9] & [10], [11] & [12], [13] & [14], [15] & [16], and [17]. I would also note that in the discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague there is clear consensus for a parallel tree - opposed almost solely by Sju - and I have had my ability to understand questioned many many times by Sju who confuses concepts of understanding and agreement. Liamdavies (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The removal from bot requests was acidental, but i have to say that you Liamdavies are creating an unnecessary mess and havoc in this categories. Tm (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Liamdavies continues with massive unconsensual changes which damage the categorization structure and are symptoms that Liamdavies doesn't understand their principles. E.g. he created paralel duplicate categories like Category:Media of Tatra T3SU in Prague with unsystematic name (some of them were even not properly categorized under the parent category like Category:Tatra T3SU in Prague) (diff example) and moved the overcategorized content to them (an example). Even though there is a sympathy for the desire to look through the category tree more effectively, there was not consensus achieved that Liamdavies should create some overcategorizing paralel flat categories which should be even not properly categorized. --ŠJů (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The advice given by me to Liam (inspired in what was done for Lisbon trams) was to leave existing categories alone (something he seems unable to comprehend, indeed) and create, for each category about a series, a set of “quasi-flat” subcategories populated with all its images (which should remain individually categorized also with fleet numbers, of course), split by some convenient visual criteria: "Views of So-and-So trams in City" and "Interiors of So-and-So trams in City" would achieve his goal of having a pick-a-tram-by-series album. Sadly he could not be contented with this benign arrangement and had to go on righteously vandalizing in good faith (!). -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Tuvalkin, the recent changes I made, which Sju undid, created what you suggest. They did not touch by number cats, simply removed images from the parent and placed into a child 'media of' cat, it was done to maintain flat parallel cats, and remove all over cat. Liamdavies (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

When you say that you «did not touch by number cats, simply removed images from» them — you’re contradicting yourself. Creating categories and inserting them in a tree is half the work, the rest is populating them with files (and child cats), which work you admit to have undone in spite of stern admonishing from everybody else not to do so. Meaning you’re either very daft, or you’re assumed everybody else is and would be duped. Well, not. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The recent moves I made (which I have recreated) did not touch the by numbers tree - to say it did is 'very daft'. The CfD clearly endorsed a parallel tree, now created. I have not undone any of my own work, Sju undid some which I will not push further, do not mistake or distort my actions, that is deceitful. I do not see any clear stern admonishing from everybody else I see you and Sju, but no admin and no other non-involved editors. Liamdavies (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The possibility mentioned by you was mentioned also by me at 21 March 2013 in the discussion. Btw, the FastCCI launched recently is also an effective tool to display subcategories - a bit similar to that requested in the bug report. --ŠJů (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The parallel categories I created contained zero overcat (whereas the moves you just instigated created overcat) and were endorsed by the CfD. I would ask that an admin look into the warring behaviour of Sju who emptied the mentioned categories above, which were subsequently deleted for being empty. The CfD clearly has an overwhelming consensus to create a parallel tree - which I did. To accuse me of creating overcat, and then intentionally creating overcat to dismantle said tree is more disingenuous behaviour from Sju. Liamdavies (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have recreated the parallel cats that Sju emptied and deleted. The desire for their existence is clearly endorsed by Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague. There is unequivocally an overwhelming consensus within that CfD for a parallel cat tree. Sju: stop being pointy. Liamdavies (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Duplicate paralel categories which are even not properly categorized are overcategorization par excellence. Undercategorization is a cause of overcategorization and break the categorization structure heavily. Is there really not any competent admin to intervene? --ŠJů (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Beleiutz sock to block

User:Laurian D. is a fresh sockpuppet of User:Beleiutz. Could an administrator please block the account and delete all the copyright-infringing images they're uploading? For further reference see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beleiutz, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz, and the archives of this page. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Denniss. CU didn't turn up any other socks. INeverCry 22:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Did CU establish any link to previous accounts? If so this could be mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz. (Not that it's really necessary, mind you, since the behavioural evidence alone is overwhelming). —Psychonaut (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately CU only goes back 3 months. The other accounts are long stale, so no connection can be established, and there's no indication of any recent accounts being created besides the above one. INeverCry 00:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What about User:Mirciulescu and User:Andy Kisss? Last activity 18 December and 5th January, both blocked at en wiki as socks.--Denniss (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The individual results say these are connected, but on different ranges. I've blocked Andy Kisss. INeverCry 00:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

He's back again as Mariusescu Grigore (talk · contribs). —Psychonaut (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked INeverCry 19:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you help

Érico Júnior Wouters has blocked Qypchak’s IP-address 178.158.60.151 (ID #205461). uk:user:Qypchak ask me to clarify the situation. He doesn’t understand his “crime” and the reasons why that admin did it. Help him to unblock his IP-address. Thx--Grantaire 01 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the admin blocked his IP-address on Dec, 20, but on Jan, 6 Qypchak uploaded File:Luh Carols 2014.ogv. How can it be?--Grantaire 01 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP. The software used to force us to remove the autoblock, but I can't find how to do that; maybe the new version of Mediawiki does it automatically? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that this was a hard block. It should've been anon-only (soft). The IP showed some spam/vandal abuse in December, so a temporary block was needed, but there was no reason to block logged in users. INeverCry 20:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Servi gonc

This user is apparently a sock puppet of AMILTON DE CRISTO (talk · contribs). Jespinos (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User DanyLauratic all uploads copyvios

All this users uploads are copyright violations and user has been well-warned/instructed on the rules. See User talk:DanyLauratic. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Nuked and blocked 1 week. --Alan ^(talk) 08:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Fastily

For context: User_talk:Fastily/A2014#These_3_DRs

Is it acceptable for an administrator to simply ignore another editor when they point out that their explanation for deleting a file directly contradicts the wording of a policy?

I use the phrase direct contradiction deliberately - he deleted 2 images for containing elements of copyrighted work that in his opinion didn't fall under COM:DM, explaining "the image is of high resolution, meaning someone could [extract the copyrighted portion] for unauthorized personal gain". COM:DM#Crops_of_de_minimis_images however states quite clearly that "Note that the mere fact that an image allowable under de minimis may be cropped to create one which is not allowable does not imply that the original work is not de minimis after all. Even very high resolution images, in which incidental details can be reliably recovered and magnified, should be viewed as a whole from a normal viewing distance when considering whether de minimis applies.".

I use the word ignore because, after I pointed that out to him, he made no further reply. He simply let the section be archived from his talk page.

Ultra7 (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Several things:

1. Nobody here (not me, not any other admin, or any other editor for that matter) is under any obligation to respond to you. We're all volunteers, and everybody's time here is a valuable donation which should not be taken for granted.
2. In case it wasn't obvious, I disagreed with what you said. I made it pretty clear on how to proceed: either crop out the non-free content and re-upload, or proceed to COM:UD. I find it utterly nonsensical to fruitlessly argue in circles with you, because a) nobody is going to make any concessions, and b) I have better things to do with my time (and for the love of God I sure hope you do too).

-FASTILY 20:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to respond to anyone with reasonable queries about their decisions, it's called being accountable - UD is not an alternative to that. As for point 2, instead of railing at me for wasting your precious time, why not instead read and understand the actual complaint? This has nothing to do with me not noticing your initial disagreement. I am taking issue with your refusal to answer my follow up point. It was a simple question, so I'll ask it again - why does your expanded deletion rationale directly contradict the wording of the policy? I have lots of better things to do with my time than this, so please, just answer the question, and I'll get on with them. Ultra7 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ultra7 those 3 images are of the identical buses from similar angle. The only thing distinguishing them from each other are bus size copyrighted billboards on their sides. It is rather clear that the billboards are the main subject of those photographs. as such it crosses the threshold of de minimis; nobody has to crop them to view the copyrighted material. --Jarekt (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, for a number of reasons, but the purpose of this section is not to re-hash the content issue (that can wait for UD or another venue), it's to address the issue of Fastily's refusal to explain the contradiction between the policy and his expanded rationales. If he is indeed thinking along the same lines as your last point, then I fail to see why he finds it such a problem to spend the few seconds to type out words to that effect (or to give a different explanation). Ultra7 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

On the content side, I would say the images would pass COM:DM, if it weren't for the fact that they explicitly state (filename) they are for showing the advert. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a number of things to say on that too, but like I said, I'm not here to discuss the content issue, I'm here because Fastily said one thing, while policy says the complete opposite, and he doesn't seem to think he is expected to be able to spend a second of his precious time explaining that apparent contradiction to other users. Ultra7 (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"I have better things to do with my time"

I'm separating this comment out for separate feedback. As bad as it would be in isolation, it's much worse when read in context of how much of other people's time will be wasted if he has indeed completely misread the COM:DM policy. As someone who works in this area, I can say with a high degree of confidence that there are several thousand images on Commons that have the exact same issue he claims existed here. If he has got it wrong, other volunteers will be wasting years of their time needlessly blurring a tiny portion of each one of those images, for no good reason. In that context then, the 'don't waste my precious time' tone of his response to what is a simple question, is utterly deplorable. If it were me in this situation, I'd be taking as much time as was necessary to make sure anyone who was making reasonable queries like the one above was completely satisfied with my logic, even if they disagreed with it. Ultra7 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, other images exist, and they should, in time, be removed. But we are not all-knowing, we need people to tell us they exist before they can be deleted. As for the comment, I agree it's not good practice, but it is certainly understandable when you feel you're banging your head against a brick wall. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The only person banging their head against a brick wall here, is me. It wasn't a difficult question after all. Policy says don't do X. Fastily did X. He doesn't care to explain why, he's too busy. Is that an example of a) exemplary admin conduct, b) an minor but understandable blip or c) a failure of basic admin expectations? A total novice would have come to the right conclusion by now. Ultra7 (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Restatement of the issue

In an effort to make it abundantly clear what the issue is as I see it (which is not the underlying content issue as the first two respondents seem to have thought), let me see if I can restate it more simply:

• Commons:Administrators states: "Administrators are expected to ... be prepared to work constructively with others ... [they should] understand and follow Commons' policies .... [and they] have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position"
• Commons:De minimis is a Commons policy, and it states quite clearly that what people could crop out of an image is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not it is allowable under de minimis at original size
• Fastily deleted those files claiming they were not acceptable under de minimis, because the non-free portion could be cropped
• He has twice ignored requests to explain this apparent contradiction, because he has "better things to do with his time"

Given the above points, how can anyone here possibly be OK with Fastily's conduct in this case? He apparently doesn't understand the COM:DM policy, he definitely isn't interested in working constructively with others, and he definitely appears to think that being a very busy administrator confers on him some kind of special editorial authority. If anyone disputes the factual accuracy of anything I've just said, then just say so. But if people just want to ignore this report and I later find out it's actually a pattern of behaviour for this user, then believe me, I will have no qualms about turning Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fastily (de-adminship) into a blue link. Ultra7 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ultra7, if you disagree with an admin who deleted an image, please go to COM:UDEL. This board is about user conduct, not about whether or not de minimis applies in a particular case. And, BTW, I agree with all three closures. These are all classical examples where de minimis does not apply as the focus is obviously on the copyrighted advertisements. They are not incidental but very much the reason why these photographs were taken. This is obvious from the titles of these photographs. Fastily explained all this kindly and patiently. Hence there is no reason to bring this here or to even announce a de-admin process. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

For Christ's sake. I've tried to make this clear several times now. Whether DM applies or not is NOT what this report is about. This is a user conduct issue - how on Earth is it not? Policy says do not do X, admin does X. Admin refuses to explain why he did X. How on Earth is that an issue for UD? If an admin was running around speedy deleting images for having no license when they did, would you really be directing complaints about that to UD? I hope not. Ultra7 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You were opening this thread at COM:AN/U. This means that you want to have other admins look at this. I agree with you that resolution is of no concern in de minimis cases. As elaborated above, I come to the same conclusion that de minimis does not apply, albeit for other reasons. If you happen to take a look at COM:DM#United Kingdom you are refered to the relevant quote: Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, or broadcast. And that is exactly the problem. Given this series and the titles, it is for me obvious that these ads were the primary motivation to take these shots. Hence, their inclusion is not incidental and thereby we have a problem. If you would photograph a larger street scene with such a bus, it would be incidental. But all these shots focus on the ads, presenting the displaying side in full format just that the bus fits into the frame. Look how this picture was cropped. These were no speedy deletions as you claim. These regular deletion requests run through their due course (actually more than two weeks!) and if you want to challenge the closure, go ahead to COM:UDEL. I see no issue of user conduct in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fastily is by far the most prolific administrator we have on Commons. We are already way over our heads in backlogs: copyright violations are piling up every day on here, and there is not enough manpower to delete them. I will gladly take someone who pccas the patience to spend hours a day on menial deletion if it means his personality is the type that occasionally lacks the patience to discuss a particular deletion. So I propose an agreement: Ultra7 or any other user who feels like Fastily didn't give a proper response is free to ask me on my talk page for clarification on anything. If I disagree with Fastily's decision, I will undelete the image. As I almost always agree with Fastily, this should rarely present a problem.

Unless Ultra7 is just angry and looking for his pound of flesh at this point, in which case I suggest he's not going to be happy with any solution that doesn't Fastily's head. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal is nothing short of reprehensible. Commons already has an atrocious reputation amongst the wider WMF community - adopting basket case solutions like this as a way to deal with backlogs is not going to improve that one bit. There's a reason why being communicative and accountable are considered mandatory traits in an administrator on every WMF project, and it's got nothing at all to do with their unwillingness to deal with backlogs. If you're such an admirer of his speed and not so worried about his potential mistakes (accidental or deliberate) that you're prepared to demean yourself by looking the other way and nominating yourself as his personal complaints department, knock yourself out. Personally, I'd be quite ashamed if I caught myself saying things like that. Fastily should certainly be ashamed his peers are apparently prepared to humiliate themselves this way just to compensate for his failures. It's not an arrangement that interests me in the slightest. Why would it? How could you possibly know what he was thinking in cases like this? Policy says don't do X, he did X. And he refuses to explain why. There's absolutely nothing you can do to clarify that for me. You can only disagree with what he did, hopefully for the obvious reason that it was wrong (accidentally or deliberately), or agree with the outcome, but for a different, hopefully valid reason. Me personally, if I simply wanted another decision when I'm not happy with Fastily's, if I simply want people to look at the same image and read the same policy and give their own opinion, in the hope it might actually lead to a different outcome, then as several people have already said, there is already UD for that. What UD is categorically not though, is a replacement for Fastily's own talk page. Neither is yours quite frankly. I don't particularly want to go for his head, but I do want this issue to be treated for what it is, which is a basic failure of expected standards of conduct. But the way I see it, neither you or anyone else who has responded so far, is giving me any alternative. He either is an administrator here, or he isn't, there is no half-way house. His speed, or the presence of backlogs, simply don't come into it. Ultra7 (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

AFBorchert, please don't tell me what I meant by filing this report, especially not when I've actually said exactly why I filed it many times already. I've already told you on your talk page why your analysis of the content issue is not only completely irrelevant to this report, it's also completely flawed. But for the hundredth time, I am not interested in discussing that here. If I decide to challenge it at UDEL, then I will let you know, then you can post these claims there, and I will post the many reasons why they are wrong there too. But as an aside, when you are linking to the single picture of the three here that I ALREADY CONCEDED was probably not DM in the discussion with Fastily as some kind of relevant point, then it shows you really aren't paying enough attention at all. And why you think I was claiming these were speedy deletions is also beyond me - I was using that scenario as an example of the sort of user conduct issue that nobody would claim was an issue for UDEL. What I am interested in here, what the primary purpose of this report is, is to find out why you don't see any user conduct problem in Fastily deleting files based on what someone could do with a crop, something you agree is totally against policy, and then not explaining why he did that. The mere fact you happen to agree with the outcome, for different reasons, is not relevant to that issue at all, is it? The fact I can challenge the outcome at UDEL is not relevant either, is it? UDEL is not going to explain why Fastily said that, are they? How could they? They won't know, you don't know, I still don't know, and that's apparently the way Fastily wants it to be. This is a user conduct issue - or do you really think it's acceptable conduct for admins not to understand and follow policy? And then not explain when the error is noticed? If you do, then you're wrong, and if you don't understand why, look at the bullet points above. Ultra7 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess you've answered my question. You're more concerned with proving a point than actually looking for a desirable outcome. Which, IMO, is the very definition of trolling. Ironically, you've proven Fastily's point that there's no point in discussing anything with you, because you will refuse to listen. I suggest anyone looking at this thread move along. This user's self-righteousness and inflated sense of self-importance has colored his view of how to handle disputes. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 07:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because I reject your proposal, for the very good reasons that it basically trashes a central precept of policy, doesn't lead to any of the conclusions you offer here. I will listen to anyone who has something to say about the issue I actually raised. If someone offers a good reason why Fastily does not need to read and follow a policy like COM:DM and doesn't feel the need to explain why he would possibly have done that when asked, I'm all ears. Fastily claimed there was no point in discussing anything with me, but if you really believe that claim, then can you please show me where he has answered the actual question I have been asking here? Am I both deaf and blind according to you? If you think that respecting policies and trying to hold admins to account is evidence of a "self-righteousness and inflated sense of self-importance", then I truly feel sorry for you. The only thing that concerns me here is not my own ego or even my own uploads, many of which have this same claimed issue. It is the the consequences of an admin deleting images against policy, and nobody else in the admin group either noticing or caring. To clear out the images that meet Fastily's new definition of de minimis, even if you do it at 100 images a day, is going to occupy the deletion request pages for the next 50 days. And that is based on the extremely conservative estimate of there only being 5,000 images. Which I know for a fact is on the extreme low side. Throw any insult you like at me if it makes you feel better, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to me, and it certainly doesn't make a backlog of that enormous size just go away. Ultra7 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Ultra7, the modus operandi of this board is to state a problem and to ask others for input and possibly administrative action, if necessary. You are not happy that Fastily refered to a point in his closing rationale that was in conflict to COM:DM#Crops of de minimis images. You did the right thing by asking Fastily on his talk page. However, in your very first comment you mainly argue that other cases that you consider to be similar are still existing at Commons and that you found another deletion request which was decided differently. Fastily responded kindly and refered you to COM:UDEL. Then, only in the last sentence of your second comment on Fastily's talk page you are raising the point in regard to cropping en passant. He might have easily missed this. Only here at this board you chose to raise this point at full scale. Again, if you disagree with a closure and if the subsequent discussion at the admin's talk page doesn't bring what you hoped for, the way to go is COM:UDEL to which Fastily refered you. This would have been the best place to discuss this. Fastily closed these deletion requests in good faith even if his closure was not perfect. We are not machines. We all make mistakes and learn from them. One way to do this is by following subsequent discussions at COM:UDEL where this can be discussed with focus on a particular case which is more constructive than focussing on the closing admin. Raising this here instead just creates unnecessary long threads and drama. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody learns from mistakes that they deny making in the first place, and nobody is exercising good faith when they say things like "I have better things to do with my time" [than respond to your concerns]. I am raising that denial and failure to respond at full scale here because it is the only aspect of it that AN/U is for - behaviour. Fastily did not just miss this point - he is deliberately ignoring it (otherwise his first post here would have been completely different). That is why I am here, rather than UDEL. UDEL is not the place you go to if an administrator refuses to explain why their closure is in conflict with policy. UDEL is the place you go if you simply disagree with their explanation. You can carry on talking about content issues all you want, I can only keep saying I am not interested in that right now (and if I was, UDEL is where I would take it). The only reason this thread is unnecessary long, is because you and others are refusing to listen to me when I state quite clearly, I am not here to dispute the content issue. Even if I went to UDEL and got the decision over-turned, I would still be here if Fastily was still denying he had ever made the mistake or was still refusing to explain how he could have made it. I am here to complain about Fastily's behaviour, and this is clearly the best place to do that. It would be constructive if someone would address it (even if it's to say you don't care one bit, you think this behaviour is an excellent trait in an admin. As bad as that would be as an answer, it would still an actual answer). Ultra7 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel myself obliged to comment, because I decided one bus-painting deletion request as kept. I explained clearly: "It is only partly and not well seen. The photo is small, it does not give good overview about painting." This was not the case with deleted paintings. The deleted paintings were fully and well seen. The photos were big (4058×2514) and gave good overview about paintings. Taivo (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Steinsplitter

An interesting side note - apparently this admin read this section and the only thing he could think of doing by way of contribution was to remove the Level 3 sub-sectioning [18]. I couldn't see any reason for that (especially as I had explicitly explained in both sections why they were started as new sections), so I reverted [19]. He then replaced them with Level 5 headings, in the process threatening me with a block in what was a quite incomprehensible edit summary - "admin action: this is AN and not Ultra7. pleas stop reverting or you will be blocked". I am thinking maybe he meant to say "not User talk:Ultra7", but that still doesn't make it any more meaningful to me. Upon asking him why he was threatening me, he simply said he didn't see the need for sub-sections. No explanation as to how that is an "admin action", or why disagreeing with his personal style preference justifies a block threat. He gave no link to any page that says the format of the AN page is the sole purview of admins (that's not to say I wouldn't agree with it if it does exist), or indeed any page that defines what format this page has to have, full stop. When I followed that up, he simply removed the entire conversation. I don't know what can be done about this particular issue if Steinsplitter simply copies Fastily and takes the view that explaining himself is beneath him, something not worth wasting his precious time on, but it does start to get beyond a joke when the only thing that happens when you come to AN/U complaining about admin abuse, is you get abused by admins. Ultra7 (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an administrative board and therefore moderated by admins. There is no problem with trying out something. But once one of your edits gets edited or reverted by an admin on this board, you should talk to the admin if you disagree instead of reverting the moderating edit right away. Be bold, but if reverted, discuss first. And if you continue to disagree and think it is important, seek input from other admins. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If this board is only supposed to be moderated by admins, then that appears to be an undocumented rule. As such, I don't think it's particularly helpful for admins to be issuing block threats on that basis. As for your advice on what I should have done, that's exactly what I did do. He made a change, I reverted and attempted to discuss it with him, he doesn't want to know, so I am highlighting it here for further input. So what is it you were trying to say exactly? Have you just misread the sequence of events, or have you just failed to make clear what you think I should have done? Ultra7 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It is common practice that a board of a particular group of users (like the administrative boards, the OTRS board, the 'crats board etc) is moderated by that group as the particular group is expected to respond to the requests and issues raised there. Hence edit-warring edits like this that revert moderations are not welcome. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey admins, no one cares whether you think the bus posters were de-minimis or not. The world is waiting for an answer to the simple question... was Fastily wrong for closing as delete seeing as the reason he used was contrary to policy. Getting it right for the wrong reason is not the way things should be run. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Steinsplitter was wrong to remove the level-headings, and wrong to threaten to block. But this is really a storm in a teacup, and, in the words of Fastily above, I think Ultra7 has better things to worry about with his time, as there is nothing further to be done that could ameliorate anything. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ultra7

This exercise is ridiculous. Could someone please block/warn Ultra7 for harassment/trolling and close this thread? I note, from this user's block log, that this not the first instance of such lousy conduct. Thanks, FASTILY 08:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not "harassment" to make a single complaint about an administrator for making an obvious error and then refusing to explain why. It is not "trolling" to try and focus this discussion on the actual point I was trying to make, which is the legitimacy or otherwise of that behaviour per Commons:Administrators, rather than irrelevant points other people seem to think I wanted to make, such as to re-argue the content issue, or whether your error is of no consequence because the outcome of it might be correct, but for different reasons. Yes, I have been blocked before. Thank you for bringing that up, I am sure all the other admins here appreciate your assumption that they were unable to find that information out for themselves. It is arguably trolling to describe a single 1 day long block from three years ago as a pattern of "lousy conduct". It is arguably trolling to call any complaint about a user not reading and following a policy, and then not explaining why, as "ridiculous". If anyone is remotely interested, I consider what Fastily just said regarding "harassment" and "trolling" to be both grossly insulting and well beyond the standards expected of administrators on any Wikimedia project, never mind Commons. I suspect the only reason he made this comment was to perhaps bait me into getting angry, and therefore doing something that an administrator probably would block me for. Ultra7 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You are being quite ridiculous and I suggest that you stop. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop what? Stop complaining about an administrator who clearly didn't read and follow a policy, even though that's a basic requirement of Commons:Administrators? Or stop expecting him to explain why he did that, even though that's also a basic requirement of Commons:Administrators? Or did you mean just stop expecting any other admin to say/do anything about it? If you want to throw around loaded words like "ridiculous" at other contributors, I suggest you be a bit more specific about what you are referring to. The only "ridiculous" thing about any of this, is that Fastily is at the main admin noticeboard right now, complaining about a 4,117 item/20 day backlog of DRs. Yet neither he, or anyone else here, is concerned in the slightest that his still unexplained misreading the DM policy in this case, would result in a 10,000+ item backlog, with more of the same sort of image being uploaded every day (because no-one is going to not upload an image that doesn't fail the actual wording of a policy, are they?). And that's only by considering the images that are of the exact same subject. Who knows how many other genres this would affect. Ultra7 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC

FYI, for those of you who commented on the content issue, I have begun an Rfc at the talk page of COM:DM. Ultra7 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Harassment?

Twice now, Fastily has accused me of harassment. The first time was above, for making a single legitimate complaint about him at an appropriate venue. The second time was on my talk page today for making this single post to Ramaksoud2000, in response to his post above. On the basis that both of these accusations are clearly groundless (or in the second case, clearly biased - how is calling one person's legitimate grievance "quite ridiculous" being collegial, while questioning how much thought they put into a reply like that is not), I am now making a formal complaint myself against Fastily of harassment. I have no doubt that the only purpose of these baseless warnings is to either intimidate me into never complaining about him again, or to bait me into responding to these accusations in a way that would actually get me blocked (both achieving the same aim). So please, can someone here respect my status as a good faith long term contributor to Commons, and ask Fastily to just stop this, now. It is long past the point where any reasonable observer would think Fastily was acting neutrally if he were to ever actually use his block button against me (not that I have done anything remotely block worthy in either incident), so I suggest that he be requested that, in future, if he ever feels the need to warn me about anything again, he passes it through an uninvolved administrator. Ultra7 (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, check this out. He didn't find this image as part of a maintenance sweep, he was obviously tracking my uploads (nothing wrong with that, it just shows he was well aware who the author was). As such, he cannot possibly have failed to notice that the reason for the lack of a license was a simple error (I wrote PD-user instead of {{PD-self}}), easily fixed either by himself, or via a simple note to me. And yet, the most collegiate, most un-threatening way he chose to deal with this issue, was to slap the image with a speedy deletion tag, and not notify me about it at all, not even a cursory template to my talk page. Was this failure to notify really a simple mistake, or was it part of the whole 'make Ultra7's life on Commons uncomfortable' revenge deal? Or was he just trying to sabotage the RFC I filed? (because that's what it was uploaded for) Ultra7 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Gaste097

This user, apparently, is abusing multiple accounts: Diegotreviño (talk · contribs), Aaronlopez8876 (talk · contribs), Marcos76655 (talk · contribs) and Rosemartinez7764 (talk · contribs). These accounts were used for uploading images that were deleted via a deletion discussion. Mazatleco2013 (talk · contribs) also appears to be a sock of this user. Jespinos (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done All blocked and tagged. Two sets of flickr uploads deleted and the two flickr washing accts blacklisted. INeverCry 19:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Underground parking in Spain

I did some nonsense: Tried to create a category without the prefix Category:. Then, tried to move this new page to my User page, but that just created a new user page. So, can anyone please delete the User:Underground parking in Spain. Thank you! --EveryPicture (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Jim. INeverCry 19:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Roy Thinnes 1971.JPG and User:Chartrek

The user keeps reverting the file to a watermarked copy used for verification that the file is US PD-pre-1978. Talking with the the user on his/her talk page hasn't helped the situation. Thanks, We hope (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done History cleaned, upload full-protected for a while, message left for Chartrek. INeverCry 19:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, THANKS!! :) We hope (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

New User with issues

LC002 Sorry but I have to wonder if this is related to the previous file issue. We hope (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by INeverCry. Alan ^(talk) 21:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be so much trouble-thanks to all! 21:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I blocked both accts and did history cleans on all the overwritten files so that the personal attacks in the summaries are now hidden. INeverCry 21:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, Thanks! Too bad the person seems to have been here for non-constructive reasons. We hope (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

All of Chartrek's old edits/reverts were problematic as well. I've reverted the ones that hadn't already been reverted by others. I'll watch for further sock activity. INeverCry 21:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work both of you had to do because of this! We hope (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Another user with issues

• user
• my talk page

File:Jimmy Wallington.jpg We hope (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, revisions hid, short rangeblock. INeverCry 22:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry to be inadvertently causing all this work--thanks once again! We hope (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Back again

• user

• my talk We hope (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked + revisions hid --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel like I'm wearing out the word but THANKS!! We hope (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Uploads by User:EMAD KAYYAM

File:Human Eye Solar Earth Analogy As a Stonehenge Code.ogv

EMAD KAYYAM (talk · contributions · Statistics) has uploaded a number of out of scope images.[20] Some of them are personal artwork, the rest support an original research approach to Stonehenge. Could some admin review them please? Thank you. The Yeti 07:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I created a few DRs for them. Feel free to add more. Yann (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I created a mass deletion request, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:EMAD KAYYAM, but there are still many similar files. The Yeti 20:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Invalid mass relicensing by User:MarkusMark and User:Geobia

Today I stumbled upon one this users action where he replaced a PD-self tag with a cc-by-sa-3.0 tag. This is an invalid license change just like from cc-zero to cc-by-sa-3.0 as this later license may only be added as additional license. Any idea to fix these multiple hundred images? Example. Both users seem connected or are the same person, see one fiddling with the others image license, undoing it and changing it to the new license from the other (uploaders) account. --Denniss (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Pablo Milano #7

Could you please block this new puppet of Pablo Milano (find more background here), and if possible, review the images that I have marked as copyvio? Thank you very much, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef and mass deletion as copyvio. Note: For speedy deletions use {{Speedy}} or {{Copyvio}} templates, {{Delete}} is only for deletion requests. Thanks for the advice. --Alan ^(talk) 00:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 3 other socks, and nuked all their uploads as well. INeverCry 00:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And 18 more socks blocked... INeverCry 00:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention. Here we have a new puppet: Pablojaviermilano9, who uploaded the same photos that were deleted the other day. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 23:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, and uploads nuked. INeverCry 23:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Jitcji and File:Republic of China National Emblem.svg

User:Tm and COM:DEL

I'm not going to reply further to this user not only because to his uncivil behaviour with me in the current subject, but due to it's history on previous notes on this noticeboard with others users (i. e., I'm unable to assume good faith with arrogant users).

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Archeologia christã; descripção historica de todas as egrejas, capellas, oratorios, cruzeiros e outros monumentos de Braga e Guimarães + https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AArcheologia_christã_%281900_book%29.djvu&diff=115022196&oldid=114983546 and good luck. Lugusto • ※ 01:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did i made a personal attack to you? When i called you a funny character was, at least not what i meant, not an personal attack, and if you read the rest of my statement you can see that i was commenting your history, by not checking this book was already in commons, of uploading a duplicate of a file that was here for more than 5 years and nominate the first upload and not your duplicate upload, and explain to you why are this files in scope. So where is the personal attack? Tm (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

A single message containing 9 you/your words in a donnish word choosing is surely a personal attack, specially if hours latter you start to edit warring and tries to invoke editcounts as an argument against someone (just for record, I'm on Wikimedia projects since 2004, so, touché for you xD ).Lugusto • ※ 02:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Since when is calling "you" is a personal attack? And where was i "donnish"? If there is an edit warring it was you that started by deleting categories from several files, trying to delete files by marking them as duplicates when they were not(except the open DR that is another thing), by renaming decriptive filenames to generic and alas confusing (What is a book called "Christian Archeology" about?), by marking the original djvu to deletion and insisting in deleting categories and marking this files as duplicates. Also when you said "my attempt to teach you some advanced MediaWiki aspects" i told you my editcounts and years as registered user (since 2005, but 1 or 2 years prior as an IP) as a way to show you that i have enough experience to dispense lectures about Wikimedia, especially as i remember you from the beggining of PT Wikipedia and when you were an administrator (dont know if you still are) and per se your level of experience and so wasnt trying to touché anyone. Tm (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you've understood my point, there are n ways to say the same thing and the chosen by you wasn't the most friendly (or at least the most neutral). But I'm not going to argue on your wording anymore. Neither on your behaviour, even if now you are trying to say that you is able to keep up with ever single software and policy/guidelines changes in one of the most largest online platforms in the world (I'm not and I really love to discover new things by myself or by someone's else). Neither on our wikiaging, because it's irrelevant to this subject. Neither on arguments pro or agains't to keep or delete files and your abnormal choice on how to name them, because all have already exposed in the relevant place. There is no additional need to say anything there because you aren't going to help us approach a consensus, only to keep your view, so a third person is needed. Lugusto • ※ 02:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: please review your file rename action. Lugusto • ※ 15:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW I've duplicated the file on pt.wikisource until there is no stable filename defined, because relying on redirects to not broke subpages on ProofreadPage is very unsafe. I hope that the current sysop team don't rely only on scripts and in choosing to act only on simple cases that requires a third person opinion. Lugusto • ※ 16:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989 and File:Republic of China National Emblem.svg

User:Rodrigovalenzuela87

Rodrigovalenzuela87 appears to be the more recent sock of Gaste097. Jespinos (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done, apparently the same person. But I believe that a check would be interesting in this case. Thanks for reporting. Érico Wouters ^msg 14:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Confirmed; it's Gaste. Эlcobbola _talk 15:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Elcobbola. Érico Wouters ^msg 20:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nart Ozermes

Hello,

Nart Ozermes (talk · contribs) uploaded a lot of small files, most of them without EXIF data. Some copyvios found, but some remaining files. More investigation needed. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm unterstand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nart Ozermes (talk • contribs)

Block my account

Please block my account, my user page and my disc, thx --Pitlane02 _talk 15:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Vorübergehend oder für "immer"? --Túrelio (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be seriously a retirement[21]; thereby  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

More Beleiutz socks

The following accounts are fresh sockpuppets of User:Beleiutz which are being used to contribute copyright-infringing photos of Romanian celebrities here and on the Romanian Wikipedia:

• Sooorina (talk · contribs)
• Cristina2222222 (talk · contribs)
• Mircea Nana (talk · contribs)

Please nuke the uploads and block the accounts. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Denniss (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! He's just created another one: Mihai Stetcu (talk · contribs). It's not active on Commons, at least not yet, so if it's not going to be blocked here preemptively then someone should at least keep at eye on it. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Some problems with user

Can an impartial person please inform User:Fry1989 he is not the judge and jury regarding every flag and coat of arms from the Republic of China to Ireland, ignoring clear sources and citing policies that are not intended for the manner in which he is using them. He seems to be causing consistent problems with many users as shown above, he reverted two upgraded files of mine claiming they are "duplicates" [22] and [23] they are not "exact duplicates" they have some important sourced differences. The presidential arms is not the exact same and the the article in question even cites the use of my exact work on the observe of Irish coinage [24]. I do not wish to get into an edit war with the user so i have raised it on the talk page aswell. I would try and talk to him on his page but it seems nigh on impossible to convince him he has ever done anything wrong.Setanta Saki (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And can an admin please tell Setanta Saki when they deliberately upload a alternative version that they should not then duplicate it on the other file? My revert of Setanta Saki for that reason was perfectly justified and valid. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded those files as trials in order to make sure i had caught any corrected mistakes the same as you yourself at one time suggested, the other file name is the main file being used at present globally and i wanted to make sure the alternate design was sound before uploading onto it. So can i take it from your point that you will have no issue with my uploads being reinstated if my alternate trial files are nominated for deletion?. Setanta Saki (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't care whether you uploaded them as "trials" or not, you haven't retracted them, they are still here and you are duplicating images. And really, if you're gonna try and accuse me of wrong-doing elsewhere, the least you can do is pay simple attention to the facts. Regarding the Republic of China's national emblem, I was protecting a sourced version against one that was NOT sourced, not the other way around as you try and paint the issue above. If you're gonna twist things, be a little more crafty and less transparent. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of sanity I will address your concerns regarding my alternate trial files Setanta Saki (talk)

Considering your choice of file name, I have no way of knowing you intended them to be temporary for just for testing. I also have no objection to your alternative versions, in fact I'd like them even to stay, there is always room for more. My only problem is that if they're to be here, then you shouldn't also upload them over other files. There is room for both. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Liamdavies and trams in Prague

As a follow-up to Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague, User:Liamdavies disrupts repeatedly the categorization structure of Prague trams, manifesting heavy misapprehension of categorization principles. The previous report at this board was archived without effective reaction of any competent admin.

His previous unconsensual mass changes and their inherent errors were linked and explained in the previous report. Subsequently, he created a category Category:Media of Trams in Prague by model and its 13 subcategories (e.g. Category:Media of Tatra KT8D5 in Prague‎, see the history logs of the categories) which are really duplicates of the original standardly named categories (e.g. Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague‎). The duplicate categories were meant as flat categories because User:Liamdavies considers the subcategorization by fleet number as too detailed. He didn't categorized his new categories properly (Category:Media of Tatra KT8D5 in Prague‎ was not categorized under Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague‎) and when I corrected this error, he reverted the changes and broke the categorization again (an example), arguing that categorizing of the duplicate category under the original category of the indentic type is overcategorization and believing that if the two paralel duplicate categories are not connected directly, such a solution in not overcategorizing and considering it as conform with categorization principles.

Additionally, Liamdavies removed a rename/merge proposal even though it was based on two valid and clear reasons (unreasoned capitalization of "Trams", redundant and unstandard prefix "Media of").

Are the admins really not capable to orient themselves in this war and to intervene adequately? --ŠJů (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support this post. Changes made by Liamdavies are without any community consensus. He is just reverting everything… — Jagro (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I removed the move template per: 'If the proposal is clearly or potentially controversial or requires a broader discussion, you can transfer the discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion (replacing this template with', I contest it and therefore it is controversial and should be dealt with through a CfD, this is perfectly inline with the move template.

Just because two users disagree with this parallel tree does not mean it shouldn't exist; the overwhelming majority of participants at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague opined that a parallel tree was the solution to the impasse.

I have not participated in editwarring, or other conduct conducive to reprimand or administrative intervention, I have participated in CfDs and removed COM:OVERCAT that Sju keeps creating to use as a proxy to dismantle said parallel tree. I would request admins look at the histories and investigate Sju's behaviour concurrently with mine. Liamdavies (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would also like to bring to the attention of Administrators that Sju has been canvassing: [25], [26], [27], and [28]. Liamdavies (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

HCLuigi

• HCLuigi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Hello,

I just blocked this account for reuploaded copyvios from a new account minutes after I deleted them. Could you please check for socks? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Who is the sockmaster? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Luigi the Hedgehog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Yann (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing else found, but unfortunately, checkuser will not be of much assistance with this guy (I don't know what else I'm allowed to say). Assuming he doesn't get technologically sneaky, I should be able to give a Likely or Unlikely marker if we've already identified a likely sock. Otherwise, we will simply have to find these the old-fashioned way of behavior-only. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Abderitestatos and potentially repeated vandalism

Hi, since years (around 2008) there are repeated 'conflicts' with User:Abderitestatos regarding to Commons:Categories. As several times before, i contacted User:Abderitestatos on related category talk pages and several time on his talk page, so i did as of February 3, 2014, again. I asked him to stop his re-categorizations but ignoring all arguments, he does not. Please internvent respectively i beg for consequences for User:Abderitestatos's continously disruptive behaviour, thx, Roland zh 16:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

For anyone not speaking German, see Category talk:Reformierte Kirche Wetzikon, perfectly explaining my recategorizations of today. --Abderitestatos (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• User:Roland zh, I know you have been told this before, but please, can you link your signature to your userpage and talkpage as required/recommended by Commons:Signatures/Commons:Talk page guidelines? Liamdavies (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is not a case of vandalism. Apparently User:Abderitestatos felt the need to categorize images inside Category talk:Reformierte Kirche Wetzikon in two subcategories dealing with two different versions of that church which existed at different times. As I understand it, it is common practice here at Commons to use this kind of sub-categorization, and I really don't see any problem with it. Quite the opposite, seems to be the correct thing to do in that case. In any case, this is not a case of vandalism or other kind of misbehaviour, and should not be brought into this board. Roland zh, if you do not agree with that categorization, please discuss the new category using the proper venue, instead of turning it into a personal matter, trying to impose your POV by all means while making frivolous accusations left and right. And, as stated above, please link your signature to your userpage and talkpage as required/recommended by Commons:Signatures/Commons:Talk page guidelines.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 03:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your inputs.

@DarwIn: did you not read the category talk page respectively User:Abderitestatos' talk page, not just that one referring to that 'category case' and check User:Abderitestatos's or my contributions ?

1. I really tried to argue, several times and repeatedly the past years, commented on User:Abderitestatos's talk page and on p.e. category talk pages, but he ignores imho 'serious' arguments. And, not for the first time, every several months, same procedure.
2. No, for me it's not personal, strange it seems, that nerly 'exclusively' he 'handles' uploads from my side in that for me 'strange' kind:
3. In that case reporteted here, within one day User:Abderitestatos re-categorized four times those about 30 uploads, resulting in p.e. 10 edits for each file - for such a long-time Wikimedia Commons user at least a 'strange' behaviour.
4. The arguments why User:Abderitestatos did a re-categorication ignoring Wikimedia usus to categorize (religious) buildings having several construction phases are pointed on his and on the category related talk page, as mentioned before.
5. Fact is also, User:Abderitestatos does not respect arguments oppositing his own one and is completely igroring arguments by other Wikimedians, imho a defintion of vandalism,

therefore, again, i kindly ask for restrictions, regards, Roland zh (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

• Dag13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

A edit war continues for a long time on the file of Abkhazia [29] Can you help in this regard? Maurice07 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the user who is the problem is Giorgi Balakhadze. They have changed the borders on about a dozen files to support their POV regarding the status of Abkhazia. I have reverted the file to it's original version before Giorgi Balakhadze's push, but if anyone should be warned to stop their behaviour it is them. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I forgot, I did warn them not to do this because they kept it up with File:Flag map of Georgia, without Abkhazia and South Ossetia.png and several others, and informed them they are free to upload images with their supported POV separately. Clearly they don't care, and need stronger intervention. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dag13 has ignored three warnings back in January to stop edit warring. Given a three day block. Bidgee (talk)

For trying to protect the file's original version against a Georgian user who clearly wants to only allow their POV regarding Abkhazia's status, even editing maps that were deliberately made to show an opposing view? Here's a list of files Giorgi Balakhadze has attempted to change because they disagree with it's message:

• File:Norte Abjasia fisico.svg
• File:Central Caucasus.png
• File:Caucasus locator map.png
• File:Abcházie v Evropě.svg
• File:Ruština ve světě.svg
• File:United Ossetia.svg
• File:RussianLanguageMap.png
• File:RussianLanguageMapRu.png
• File:Abkhazia ab.svg
• File:Idioma ruso.PNG
• File:Abcházie.png
• File:Flag-map of Ajara (2000-2004).svg
• File:Georgia location map.svg

I'm not excusing the edit warring which is extensive, but clearly Dag13 is not the problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Had Giorgi Balakhadze been warned about edit warring, I would've blocked them for the similar amount of time. I've warned them and protected File:Europe Location Abkhazia.svg (since it was edit warred within the last 24 hours). Bidgee (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've gone right ahead and applied a block anyway. This user has been warned on at least one other project about edit warring (en.wp), and blocked for some sort of similar shenanigans on ru.wp. Giorgi Balakhadze has been made quite well aware of what constitutes proper behavior. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Except they were warned. I asked them on January 14th not to do this and upload their opposing views as separate files. I even linked it! Fry1989 ^eh? 02:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Fry. Dag13 isn't the editor actively going around and changing a wide range of images to suit their POV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Photos added to Tulsa Zoo

User:Waltersn117 and User:Xaedac918 have been uploading several copyrighted photos to the w:Tulsa Zoo article. I've tagged a few photos for speedy deletion, but it's hard to keep up. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Historiograf

• Historiograf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Historiograf names my deletion request a "Trollantrag" (an proposal of a troll). Even if I should be wrong in factual there is no reason to call a single deletion request a "Trollantrag". Historiograf is well known for a rude accent, no excuse for such an insult. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

AlbertHerring (talk · contribs)

This user upload huge batch (see File:20120520-DSC00419-2-3 (7240102352).jpg and other in Category:Media needing categories as of 5 February 2014) of private photos from Flickr, and most of them are out of Commons:Project scope. Actually I remember similar batch several months ago. Looks like this user should be denied right to mass import from Flickr. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No wiki-wide contribs at all but able to mass-upload files from Flickr? --Denniss (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Camyllae (talk · contribs)

Problematic user duplicating categories

Moved from Commons:Village pump#Problematic user duplicating categories
OK, I am reporting now this user: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Camyllae As user engaged himself in revert warring (see: [30], [31]), and attempts of discussing the issue with him on talk pages obviously failed, I would ask the wikimedia community what should be done here.

Basically, the user created several new categories and added some images to them:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Old_maps_of_Sclavonia
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Schiavoni
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Schiavonia
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sclavonia

Problem with these categories is that they are duplicates of existing categories:

• "Sclavonia" and "Schiavonia" are nothing but a names for Slavonia, and we have such category already: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Slavonia
• Category "Old_maps_of_Sclavonia" is already covered with: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Old_maps_of_Slavonia
• "Schiavoni" is nothing but a name for Slavs, and we have such category already: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Slavs

Historically, there were many names used for both, Slavonia and Slavs, and creation of new categories for every possible name used for them is totally ridiculous.

I tried to revert creation of these categories by user Camyllae, but he reverted my edits back, and I also believe that some sockpuppetry is involved here, since user Camyllae obviously editing with his real username and with an IP number as well (please observe same edit with same edit summary by user Camyllae and by IP: [32], [33]):

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Camyllae
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.174.26.234

When I tried to discuss these issues with him on several talk pages, I got from him some meaningless answers, like "This is not a homogeneous crowd" and "again mistake, this is only part bigger history":

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Schiavoni
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Schiavonia

Furthermore, when I proposed categories that he created for deletion, the user simply removed deletion templates from these pages before deletion processes was actually finished in proper way:

• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]

Now, please, can somebody say what should be done with these categories and behavior of this user? PANONIAN (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, or a notice posted there. It is likely administrator involvement will be needed.

That said, Camyllae's edits certainly look problematic. Category names should generally be in English; our policy on that is quite clear. Removing deletion notices is also not acceptable. Some of the categories might serve as category redirects, but deletion could well be an option.

As this is a new user Administrator warning and category clean-up will probably be sufficient unless Camyllae persists on the matter. MKFI (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Typo fix MKFI (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

END moved from Commons:Village pump#Problematic user duplicating categories

User created?

This user is either a remarkable world traveler or does not understand copyright/licensing. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/L.Shriheeran

Rmhermen (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Nuked and warned. Alan ^(talk) 21:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Request

User Vahram Mekhitaryan consistently violates rules of project. He repeatedly added wrong categories, and starting edit wars, removing

1. Adding wrong categories, the main problem is with categories about Armenian Eternity Sign. He added that category in many pages which has no any connection to that. For example, there he has found that sign in this or in this logos? I dont understand. Another problem is with this "flag", that is fictional flag not officil but he adding Flags of Armenia category here.
2. Another problem is that that user removing templates from pages ([38], [39], [40] and so on), false authorship claims. He has already been blocked for edit wars. Please take some action against it.--Δαβίδ (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

All flags is a free images and can be add Wikicommons with "PD-AM-exempt" license. If any off admins decided to delete one off mention flags, he or she must delete all flags (USA, England, France, e.c.), because they are not own works. I think, its a just vandalism with Δαβίδ user. Also, I couldn't understood behavior off Δαβίδ, which always want to delete something. He doesn't upload any image in wiki commons since he joined (about duration 3 year). In my opinion, mention user couldn't understand, why peoples working on Wikipedia. I think, Wikimedia doesn't need users, which only criticized. --Arman musikyan (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Δαβίδ is falsifying a reality. User Vahram Mekhitarian not blocked - blocked user Δαβίδ, see him talk page User_talk:Δαβίδ. Last blocked for a duration of 1 month, and block over at 04.02.2014.

Δαβίδ is an IP vandal. You can see this look at the history page of the files

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Armenian_Eternity_Sign_Regular.png&action=history

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Azg_Handes_1908_17_1_Ezekian_Swastika.pdf&action=history

and my talk page

User_talk:Vahram_Mekhitarian/Archive/2013#IP_vandalism

He is only concerned with the fact that in every way prevents the creation of articles on "Armenian Eternity sign" (Arevahach) in English, Russian, Armenian and other wikis. Therefore, puts on the removal of files from the Category:Armenian Eternity Sign. The editors of these articles are well aware of this vandal.

All actions of Δαβίδ in Commons are destructive, see him contributions list. This user from Armenian wikipedia David1992, who blocked in Armenian wikipedia.

Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Jcb (talk · contribs)

Jcb added {{No source}} to a lot of old uploads (example). Most of these files are maps uploaded or transferred from Wikipedia's in 2005-2007. These maps are used a lot and this is a shit storm in the making:

1. Image page descriptions should be updated, not blindly tagged with {{No source}}
2. Uploads this old shouldn't be tagged semi-deletion templates like {{No source}} in the first place, but when in doubt should be nominated for regular deletion
3. For images transferred from Wikipedia the original uploader didn't get notified

I asked Jcb first, but he seems to be unwilling to change his behaviour. This way of dealing with uploads is exactly why Commons has a bad reputation with some users on Wikipedia. Multichill (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That a lot of people did not understand those days that the used base map must be free and attributed, does not mean that those violations should stay. Or do we already have a policy on grandfathered old copyright violations? (Where possible I of course updated the source field instead of tagging the file) Jcb (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO Jcb's actuation is perfectly correct and conforms to the policies. Alan ^(talk) 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong here, they clearly don't have source information. All files need to have it, even if it's from a base file. I don't know what we were doing back in 2005. Techman224^Talk 01:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, i have received many source-missing notices on my talk page because i have transferred various maps. I am trying and have done for some already to stick the original map's link in the source field. Now i don't know what the users actually used as sources. But whatever am providing seem to be right. I hope i wouldn't be blamed if they are later on somehow proved to be wrong. Also i would request Jcb to slow it down if they are on such mass tagging spree. Evidently, most maps have been transferred and there will be very few users who have done the transfer and they are thus being made to provide sources in 7 days. Take a break and then continue on. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will not do more before next weekend and I will not do too much in one weekend. Your effort to fix those cases is highly appreciated and I don't want to overload anybody. Jcb (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Multichill that this may not be the best, because some admins may delete these without further check. We should avoid these files to be deleted, although getting complete information would be useful, it doesn't seem to me that the "missing" source here requires a deletion. Yann (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• While "no-source" may be less that ideal in such cases, as it is actually a sort-of speedy template, we cannot simply ignore files without source entry or evident source information. It's also rather uneconomic to simply do nothing when one has already spend some time to detect such files. Filing it immediately for deletion (DR) is also not a good solution, as primarily we don't want to delete them, but to get them right. So, it seems we need a new template and a new category or queue for such transferred images. --Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be simple to add a modified date parameter to the template so that for a mass deletion spree we can consider giving a generous period. If these are non-urgent and likely to be fixable, I would suggest even giving an end date of 6 months hence; (example).

  Jcb's behaviour elsewhere appears non-mellow or unnecessary drama creation (example1, example2). Individually these are unlikely to result in a de-sysop vote, but this pattern does not show the Commons admin role in a positive light. --Fæ (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Another Beleiutz sock

Serial copyright violator Beleiutz is back as Vlad 22222 (talk · contribs). That account's been uploading photos of his favourite Romanian celebrities for his IP accounts to add to Wikipedia. The images are sourced to a Picasa web album which is probably being used for licence washing. Please block the sockpuppet and delete the contributions. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Denniss. Techman224^Talk 01:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Justinetto

The user was blocked and he/she asked to be unblocked. I can't see any evidence that this account was hacked, I ask Denniss about this but he doesn't answer me. I am asking here the opinions of another admins please. Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 03:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer for another admin, but Justinetto made a vandal rotate request here. From looking at Denniss's other blocks on 23 February 2013, I see 2 other accounts he blocked for the same vandal rotate requests done within a week-long period in mid/late February: here, and here. It looks like the concern was that the accounts were being used by one vandal. INeverCry 03:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, thank you Ezarateesteban 11:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Historiograf

• Historiograf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Historiograf names my deletion request a "Trollantrag" (an proposal of a troll). Even if I should be wrong in factual there is no reason to call a single deletion request a "Trollantrag". Historiograf is well known for a rude accent, no excuse for such an insult. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Was archived without observation. In the meantime this user continues his disproportionate accent and calls me to be a tattletale because I noted his insult here. He misbehave in a strong way by responsing personally at this DR where two user already share my opinion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Frank Gosebruch vandalizing images that he uploaded

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bulb (photography).jpg. This user has asked for all of his uploads to be deleted, claiming someone else owns copyright. He has gone through and uploaded vandalized versions of them all. I think we need to stop and revert the vandalism, and not delete them unless we hear from someone claiming copyright at least. These images are widely used in en.wikipedia articles. Dicklyon (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see all images are reverted to a useful version. I will keep an eye on him and block on his first new vandalism attempt. Jcb (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I provided all neccessary information and contact information to contact Martin Emmert. He is more than 70 years old, doesn't speak English and you just removed the contact information but don't provide any contact email adress to contact you. he is no member of any wiki and doesn't know much about computers. Now you consequently claim that I am a lyer and redo all my edits and declare it as vandalism. I don't have any other chance but to edit the files BECAUSE THEY DON'T BELONG TO ME!!! Do you understand that? AND THEY DON'T BELONG TO ANY WIKI. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? DO YOU DECIDE WHAT'S YOURS AND WHAT'S MARTIN'S PROPERTY? I think you are not different from every other commercial company and now show your real face and act as a fascist? You just want to keep something that doesn't belong to you for free and now looking for any reason just to keep it illegally - booooh! Wow, you are the powerful administrator! So big and so successful in real life, eh? Do what you want, you will never again get anything from me!-Frank Gosebruch (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we can close this thread (also per Godwin). --A.Savin 11:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears that a number of the images have been deleted already. File:Nikon_Medical-Nikkor.png, File:Teufel Saeulenstativ.png, File:Kodak_DCS_100_-_Nikon_F3.JPG, probably more. Can this process be stopped or turned around? Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but they are speedy deleted as copyright violations per ticket:2014020910008697 and ticket:2014020910006751. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Serial copyvios: Albanian04

Albanian04 (talk · contribs), another serial copyvio offender. Have tagged the most recent ones, but apparently all the rest of them need nuking too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done nuked the upload, and added {{End of copyvios}} as warning. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Beleiutz again

Per en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Beleiutz, Beleiutz (talk · contribs) is back as Matei Traian (talk · contribs). Please block the sockpuppet and delete the contributions. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 17:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Echando una mano again

This user insists on uploading their changes to papal coats of arms. When these are reverted by others, the user will edit war to keep their change in place. They previously did this on File:C o a Callisto III.svg and File:C o a Niccolo V.svg to such an extent they had to be RevDel'd and cleaned up while the user was blocked for 3 days. They are now repeating this behaviour on File:John 23 coa.svg and File:John paul 1 coa.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Y tú reviertes lo que te da la gana sin consenso alguno, vandalizando según tu criterio. Espero que se tomen medidas contra tus dañinas acciones. --Echando una mano (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Echando una mano is expressing the belief that only one type of heraldry is "correct" and is going so far to call the previous renditions "vandalism". This is the exact same behaviour which is why they were blocked for editing File:C o a Callisto III.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Echando una mano, en vez de atacar te ruego que expongas tu versión de una forma constructiva. Alan ^(talk) 23:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sí, gracias, Alan. En los archivos y hice una actualización de la imagen, acorde con la nueva imagen del escudo, tal y como se ve en la Gaceta Oficial del Paraguay. El usuario Fry1989 la revirtió sin dar explicación alguna y, al volver yo a mi actualización lo ha hecho de nuevo aduciendo que el cambio no mejora nada, cuando se ve claramente que el león no se corresponde con el nuevo.
Luego ha deshecho unas actualizaciones que hice de los archivos y , sin dar, tampoco, explicación alguna. Después me ha acusado aquí por razones que solo él conoce. Quisiera decir que yo hago las cosas para tratar de mejorarlas, como se puede ver en mis aportaciones anteriores. Si los administradores consideran lo contrario, por favor, háganmelo saber; de ninguna forma creo que merezca un bloqueo por intentar mejorar el proyecto Commons. Gracias y un saludo. --Echando una mano (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Fry1989: Providing documentation supporting your reversion is required.

@Echando una mano: Se requiere documentación que apoye los cambios realizados a los escudos.

Mi opinión preliminar es:

• y -- Basado en la Gaceta oficial (documentación oficial) (pág 9), el cambio de Echando una mano es correcto.
• y -- ¿Algún documento oficial para comparar?
• y -- ¿Algún documento oficial o relevante para comparar?
• y -- ¿Algún documento oficial o relevante para comparar?

My preliminary opinion is:

• and -- Based on Gaceta oficial (official documentation) (page 9), Echando una mano's change is correct.
• and -- Any official document to compare?
• and -- Any official or relevant document to compare?
• and -- Any official or relevant document to compare?

Awaiting response / Esperando respuesta, --Alan ^(talk) 15:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Gracias Alan. En y únicamente he intentado actualizar el león de san Marcos, en un estilo más natural. Hay multitud de ejemplos de ambos.
En había utilizado como modelo este escudo de armas y para el de este otro. En este caso fui bloqueado por tres días sin aviso previo, por otra intervención de Fry1989, acusándome de vandalizar. Los archivos actuales realizados por mi están en y . Gracias y un saludo. --Echando una mano (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the statement by Alan saying I need to "documentation supporting your reversion", no I don't. It is the job of those who change an image to provide documentation for their change, not the job of us to provide documentation for the status quo. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Fry1989: Reversions should be exclusively for reverting vandalism, read Commons:Rollback. Echando una mano's changes on File:Coat of arms of Paraguay (reverse).svg and File:Flag of Paraguay (reverse).svg, for example, are perfectly valid and are supported by official documents of the country of the flag/coa. Where was vandalism? Under inverse onus of proof: which acts it's who must show why it has.

Other admins: Opinion about this matter? I will not take any decision on the matter without further opinions. Alan ^(talk) 19:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Also not true, any unsourced change that is significantly different from the previous version may be reverted and disputed. Also, I'm not the only one disputing some of Echando una mano's changes, other users have had problems with this user as well which is why they were blocked even though they were a very new user. Echando una mano is arrogant and believes that only certain types (specifically their interpretations) of heraldry are "correct", and has edit warred against other versions that they do not like. In the case of File:C o a Niccolo V.svg, they repeatedly edit warred on that file demanding that it have the Keys as supporters, even though other users repeatedly told them that this coat of arms did not include them as supporters. When Echando una mano did eventually upload their own file, they ended up taking the Keys off anyway when they found out themselves the truth, but no apology or acknowledgement of their being mistaken has ever been received. This user is still behaving as if only their interpretations of heraldry are correct and acceptable, and have repeatedly called others "vandalism", "fake" and "untrue". Fry1989 ^eh? 20:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hay unas normas para la heráldica, te gusten a ti o no. --Echando una mano (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, this user is making it very clear that only their interpretation of heraldry is correct. This is the same problem we had with File:Coat of Arms of Pope Callixtus III.svg. Whether Echando una mano likes it or not, that image has a valid source, but Echando una mano thinks "source be damned, I don't like it and I don't think it fits my interpretation of the rules" so they have constantly edit warred regarding that image. This arrogance is the problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

How shall one know this user uploads altered images based on official sources if he's not even able to ducument this anywhere? I placed a warning on his talkpage that he will be blocked for edit warring if he uploads a substantially altered image without stating proper source/reason/explanation. --Denniss (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While partially a solution, it doesn't really fix the problem but rather shifts it. The just upload their images separately and push them on all Wikis, and if you revert them they will edit war. They did it with Calixtus III, they'll do it with all of them given the chance. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms of the Vatican City

En el archivo se han revertido las aportaciones del usuario Fulvio314, cuando éste ha dado la fuente donde se ve el escudo de la Ciudad del Vaticano en el que se ha basado. ¿Es correcta la reversión o es mejor que esté el emblema que hizo el usuario Fulvio314, más parecido? Gracias y un saludo. --Echando una mano (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
PS: (fuente: www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2092%20[2000]%20-%20ocr.pdf, página 82)

---

In the file have been reverted the user Fulvio314 contributions, when he gave the source where is the shield of the Vatican City in which he has based. Is it correct the reversion or is better the emblem that made Fulvio314, more similar? Thanks and regards. --Echando una mano (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
PS: (source: www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2092%20[2000]%20-%20ocr.pdf, page 82)

User16052013: "Reverting to free version as newer file is copied and thus may be a copyvio."

The reason that file was reverted is very clear, there is a valid concern about the copyright. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The image doesn't have copyright. See File talk:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg. I repeat the question: Why has been reversed Fulvio314 image?--Echando una mano (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is your proof of that???? The new version was drawn based on a Vatican document that's fairly new, concerns about copyright are valid. You need to prove it's not copyrighted. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The proof is here and here. The law is from June 7th, 1929. No copyright. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The digital drawing it is based on was not made in 1929, it is new. It could be a derivative violation. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion. Where are your proofs that the drawing is new?????? Here is another proof, from the Vatican. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Prove the age of the drawing, and it can go back. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's proved in the document. Or are you suggesting that the official document is false? --Echando una mano (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you have not proven it to my satisfaction. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

John paul 1 coa.svg

Quisiera saber si existe impedimento alguno para realizar cambios en el archivo y, si no es así, por qué se revierten mis cambios sin razón. Gracias. --Echando una mano (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

I wonder if there is any impediment to make changes to the file and if not, why my changes are reverted without reason. Thank you. --Echando una mano (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Aren't these all violations of Commons:Overwriting existing files? Lemmens, Tom (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If they are violations of Commons:Overwriting existing files I'll make all the revertions. --Echando una mano (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

DrNeubauer

Hello! I'm an administrator in Russian Wikipedia and have blocked this user DrNeubauer there for destructive behaviour. Then he gets here and writes down offences on my talk page. In translation "Походу, дурачить людей твой бизнес. Можешь засирать им бошки и дальше релятивистской ботвой, я обещаю больше не появляться в твоей вотчине." is "It looks like to fool people is your business. You can continue to f*** the minds of others by relativistic crap, I promise not to cross the border of your patrimony." (He does not like the theory of relativity.) Could you explain him a need of ethical behaviour? --Melirius (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --A.Savin 23:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User:HBO Lesterlyn Babor

This user has uploaded several images of the same young person and repeatedly categorised them under misleading categories such as category:HBO logos e.g. [41]. After I nominated the images for deletion, they have removed deletion notices (e.g. [42]) from most of the images and deleted the list of images at the deletion page (see [43]). I assume they have read some of my messages on their talkpage because they have also deleted part of the notice on their talkpage. I believe they might be upset because their article was deleted four times in five days on English Wikipedia (see w:HBO_Lesterlyn_Babor). Green Giant (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Uploads were nuked, and user was warned about scope. INeverCry 02:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Notrons and File:Twitter.svg

The Twitter Bird logo is copyrighted and can not be on Commons, it has been deleted dozens of times for this reason. For the same reason we keep the old Twitter "T" logo which is too simple for copyright. This new user has overwritten the file and I nominated it for a RevDel. The user keeps reverting back to the Twitter Bird and removing the DR notice from the file despite being warned not to. Please temporarily block the user and RevDel the image. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done History cleaned, file full upload-protected for 1 month, and user Notrons blocked for 3 days. INeverCry 02:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Routine overcategorization.

Franzy89 routinely overcategorizes his uploads. For example, File:Vittorio emanueleI.jpg belongs to Category:Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia which belongs to:

• Category:House of Savoy
• Category:Kings of Sardinia and dukes of Savoy
• Category:1759 births
• Category:1824 deaths

But the file is also placed in all of those categories.

I have pointed him to COM:OVERCAT (here at File talk:New York Bowling Green 1831.jpg), but he continues the practice. Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC) This afternoon I deleted literally hundreds of excess categories, so the more recent half of his upload list, at least, is clean. Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Quochuy

Quochuy has had copyvios in the past, and seems to have started uploading clearly copyrighted images again. See User talk:Quochuy The Haz _talk

Warned by Yann. —레비Revi 03:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Tunis tunis

I've just deleted one image by Tunis tunis (talk · contribs) as a probable copyvio, but I'm beginning to suspect that all of this user's contributions are copyvios. EXIF information, where present, shows a bewildering variety of cameras. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done All uploads are deleted by different users. Taivo (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bcsparker

On this contributor's talk page there are several notices about files that were deleted as copyright violations. I've just tagged the person's two remaining uploads for the same reason: they are photos of the cover of a record album. Rybec (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Images deleted, user blocked. INeverCry 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Эрманарих and File:Northern Territory COA.png

User is violating COM:Overwrite and exerting ownership of a file. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This user is also edit warring on File:New South Wales coa.png and File:Coat of arms of Tasmania.png. It should be noted that on these two files, there are no changes made to the images (compare original with overwrite) except that this user's uploads increase the file size by several KB. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• It matters at transformation in SVG. --Эрманарих (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not an excuse. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont need to excuse. No violations are present. --Эрманарих (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

urm, you violated COM:OVERWRITE, en:WP:OWN and COM:EDITWAR. Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The number of copyvio notifications on user's talk page suggests he also has difficulties with COM:L. Kathisma (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Any admin care to speedy Commons:Deletion requests/File:COA New South Wales.png? Fry1989 ^eh? 03:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Closed. — Revi_complaint? 10:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And Commons:Deletion requests/File:Northern Territory COA.png as well please. This user is getting more and more disruptive, perhaps a short block is in order. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:IvaPadrinoRiggs

IvaPadrinoRiggs made a small self promotional userpage. Her uploads seem to have the same purpose. Ralgis (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Image DRed. I will leave Userpage for others. — Revi_complaint? 03:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I've deleted the userpage and warned the user. INeverCry 03:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sunshinepsg

User:Sunshinepsg disparages someone. The editor's uploads (which I believe are out of scope) seem intended to disparage the same person. Rybec (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 DoneNuked userpage and images, warned (Out of scope.) — Revi_complaint? 03:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Considering that the userpage this account created disparages a girl/woman by full name, and that the images shared the general theme, I've blocked the account as an attack/VOA account. INeverCry 03:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetly

Foundation (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - very likely block evasion of User:کولاک32. Both users has uploaded the same file [44] with fake license. Regards /St1995 20:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Image deleted and both accounts blocked. INeverCry 20:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Alberto79

• User: Alberto79 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Multiple uploads are copyright-violations. Fabiano ^msg 06:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Uploads are deleted, except one, where I am not sure – two half-ellipses and two letters, this can pass as simple logo. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

intrusion into personal life

I joined commons few months ago. After contributing for some time I noticed that my wife (with username Rutake) has also many photos with sufficient quality that could be useful for commons. The problem is that after some time of contributing from the same IP address, someone noticed the link between us. There is a discussion about this on the FPC discussion page. I find the discussion has gone too far and it is intruding in our private life, publicly exposing our IP addresses, discussing our relationship, arrogant comments etc. Is there any chance to delete our accounts and also uploaded images since they carry our real names. We could not foresee such escalation of events and find the situation quite harassing. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) This is also what I want. --Rutake (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• You are the architect of your own problems as pointed out by User:Jkadavoor when he quoted: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." The connection is obvious and you could have sorted it all out buy simply abiding by this guideline. Instead you have been combative throughout and thrown the entire FPC project in disarray with nuisance delist nominations and revenge voting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought this is the place to ask assistance. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Hope INeverCry will look into this matter and forward it to an Oversighter if required. But I see no reason for deleting the existing media contributions. Further, it is disappointing you continue the arrogant discussion even after I made several warnings. Hope it will end safe. I've no problem if everything is over-sighted. Infact, I tried to speedy close several delist requests to reduce the harm. :( Jee 16:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• What about closing our accounts??--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No need to comment here further as it is an oversight request. I already forwarded it to INeverCry. You can discuss with her directly. Jee 16:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure INC is an oversighter :-) (I'll comment later, I have to run) --PierreSelim (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"You are the architect of your own problems"?? Really, that's our answer for this person? Our answer is that a married couple, or college roommates, or two people who for whatever other reason live near enough to eachother that there will be obvious IP similarities who happen to have similar interests and edits are asking for this? This could easily extend to me and somebody who lives on the other side of town and has similar interests. If there is a clear set of reasons and behaviours to suspect sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, by all means investigate, but I find this "You asked for it!" attitude of Saffron Blaze to be inappropriate. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he is. You are obviously missing context (perhaps becuase of the blaning at the FPC talk page) and the stream of unwarranted personal attacks Urmas has directed at numerous people well before this issue of the connection came to the fore. The context is this user and apparently his wife were contributing and voting on images at FPC without disclosing their connection. Overtime events transpired to reveal the accounts were likely connected and confirmed by the investigation. His abusive and disruptive behavior escalated when this connection was queried. He attempted to have several images delisted that were in the POTY competition. It is only now he reveals the nature of the connection. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The connection is non of you business. Why to continue it here. You just can't leave it be. That's what i was talking about. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• You brought it here... not me! We don't care about your personal life, but you had an undeclared conflict of interest in some of your votes on FPC and that raised people's concerns about fairness and integrity of the voting system. None of this would have happened if you had been open about the conflict of interest. It would have stopped when the conflict of interest was brought forward if you had just said two people use the same IP but are seperate persons and will not get involved in situations where they would place themselves in a conflict of interest. It is a shame you want to leave the project over this but if that is your wish so be it, as it is your right. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• And what is your business here? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand the issue. What is to be done ? As an example of a good way to use, please have look to User:Jastrow's user's page, especially the section "concerning socks"... No problem...--Jebulon (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Jebulon, exactly! A simple declaration of a shared IP as per the guideline (no reason even required) would have prevented all this drama. Voting on the same image was inappropriate as well, but would have been handled differently if the shared IP and potential conflict of interest were declared. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

YES; YOU ARE RIGHT, I AM WRONG, I AGREE!!! you are right, understood?? I just want to get out of commons, understood?? This is not a discussion page, I don't want to discuss with you. I just want to get out of here. As you told, you don't care about your personal life, I do. And I want to protect my privacy. I want to disappear, preferably with my pictures. You can shine on here. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The closest thing to "getting out of here" an admin can do for you is block your accounts. Would you want that? --Dschwen (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion on FPC talk page has been closed and even blanked without moving to the archive. So, this thread should be done now, as we cannot help you Urmas any further. I already said that you may want to request an OS to hide your contributions, and probably they will do this job for you, but that's it. Unfortunately, there is no technical possibility to delete user accounts. Colleagues, please, finally, close and forget this useless drama here. Should any of you not know what else to do now, I advise to have a look at Category:Media needing categories, just to name an example )) --A.Savin 20:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Do I really have to resign from the right of authorship to get my photos removed here? --Urmas83 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You could request a courtesy deletion for a batch of images. Some might not get deleted due to FP status and the POTY comp.

I also provided you with this link for more information about vanishing: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish

Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• You cannot remove "your" photos from here because they are no longer yours. You offered their rights to Commons, remember? But you can remove your real name from them and ask an admin to block the access to the older versions, if that is what is worrying you. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know I cannot remove the myself. But if I confessed they were not my work and the real author had no clue about me uploading them then the pictures will be removed, right? --Urmas83 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No. You uploaded them, so you're responsible for this content. If you uploaded other author's pictures as your own work, the real author is free to (and should) sue you for this blatant copyright violation. Enough? --A.Savin 22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I'll find a way. --Urmas83 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to block Urmas and saw that INC beat me by a few minutes. I think it is becoming pretty clear that Urmas is determined to game the system with the consequence that Commons may be harmed. This user at least needs a timeout from the discussion, which is on track to get more and more heated. --Dschwen (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts temporarily due to unconstructive editing, etc, caused by anger and frustration. I've left a note detailing this at the talkpage of User:Urmas83. The privacy issue may need the attention of oversighters, while the other ongoing issues discussed above require further discussion/treatment here or on his talk. INeverCry 22:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Just my opinion on courtesy deletions in this particular case. Urmas =/= ArcticKangaroo, he is an adult person and self-responsible for what he already uploaded here. So, please only deletions of unused files without QI/FP status. Should the vandalism with removal of source/author info return after the current block = indef. Obviously, Urmas don't want to have his real name visible anymore. So first a crat should rename the account and afterwards the file descriptions should be amended (probably easy to manage with VisualFileChange) and an OS should hide older versions of them. --A.Savin 22:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Alexander, I'm just curious. What does Urmas's case have to do with me??? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lack of thorough awareness of the license terms, I assume. It is pity if our contributors are not well aware of the terms. I think we need to educate our new contributors to avoid such incidents. Jee 08:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Some similarities to what you requested with your uploads some months ago are there, for sure. (I'll refrain from difflinks, it's unnecessary and hopefully more or less forgotten.) --A.Savin 10:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've emailed Odder about this issue. INeverCry 23:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a pattern. When someone decides to ragequit, and they find out they can't revoke their images, then they cry "oh but I was never the author, I was lying the whole time." I think we should take such claims with a gigantic grain of salt. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect what he is implying is some of the images are indeed his wife's but he was using an account in her name without her knowledge. Thus he would have had no right to license them. At this point his word on the matter would be pretty worthless, but the issue would be easily handled through other channels such as OTRS. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed my earlier advice to close/blank the talk-FP discussion wasn't acted on. This has been mishandled and A.Savin + some experienced admin/crats should have a chat to ensure such things are dealt with properly and sensitively in future. The whole situation has been allowed to escalate. I suspect Urmas should have been blocked a day or so ago for their own good while calmer discussions with them happened off-wiki. For the record, Alvesgaspar, "they [the images] are no longer yours" is incorrect. Urmas and Rutake own those pictures and have full copyright and other rights over them. Commons merely has a licence to host/use them, that is all. In no sense does Commons/WMF own any of our work. Every single pixel and every letter in every word belongs to content creator. Nobody should forget that and anyone managing other people's images should firstly be respectful and grateful for the donation. While I don't think those images should be courtesy deleted, I do think some courtesy should be shown rather than a "these are ours now ha ha ha" (not that I'm suggesting Alvesgaspar is saying that). -- Colin (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I may have exaggerated for one side, but you surely did the same (or worse) for the other... Once an author donates an image to Commons he no longer 'owns' that image, in the sense that he is not allowed to impose more severe restrictions on the license, prevent anyone to use it in accordance with the terms of that license, impose any kind of fee to anyone using the image or just remove it from Commons. Thus, it is just not true that every single pixel and every letter in every word belongs to content creator. The only thing the author keeps is the intelectual property. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Alves, unfortunately we are seeing the extremism in both ends everyday. See [45]: here the user (a very experienced and talented contributor here) is showing high end possessiveness to his works. On the other side, some of our users attack our contributors by reckless renaming "of their files", adding insulting categories, making harassing file descriptions, etc. etc. The attitude of those people are "You contributed it here; now we can do anything on it. No more questions; otherwise you will be blocked." Here is the importance of moral rights and the need of mutual respects in a project like this which very scare nowadays. :( Jee 16:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

PresidenciaMX 2012-2018

Please can someone look at this users uploads. I've already nominated one for a CV, but this user has appeared to have uploaded hundreds of possible CV's as the images have no meta data. I would appreciate if someone looks into this and mass delete if needed. Cheers Flickrworker (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly uploading from this flickr account which hasn't released those images under a free licence. I recommend a mass deletion too... edit:, but on the other hand he is confirmed by OTRS, so probably not a problem though it may be easier for him to change the licence on their official flick account to a free one or atleast confirm that the images are from flickr (on their flickr account)....--Stemoc (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Even so, does he still has to put a ticket on each image he uploads? Which I thought was the rule so a reminder maybe the way to go. Flickrworker (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

He definitely should... someone with authority (*cough* admin *cough*) should tell him that..its not a one-off thing...--Stemoc (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Kikos

Hi, I have at present some problems with the comments of this user, the first time here, I tried to make him(her) understand that the comment is a bit assaulting, on his(her) talk page [46] as well as by means of Alexander here : [47], and now there is that. I understands that someone can not like my photos, but those comments go slightly too far for my taste. And in the measure or he makes this kind of comment only on my nominations, I think that he shows a blatant will to to not be pleasant, the barrier of the language does not explain everything, a single "not wow" or simply an oppose without comment would be better than an unhelpful assaulting comment. I did not manage to convince him to make efforts, his answer is "be adult", I thus shall have liked that somebody helps me there or prevents him from being voluntarily unpleasant. Even in blocking him for some time, if it is not possible otherwise. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

First things first. The comment is clumsey more than anything. However he repeats it, which maybe intentional considering the drama you created on the first image. However he is not a native speaker of English, I do not think that he is being insulting on purpose, although the way you and he behaved the second comment most certainly is (clearly a landscape, no need for the comment but because of you're reaction he decided to bite.). As a native English speaker I do not read it as insulting, OK, just take it with a pinch of salt and try and suggest softer comments from him. Flickrworker (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to make a dispute resolution effort at relevant talk pages (FPC, QIC, VIC, etc.) prior to move here. I would rather stop participating there if I can't manage things there. Here more people (even people don't know what is going on there) respond = more insults :( Jee 13:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering the skillfull way the Urmas situation was dealt with, I think this is a bad idea. FPC, QIC, etc. are part of the community, and the idea of ad hoc courts of justice for those pages (which is what is going on on FPC TP) is a very bad one. Pleclown (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Jee, we will try to find a better way. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Pleclown, I was away for a week; just returned yesterday with fever and cold. Not in a mood to sit in front of the computer. But still believe, I handled it in the wisest way within the little time I participated there. :) Jee 14:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Done For administrtors : I opened this topic and I close it. I start a discussion on the FPC talk page like suggested by Jee. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"Is this your special way to vandalize over here?"

A little late now, as the comments were made in November, but the set of images are now up for bulk deletion.

A commercial user, ARFISA Representaciones, SCP, has been good enough to upload a large number of images. They are of nuts and bolts: dull stuff to many of you, but as there are many obscure types included, those interested in engineering on WP saw them as quite valuable. It looks like they're a catalogue of nuts and bolts. Licensing is correct. Image quality could be better, but I'm sure that these are what the uploader had and we should be grateful to receive them. Certainly I made use of several at en:WP as soon as I saw them.

The reaction of Commons to this user has been remarkably poor. There are outright attacks on this new user for having the temerity to upload such stuff. See User talk:ARFISA Representaciones, SCP. Several Commons users have threatened blocks, questioned whether these images are "realistically useful for an educational purpose" and even described them as " Is this your special way to vandalize over here? ".

These comments are unacceptable. Per WP:BITE et al. Do I really have to spell this out?

These comments are incorrect. Maybe I'm a sad anorak who cares about nuts and bolts, but I'm happy to have them and WP has already benefitted from them.

The entire set has now been tagged for deletion Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ARFISA Representaciones, SCP. The nomination of "Collection of advertisement. No evidence of permission(s)." appears simply wrong on both counts.

The problem here is obvious. ARFISA Representaciones, SCP is a commercial user. A commercial user who has, in good faith, uploaded content that they control and that they have offered to us under a free licence. We should be grateful to them, not attack them in this way! Or are any commercial bodies simply forbidden from Commons? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the problem here is obvious. You see, the whole Commons comunity speaks with one voice and only brave Andy can save the day. For someone interested in nuts and bolts, you should get a grip. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable practice for organizations, companies, artists, music bands, etc to confirm permissions via Commons:OTRS, if they didn't specify free license this on their own web sites or hosting services. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You might think that and it's a reasonable change to policy that you might wish to raise.

In the meantime however this isn't our policy. Our upload procedure emphasises the need to specify a licence, rather than to also submit to OTRS, or to host elsewhere first; so then why should our response be (as you did here) to request bulk deletion of uploads for complying with the policy we've asked them too? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If those files are from http://www.arfisa.com/ then we need a mail from their formal mail ID. If Commons:Permission#Where_OTRS_confirmation_is_necessary is vague, consider expanding it. I agree with Andy Dingley that an educative advise on how to proceed on the user's talk page is better than a bulk DR. Jee 16:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Agriocnemis pieris male at Kadavoor.jpg looks too professional for an amateur photographer at Commons to have taken it. Should I tag it for deletion, pending OTRS? Should I tag all of Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor for deletion similarly? That's only the same as has been done here. Of course not! Per AGF, and per your declaration on upload, then I'm quite happy to accept that your GF licence declaration is valid and I have absolutely no reason to doubt the bona fides of either yourself or ARFISA Representaciones, SCP in such a matter.

Commons needs to either require OTRS confirmation for every upload, from the fuzziest selfie upwards, or else it needs to lay off using OTRS as just an intermittent threat instead to bully contributors that some editors clearly dislike as a group (and I'm looking firmly at Ies' comments here). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not supporting any user comments on that talk page; only suggest the the importance of OTRS in case of contributions that are also available on a professional website. I've no problem to provide OTRS; but I have no professional website or personal domain specific email ID. But ARFISA Representaciones, SCP has. Moreover those contributions are scale down versions with watermarks and borders as in the website; so the doubts by Andy king50 is very relevant. EugeneZelenko is one of the most experienced user here to whom we can trust. If there is no need to monitor our contents, no need of any deletions. WMF will delete contents rarely on take down notices. Jee 17:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I am an engineer and find it sometimes very disappointing that even basic technical stuff is absent or under-representated in all wikimedia projects. Because there was no reasonable alternative i started removing text captions and frames while getting more and more upset by the obvious and outrigth promotional (ab)use e.g. in the image descriptions, file names etc. whilst delivering very poor quality images of images the uploder certainly has much better quality versions (if he is the copyright holder/website owner). So i came across with the idea to replace as much of them with newer, better images as much as the use in wikimedia projects is concerned. I have camera and access to a large store of screws etc. but until now missing motivation. So i see no reason for deletion from this point of view. The other side is the copyright question. If the images are taken from other websites, the uploader must verify he is copyright owner, usually via OTRS. Anyone can claim to be a representative of X company. And even a sales representative usually is not legally authorized to publish images of his companies webside under a new free license. At least this question must be clarified using OTRS and a official company mail adress. If not there seems only the way to follow the usual way as in any potential copyvio. - Andy king50 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

report administrator

After being accused by administrators Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fredtham59 for being already engaged in known license laundering, I requested explanation on his User talk:Magog the Ogre and leave the following message:

To accuse someone of license laundering is a serious matter. I find photos with appropriate license(CC BY-SA 3.0) and then upload them, no more no less ! I do not contest the images validity but if someone have to be accused of License laundering address your concern and warning to the panoramio and flick users not me! I did not find any rules that said that prior to upload a file with a valid license(CC BY-SA 3.0), I must go through extensive research. If I am wrong prove it, otherwise review your wording as I find it extremely offensive, totally unjustified especially when it comes from an administrators who obviously do not respect one fundamental: USER GOOD FAITH ! Fredtham59 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Then surprise. Administrator Magog the Ogre here User talk:Marcus Cyron make a clear threat:

The above user is apparently trying really hard to get blocked for license laundering.

This is a serious breach of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Administrators conduct.

Furthermore :

• Commons:License laundering make it clear that license laundering is not my fault since such uploads may evade detection as copyright, since the source website appears to provide "evidence" for the license. I do not contest license laundering I contest of being wrongly accused of license laundering.
• I also tried my best to explain why I have reason to not suspect "license laundering" prior to upload the files hereCommons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fredtham59 following an invitation on my talk page. Administrator are expected to be fair, exercise good judgment. Visibly we do not have the same concept of "Fairness" Wikipedia:Administrators
• Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others . Does the treat he made should be regarded as respectful and civil ? Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Administrators
• Harassment "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats". Are administrators above wikipedia policy ?Wikipedia:Administrators Wikipedia:Civility
• Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia but that right is denied, before I can explain myself I am already labeled as guilty of license laundering. Wikipedia:Administrators
• I did follow the procedure by leaving a message on his talk page, he had time to make treat on other user talk page but can't respond to my polite request.Administrator are expected to give explanations and be communicative as necessary . It seems that this administrator have little concern with that.Wikipedia:Administrators

I am not asking much:

• My right to participate to the dispute resolution without treat of being banned.
• Be fairly treated, unless an other administrator will make the final decision, I have good reason it will not be the case.
• Reword template and conversation that said "This user" by " the photos author"
• Formal apologize from the administrator.

Best Regards Fredtham59 (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Image ist from dpa. Source is only a place for whitewashing the license. Maybe Fredtham59 don't do this all with intent - but the way he upload images is a big problem for Commons. All of us more active Users here know how it mostly goes. We can not accept that Commons is filled every day with images with incorrect licenses, with white washed images and so on. If users don't understand and don't accept this - they have to go. There's no other way. It is only fair to tell Fredtham59 how it stands. And sorry - normal new users did not find so easy the Administrators' noticeboard. It is hard to belive that Fredtham59 is so new, that he did not knew, what he has done here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And sorry - normal new users ...... he has done here.

Really ? Am I a so dishonest person that I first use the wrong notice board Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents then someone copy it on Magog the Ogre (talk). ‎Then I modified the text to upload it here ? In wikipedia language what you just said is considered as personal attack Wikipedia:Civility, it's against the rules. Furthermore, as I said on the version I upload on the wrong notice board : Although I do not care on the photo outcome, since the administrator leave the treat message on a user talk page involved with the dispute resolution, there is a clear COI WP:CONFLICTand WP:NPOV for both users Magog the Ogre here User talk:Marcus Cyron within the consensus-forming process.

 ( conflict of interest and neutrality point of view) and you just make it even more clear ! THANKS Marcus Cyron (talk)

"normal new users did not find so easy the Administrators' noticeboard" : As a fact I just click on Help - and follow the link Admin noticeboard, it might be hard for you but for me less than a minute. Are you suggesting that my skills are bellow than my 8 years old daughter who know how to find a help page ???

You also forget to mention that there is a total of 4 Photos at the exact same moments, positions of arms,fingers, mobile phone ... identical, from 4 different angles. 3 from reputable agency Reuters [48], ANN [49] , DPA [50] and the one you deleted. Furthermore on the panoramio user page it said "I was with a group of photographers"

I should be nice if you want to discuss here to bring to the attention of all not only facts that best match your point of view but all. Fredtham59 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the incivility, Magog the Ogre commonly uses sarcasm, comedy, and "you're testing my patience" threats when speaking to users about very serious matters including their blocks. I have no comment on the remainder of this complaint. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

English Wikimedia policies are not necessarily identical to those in use in Commons; linking to them has not the intended effect. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't mean it's not a good idea to hold yourself to the same standards on Commons as you do on Wikipedia just because the "rules aren't quite the same here", if that's the excuse you are trying to make. Regarding civility, I do not like how Magog the Ogre speaks to other users, even ones who I completely agree should be blocked. A recent example is Giorgi Balakhadze, I don't find that response funny but Magog the Ogre clearly does and thinks it's ok. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not making excuses for any one, and surely not for Marcus Cyron. But if Fredtham59 wants to present an argument on Common’s admin duties, he should link to the relevant Common’s policies not to those of a sister project. I know that for most English native speakers the difference may seem tenuous, but for the rest of us, there’s a huge diference between what’s inherently an English-language project, where we can be at most welcome guests, and what is an universal project where we all play on a level fiel and English is used as a mere practicality (to cut a long story short). Quoting w:en policies as done above creates an atmosphere I’m unconfortable with. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been taught that civility is about education and not only about written rules. Furthermore as you can see here Commons:Policies and guidelines there is nothing about civility, does it means that I have the right to say whatever I want or administrator have the right to be rude or work without guidelines ? I might be wrong but if wikipedia link to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Administrators do works on both pages wikimedia and commons which is untrue for most wikipedia link or commons links, the underlying meaning can be interpreted as both be part of a common policy. Fredtham59 (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
To quote a famous saying: ""If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." Fred's textwall above is a perfect example of pounding the table. Without question, he has a) engaged in likely deliberate Flickr washing, or b) in the (improbable) chance that Fred didn't know better, he is still throwing a temper tantrum and trying to introduce a red herring over the fact that his copyvios are now being deleted.

Users who purposefully upload copyvios or who refuse to apologize for having done so in the past are not the kind of person I particularly worry about making block threats to.

Take it or leave it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is you shouldn't make threats at all, and that you don't see that as the problem but rather see it as "they're unrepentant sinners so it's ok" should be very alarming. Warning a user that they will be blocked if they continue a certain behaviour is what you're supposed to do, and you should know that. My god how did you ever become an admin? Fry1989 ^eh? 01:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not able to "make threats" to block someone, what does that mean about all the times you've warned someone to stop or they'll be blocked? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of difference in wording. Also I'm not an admin nor do I aspire, you're supposed to be held to a higher level. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Magog the OgreFacts are facts and whatever you may think or say, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. Unfortunately you uphold suspicions as facts as they are more pliable to back your short from addressing this issue with civility, fairness and good judgment. Fredtham59 (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Эрманарих continued behaviour

As a continuation of this AN, Эрманарих is continuing their overwrites with File:Escudo de Brisbane.png, File:Coat of arms of Tasmania.png and File:New South Wales coa.png, as well as vandalising File:Standard of the Emperor of Russia (1858).svg. They also opened this DR which should be closed as disruptive. The files should be RevDel'd so this user can not continue to revert, and I'm also asking for a block. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Than to you so disturb the improved files? --Эрманарих (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin deal with this already? I will not respond to a vandal. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for an admin to deal with this. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I reverted the files, protected them for 3 months and gave to Ermanarich the final warning. Next time I will block him. Taivo (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but can you please RevDel the files so they can not revert back? I would also appreciate this DR be closed as disruptive. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Insulto / Insult

Solicito que el usuario Fry1989 sea amonestado por falta de etiqueta e insultos, como puede verse aquí. Además se dedica a hacer cambios sin fuentes y a acosarme en mis aportaciones. --Echando una mano (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC) // P.S. Además ha eliminado las referencias que le he dado en su página de discusión // P.S. 2: Este usuario me está difamando más abajo.
// P.S. 3: Otro insulto más en este resumen de edición. // P.S. 4: Sarcasmo e insinuación insultante en este otro resumen de edición y continua falta de etiqueta en sus explicaciones. // P.S. 5: Lenguaje soez.

((English)) I request that user Fry1989 be admonished for breach of etiquette and insults, as can be seen here. He also works to make changes without sources and he harass me in my contributions. --Echando una mano (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC) // P.S. He has removed the references that I have given in him in his discussion page // P. S. 2: This user is defaming me below. // P.S. 3: Another insult more in this edition summary. // P. S. 4: Sarcasm and insulting insinuation in this other edit summary and continuous breach of etiquette in his explanations. // P.S. 5: Rude languaje

I already removed my remark and I'm sorry I said it. However I am not harassing your contributions, I'm fixing them when you make mistakes. I already posted a source on your talk page which proves you're lying about me editing without sources. You are the one editing without sources, you changed the ratio of File:Flag of the President of Paraguay.svg for no reason. What's worse, you live by the policy of "revert first, ask questions later" as shown on that flag, you reverted back to your strange ratio without a source or reason and then 3 minutes later you reverted back to the original ratio after finding the FOTW source which was the original source for the 1:2 ratio in the first place! You act like you own files, you act like you're so special and that I'm chasing you around and harassing you when I've been trying to avoid you. In the case of the Chilean coat of arms, I have explained to you 4 times now that I changed the torse to all white because that is what the Government of Chile shows it as, and I completely re-did the shield so it is symmetrical. That's hardly harassing your contribution, it's fixing known errors. You constantly revert files after you have been reverted instead of discussing the matter, you have overwritten dozens of files with significantly different versions in violation of COM:Overwrite, you have uploaded copyright violations, you have been nothing but trouble since you came here. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I can give so many examples of this user's actions in the last few months which have driven me to near insanity and I said something off-colour in response. I've already apologized, but I will not apologize for fixing errors in a file. If I wanted to harass this user as I have been accused, I'd revert all their COM:Overwrite-violating uploads. I'd revert the huemel and eagle on File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg back to B1mbo's version. The reality is all I've done to this file is change the torse back to white as according to the Chilean Government SOURCE (which I posted on their talk page despite their accusation I don't have sources) and fix the symmetry of the shield. That's all I've changed, or rather fixed because Echando una mano's version had these errors. Now does that sound like harassment to anybody? It doesn't to me. And instead of asking me about my changes, Echando una mano reverted without discussing it. Just like they did on File:Flag of the President of Paraguay.svg, just like they have on a dozen files before this. If you revert Echando una mano for whatever reason, no matter how valid, they will just revert back, they don't ask you why, they don't discuss unless they are forced to, they just revert revert revert and then accuse you of non-existent harassment and not having sources even though you just gave them one. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well apparently alongside the accusations of harassment and not having sources (both not true), I am defaming (defined as the "Act of injuring another's reputation by any slanderous communication") this user by telling the truth about their editing history. I guess next I'll be accused of attempted intimidation, and murder after that. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit linking my above reply as an insult is surely laughable. Anything and everything I say is an insult now. I have been accused of harassing this user which isn't true. I have been accused of not having sources even though I GAVE ONE on their talk page. I have been accused of defamation which is not true. Now my disbelief at this nonsense is being construed as a further insult. I'm sure this response is gonna be linked as an insult next, just you all watch! Fry1989 ^eh? 05:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Echando una mano's false accusations

I have already apologized for insulting Echando una mano, however they haven't acknowledged it, and even worse this user is continuing to make false accusations of me trying to harass them and their contributions, this is not true and I've made it very clear it's not true. In regards to the File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg, I have made it extremely clear why I have edited this file. I didn't change anything from Echando una mano's version except that I manually redid the shield so it's symmetrical which it was not in any previous version of the file. I didn't change the colours, I didn't change the animals, I didn't change the crest or anything else. I have also addressed above how Echando una mano has accused me of defamation, when I haven't said anything slanderous about them. Everything I have said is true, the fact they violate COM:Overwrite almost every day by uploading vastly different versions of images over old ones is easily verfiable in their upload log. The fact they revert files without sources is verifiable just by looking at File:Flag of the President of Paraguay.svg's edit history, they changed that flag's proportions just for the hell of it and then 3 minutes later changed it back. The fact they revert files first and then ask questions later is easily verifiable by looking at File:Coat of arms of the House of Colonna.svg and other files where they have done this. The fact they revert to known copyright violations is verifiable by looking at File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg. Everything I have said about this user, negative as it may be, is TRUE! I want these baseless accusations to stop! Fry1989 ^eh? 00:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Files need protectioon

I have to ask for an admin to protect File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg and File:Flag of the President of Chile.svg. Echando una mano is now vandalizing these two files. They keep reverting back on the Coat of Arms and removing my symmetrical shield for no reason. With the Presidential Standard, I don't think they have a clue what they are doing, they keep changing the proportions based on different photos, and their most recent upload changed the flag's colours even though in a previous edit summary they were insistent that the colours should be the same as the national flag, contradicting themselves from only a few hours ago. This is HIGHLY disruptive and vandalous. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As always Fry1989 ignores the sources and vandalizes de files. See this official document in File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg or this image in File:Flag of the President of Chile.svg. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Both protected until consensus is achieved on the "correct" version, upon which I have no view. Please feel free to let me know, or request another admin to unprotect, when there is a conclusion to this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Echando una mano is lying! I've given them a source multiple times, the fact they keep ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means they're in dream land! Yes I called them an idiot, and I've apologized for it. But now they are going on a tirade of accusing me of defamation and harassment when all I'm trying to do is make a file better.

Admins, please compare my file from Echando una mano's version, you can clearly see they are the same thing, the only difference is my manually-redrawn symmetrical shield and an all-white torse according to the Chilean Government source. Echando una mano keeps reverting this for no valid reason, it is very clear vandalism and disruption. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The torse is in color, as it can be seen in this official document. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely redrew the shield myself so it was centered, level and symmetrical and you keep fucking that up by hitting the revert button. And according to the Chilean Government webportal, the torse is all white. This is according to multiple sources: 1, 2, 3 and more. Unless you have the actual text of the blazon saying otherwise, then our file should also be white. You keep reverting based on different fluctuating reasons and it is highly disruptive. I can not thank Rodhullandemu enough for protecting these files from your disruption and vandalism. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Completely redrew? You don't believe that! And moderate your tongue. --Echando una mano (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care whether you believe it or not, I did. The fact you refuse to believe it just shows your prejudice to any possible improvement someone else (namely myself) might actually make to a file that you didn't. And I will speak as I wish when you keep accusing me of lies. I have nothing more to say to you, I have explained very clearly what changes I made to the file and why I made these changes, I have posted sources and reasonings behind both, and that's all that matters at this point. I will oppose unprotection until I am absolutely certain the files are safe from further disruption at your hands. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Echando una mano is still running with the obvious lie that I "don't have sources", even though I have linked several of them. This willful ignorance of truth makes me unsure the files will ever be safe from continued disruption if they were to be unprotected, and it is clear Echando una mano is not willing to discuss the matter on merit of sources when he doesn't even consider the ones I have presented to exist. For these reasons I believe the files should be protected permanently, and I will oppose any unprotection requests by Echando una mano. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Although my sources are better than yours, inexplicably you have gotten distorting the facts in your favor. But I'm moderately satisfied because all that you have done, your hard work, has been putting the torse in white, keeping all my other modifications. --Echando una mano (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so my sources do exist now? That's rather refreshing considering how many times you've just completely ignored them like they don't exist. But I still have 3 and you have 1, so if anyone is distorting the facts here it is you. You say you have "sources" when you only have one, you says yours are better which is subjective, you keep accusing me of defaming you when I haven't, you make all these accusations of me harassing you when I haven't....everything is projection from you. Now unless you have anything productive to say, I'm leaving this matter. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to write your "sources" (in quotations) because they aren't serious. In any case, the only source you bring, perhaps valid, would be the government of Chile, but it wasn't corroborated (so neither), which I I've done, supporting the Supreme Decree N. 1534 of the Ministry of Interior of Chile, about the use of the National Emblems, with War decree N. 2271 of September 4, 1920. Something with a solid reason than a tiny picture. --Echando una mano (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets of Khursheed Khan Photo (talk · contribs)

The following accounts appear to be socks of Khursheed Khan Photo (talk · contribs): Yeh Friendship Movie Release Date (talk · contribs), Khursheed Khan Movie List (talk · contribs) and Nice2013 (talk · contribs). - Jespinos (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want ckeckuser to confirm connection between accounts, COM:RFCU is better. — Revi_complaint? 16:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. En.wiki checkusers alerted. INeverCry 19:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

จันทราสว่าง

The uploads made by จันทราสว่าง (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user need some scrutiny. I recognise a lot of the images as previously deleted copyright violations. I know at least one file was previously uploaded by วรวงศ์, and I seem to recall other accounts with similar behaviour (squiggly-named users uploading large amounts of copyvios related to Thai royalty). Not sure if there's sockpuppetry involved or if it's just one of those topics that tend to attract a certain type of user. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Princess Adityadhornkitikhun.jpg was uploaded by both these accounts. The rest of their deleted uploads are very similar, etc. I would say this is the same person behind these two accounts. There's no sign of recent socking per CU though, so we have to go by uploads. If this new account's uploads are found to be all or mostly copyvios, perhaps blocking is needed. INeverCry 22:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of file names rejected with invalid reasons

Hello, user Marcus Cyron has rejected my restoration of files First Red Guards in Petrograd, fall 1917 palace square.jpg & Milan Nedić 1934.jpg and deleted my request. As reasons, he mentioned: "the file was for month under the english name. Maybe the renaming was not needed - but now it was for a longer time. And english is much more usable for the most people. And the theme is not one, were spanish is really needed" which directly contradict the rules (2. Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized (Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages).) or "but now there IS a newer name - and the newer name is simply better", which I consider is simply his point of view and not really the case. I kept restoring my request as I consider it valid and the renaming incorrect as they do not meet any of the 7 rules. I consider user Marcus Cyron's reasoning incorrect and his actions in removing my request over and over again as unworthy of an admin. Hence I request the restoration of file names to their old names unless it can be clearly proved they meet at least 1 of the 7 possible criteria and the removal of user Marcus Cyron's powers to judge about file renaming as I consider he does not have the necessary knowledge on the allowed criteria and uses reasons that go explicitly against them. Thank you.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I performed the rename, as it was a clear case of criterion #1. Not sure why @Marcus Cyron: didn't notice that. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I wish some people with the powers to change things checked the rules more carefully before using them and did so more cautiously. From my point of view, I hope this is over now. Thank you again.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Blind action!

1. the renaming was months ago - how often we rename this? And when? After years? Why we need to re-rename, for what?
2. spanish language for an image of russion history? Why exactly? Russian - OK. Englis as central language that all understand - OK. But spanish? So the reuse will be complicated.
3. Rowanwindwhistler is maybe the uploader - but not the creator of the image. Why he should have the same right to name a file as a real creator has?
4. Commons is a collaborative projects. Why some people think, it has to go exactly and always the way they want?
5. Commons:File renaming is not law! It is not a policy!
6. btw - I often refuse requests for renaming becaus there are people who only want to change something in english - but this does not mean, that we should stop thinking. Using the brains is not an unimportant factor here. Blind following "rules" is at he end only one thing: blind.
7. File:MilanNedićEn1934.jpg is ab terrible name compared to File:Milan Nedić 1934.jpg. It is also misspelled - "en" must be in small letters. But it seems, it is better to have mistakes here than think for yourself...

For Commons such renamings are a bad move. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand your point - you are allowed to make file moves to a different language[51] even though policy unequivocally says you aren't, but the uploader isn't allowed to have them moved back even though policy clearly says he can? And then, despite the fact that you're the one who performed the illegitimate rename in the first place, you are the one who gets to turn down the rename, to massively edit war over it, and then threaten the uploader with a block? And no, using CamelCase isn't a "spelling error." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I simply wanted to state my support to Marcus. In my opinion, he acted correctly (except participation in edit-warring) and Spanish-language name is not justified. Taivo (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay then. I want to express my support Magog the Ogre’s position here. Marcus Cyron’s views and actions concerning translating filenames to English are damaging in several ways and would probably be problematic even in the English Wikipedia (or in any other English-only project), let alone in Commons, where English is a mere practicality. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The (linked) files are File:First Red Guards in Petrograd, fall 1917 palace square.jpg & File:Milan Nedić 1934.jpg. I think Charlik (talk · contribs) acted improperly in January 2014 by renaming the first file without citing one of the criteria of COM:RENAME and I don't think any of the criteria apply. Moreover, the file was uploaded in 2010 and changed in 2014. File names that have been stable for an extended period should not be changed unless one of the criteria clearly applies. On the second file, I don't think Marcus Cyron is interpreting criterion 3 correctly. Criterion 3 applies if the image is not of Milan Nedić or not 1934. It clearly does not apply to names with disputed capitalization or grammar (unless they engender confusion with another subject). Moreover, the file was uploaded in 2011 and the name was stable until it was renamed in 2014. I encourage Marcus Cyron to adhere to a strict interpretation of the rename criteria and to defer to the wishes of the uploader whenever possible. Commons is ill-served by alienating contributors.[52] I don't doubt that COM:RENAME could be improved. That is not an excuse for ignoring its guidance. Changes may be proposed at Commons talk:File renaming. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Mooni singh raizada socks to block

Mooni singh raizada (talk · contribs) is blocked here for persistent copyright violations. He's got two active sockpuppets which also need to be blocked, and most of whose uploads here also need to be deleted: Arshad Roshan.a.a (talk · contribs) and Varsha Deshayi (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mooni singh raizada for further details. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait Commons' CU or enwiki CU to confirm accounts' relationships. — Revi_complaint? 12:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course that's an option, but a much easier way of confirming the relationship between the accounts is to note that they've uploaded the same copyright-infringing images here and posted them to the same articles on Wikipedia. Even if you don't consider this to be conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry, the copyvio images here (which seems to be all of the uploads save the self-portrait) should still be deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Accounts blocked, uploads deleted. INeverCry 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

They are back again as Ahem Modi (talk · contribs). Refer to contributions here and to the English Wikipedia SPI for evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I blocked Ahem Modi. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

AlJX

POV vandalism on File:Scheme of administrative division of Ukraine.png and File:Scheme of administrative division of Ukraine-2.png despite warning. No other useful contributions. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked by Denniss.[53]. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

MAEDEH (talk · contribs)

This uploads images which looks like advertisement: out of scope as well as questionable copyrights status. There were several deletion requests on this matter, but looks like conclusions were not made. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Uploads nuked, user indef blocked. INeverCry 15:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wkipedia commons (talk · contribs)

This guy is going under a VERY misleading username, one that could give people the impression that the account has authority it does not have. (I don't know if that typo was intentional to evade some kind of a filter or not.) --CyberXRef^☎ 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Account "soft" locked. --Alan ^(talk) 17:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Fastily