Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 30

User:とある白い猫

Once again this user has used his bot to make non-consensual changes in all our FP files via the Assessment template. Various attempts have been made to start a fresh discussion on this issue but the user always opposed the idea and seems to be committed to proceed with his personal agenda. Please check the following discussions: here, here and here. Unless the user is deprived from his bot privileges I suppose this will go on and on despite the opposition of the community. Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I certainly see no meaningful consensus and I did wonder when I saw the edits go by. In other circumstances I would probably block the bot however I will get a scream about the fact that I should not be involved as I have had previous issues with this user and - nowadays - Commons admins do not seem trusted to take a balanced view on things sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocking the bot won't be enough. The FP files are one of the most valuable components of Commons' heritage and should be protected against unilateral actions like this. Imo the user should be forced to revert all non-consensual changes he has made and the Assessments template brought to a configuration which reflects the present consensus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Another piece of information is here. Just one more childish trick to force the use of the wallpaper parameter into the Assessments template against consensus. I suggest that the "Autopatroller" right (user is trusted) is removed from this user's account. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You are impossible to satisfy. You demanded a vote (proper procedures) and I provided you with one. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Once AGAIN Alvesgaspar has brought this issue here like before in regards to User:Shizhao's conduct on commons where he marked files as "wallpaper" using the {{Assessments}} instead of {{Wallpaper}}. He had went to the point of calling Shizhao's edits trolling ([1], [2]) while rolling them back. This is not how rollback should be used.
• Alvesgaspar himself stated: "You are quite right, I don’t give a s* for whether the wallpaper thing is put inside the template or not (though it seems a useless piece of information if applied this way, and only to FP)". Despite this Alvesgaspar demands "proper procedures" to override this ancient poll which he feels is the law/consensus. There is nothing in that poll that suggests wallpaper template must be used separately (in fact there is consensus to merge "featured stuff" which {{Wallpaper}} qualifies as only featured pictures can be marked with the discussed "wallpaper" tags). Furthermore the amount of participation is so low with the same amount of votes a file wouldn't even be voted up to "featured status". Commons is not a bureaucracy. There are currently 4 uses of {{Wallpaper}}.
• POTY images have always been marked through {{Assessments}} since the start. POTY candidate images were all marked each year initially. Just because no one continued that does not mean there is consensus against it. In 2006 & 2007 candidate images were marked. I just marked it on 2009, 2010. I still need to mark them on 2008, 2011. Category:Pictures of the Year (galleries) can be observed. These marking will allow POTY to identify images for POTY 2012 and onward automatically as the template can determine which images are featured but have not been a candidate on POTY. Complex toolserver SQL queries can be avoided with this. I placed this issue on POTY mailing list and no one objected there. In the absence of any kind of objection for over a month, and with a sign of support I went ahead and ran the bot.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Alvesgaspar made this comment at the talk page of the template in question. I am baffled. Alvesgaspar seems to be more interested in controlling the situation than anything. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Before you all dig yourself down into way too much dhrama, I would recommend you to read w:WP:SILENCE once. _→AzaToth 16:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• @AzaToth: w:WP:SILENCE is neither a guideline nor a policy in Commons, where being bold and 'doing first-ask after' can cause significant damage (especially when bots are involved). Even if it were it would not apply to the present situation, as an attentive reading of the past history will reveal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• (EC)I am extremely frustrated by the refusal of とある白い猫 (White cat in the following) to respect community consensus with regard to the {{Assessments}} template and his use of his bot to force his will disregarding the advice of practically anyone. The "ancient" poll from 2008 is old, yes, but since then there has been no new consensus for changes along the line you have implemented against community consensus. The decision then, which involved a wide diversity of users who knew the circuitry then (and some now) was very clear to leave things as they were. That is, not to include {{Wallpaper}}, not to merge Quality image, etc. In fact it was decided then that the bot edits should be rolled back. Something which never happened. Instead White cat simply dissapeared pretending nothing had happened. It is fine to revive that discussion, but no cahnges shall be done until a new community decision. --Slaunger (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• The {{Wallpaper}}, which white cat has now nominated for deletion, now nothing to do with a picture being featured (read the template documentation, an image does not have to be featured to have this template). Therefore it is clearly out of scope of {{Assessments}} (not an assessment which is supported by any process or procedure). It is an arbitrary template put on some file pages without any kind of process which assures quality. The reason there are only four uses of the template now is because White cat with his bot forcefully and without community consensus has replaced it and engulfed the functionality in the {{Assessments}} template. --Slaunger (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• The most recent run by White cate following a discussion on a page, which only a few watches, involving one other editor, triggered another run adding more useless information and visual clutter to the file pages containing {{Assessments}}. Thus, I can now see on one of my FPs, that it was POTY candidate in 2010 written as a separate line in the template. And it is also categorized with a hidden template Category:Pictures of the Year (2010) (I am fine with this hidden category). But every picture promoted to FP always becomes a candidate in the POTY for the year it was promoted, but now it is highlighted as something special. It isn't. It is redundant information with no value but adding clutter to the file page. The only interesting thing about POTY is if it became a finalist, and if it came in 3rd, 2nd or 1st. (I support the use of the assessment template for this purpose). --Slaunger (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Some facts. On July 1, User:タチコマ robot changed the file page of +1500 featured pictures by adding a POTY candidate argument, despite the fact that it is clearly indicated in the template documentation for {{Assessments}} that this template argument is has been deprecated since April 2009, and ignoring that it has been brought up several times on the talk page of the template (which I can only link to from history pages [3] as White cat has removed it from the archives (why, to hide something?)) that the candidacy argument adds no value since all FPs are always cadidates for POTY the year it was promoted. Moreover, the edits were done at an edit rate of up to 20 pages per minute (in the time period 05:33-06:31), exceeding the maximum allowed 10 seconds per edits, or max 6 page edits per minute by a factor of three. The bot has not been approved to operate at such high edit rates, and it is clearly stated that higher edit rates are only to be used in cases of emergency, which this clearly was not. --Slaunger (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redacted comment about what the bot had been approved to. Sorry about overlooking this. --Slaunger (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• White cat has a lot of ideas about ways to use the Assessments template. I think that is fine, and I support such discussion also presenting mockups of how new functionality could look like. However, White cate insists on implementing it right away in the production code template despite repeated requests and advice from oterh senior editors not to do so. As a consequence the template becomes increasingly complex and contains a lot of code for which there is no community consensus. On the contrary actually. The lastest example is Template talk:Assessments#Merging subcats into this template, where White cat despite nobody can endorse his idea goes on and begins to implement the code in the template. --Slaunger (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• In conclusion

• I do not trust White cat having bot priviledges. If the prevailing consensus is opposite to his opinion, he discards them regularly and lets his bot do thousands of edits against consensus. While doing these edits against consesus, maximum bot page edit rates are exceeded threefold.
• The Assessments template should be edit protected.
• The merge of Wallpaper and Assessmenst shall be reverted (White cat has the responsibility for reverting as a last action for this users bot)
• The marking as POTY candidate shall be removed from the Assessment template (unless finalist, or better).

--Slaunger (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm shocked with the details revealed today by Slaunger about the manipulation of the archives and the power of the robot operated by White Cat, and urge the responsible administrators to take a close look at the situation. In my opinion the combination of such powerful tool and the lack of scruples of it operator represents more than just a risk of disruption to the project, as it may affect its integrity. I endorse all suggestions made above by Slaunger, which should be implemented now, and consider that the possibility of banning White Cat from Commons should be considered seriously. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see any point in banning or blocking White cat. The user is making many other good contributions. The point is to avoid further disruption, and that could be achieved by reverting the recent bot changes, removing bot priviledges and editprotecting the Assessments template. A better possibility would be for voluntarily repair the havoc by White cat, and ask first and wait until unleashing his bot scripts on thousands of pages. Furthermore White cat should acknowledge that running his bot at three times max speed is not acceptable (unless permission is granted in a reopened bot request) and promise that this will not happen again. --Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• The claim that I have been manipulating archives is as baseless as a claim can get. In the mentioned incident I moved archives back to the original talk page (Archive 1 (-22,517) Archive 2 (-169,035) - Target: (+191,551) Hence +191,551 - 169,035 - 22,517 = -1 bytes) for the bot to re-archive it because Archive 1 and Archive 2 was greatly unbalanced. Seems like an archive size of 200K is a reasonable division but we could go for 100K or 150K. The entire archive is dumped to Template talk:Assessments/Archive 1 now instead of some going to archive 2. I do not run the bot that archives.
• I do not see why I am expected to acknowledge anything as instead of talking to me, issue was taken straight to AN/U first. I can only be reasoned with if talked to. This not the place to address content disputes.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying the archive issue. It is terribly confusing, because on the talk page history the archive bot had linked to archive 2, and there is also a link to that archive from the talk page from which I expected that the most recent archives were there. It was not clear from your edit summary on archive 2 that you had moved the stuff to archive 1. I have redacted my speculation about your objectives from my statement above. So, no, I do not believe (now) you did that to hide anything. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• With regard to communicating with you, there has been lots of debate and attempts at communication with you on Template talk:Assessments, but the problem is that whenever there is a majority of opinions which is contra yours, you refuse to accept that there are other viewpoints. You just discard them as invalid and go on. I do not understand what is the problem of relating to the objective facts, like the introduction of deprecated template arguments on thousands of FPs, bot edit page rates exceeding the maximum by a factor of three. Going further back in the bot history reveal a disturbing systematic "overdrive" pattern. I.e., on June 24 up to 27 edits were made every minute (max allowed 6/minute). Is it unreasonable to ask what the hurry is? Is it urgent bot operations? Why do you not need to comply with the speed limits other bot operators comply to? --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Redacted comments about bot edit rates (see above). --Slaunger (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• As I said. You are welcome to talk to me about this issue on my talk page. Complaints should be posted to AN/UD if you are seeking to get Administrators involvement for example to get me/my bot blocked/banned. Forgive me for the analogy but, I do not like the notion of being put on an electric chair and then asked stuff. This is a content dispute in essence not a user dispute. Alvesgaspar brought a similar issue with User:Shizhao's manual tagging of featured files with the wallpaper parameter. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• It should be clear by now that this is much more than just a dispute of content to be negotiated with White Cat in his talk page. It is a problem of user behavior, which can only be solved with the assistance of administrators. A user who has systematically used his powerful bot to make extensive changes against the explicit consensus of the community. It is not a good sign that this user has not yet recognized that he was wrong or expressed his willingness to repair the damage. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Explicit consensus of the community? Where is this? Do not be so delusional. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 04:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment and  Info I've removed manually (undo) all the operations made by this bot on all "my" own 41 featured pictures. Sorry, but I find stupid to mention this 1st of july, two years after, that some of my FP were allowed to participate in the 2010 POTY contest, because it is (was) automatic for FP of the year 2010 (and the following years too, btw...).I think that creation and use of such a bot must be submitted to a consensual discussion, which was obviously not the case here. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I have removed from the template the POTY image and the text about POTY candidates, per the clear lack of consensus here. (There is a spare linebreak left, so if anyone wants to fix my work here, that would be appreciated). As far as I understand the consensus, the wallpaper stuff should also be separated from the regular featured-content box, but I do not have time right now. I'm not so sure the bot edits should be reverted, because if they are retained, the hidden categorization of yearly POTY candidates can be utilized. I get the impression that most of the objections are actually to the pollution of the Featured picture template layout, and might be resolved by removing some of the verbosity, especially for candidates and wallpapers. --99of9 (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help, 99of9. You are right, all parameters not directly related to the FP status (in Commons and other wikis) should be removed from the template. If I'm interpreting well the code, that includes the 'quality', 'valued', 'Wallpaper', 'POTY' and 'POTD' parameters. I hope someone will take care of the task (White Cat is the obvious choice). Afterwards, the template should be potected against changes until a new consensus is reached. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you, 99of9. Yes, the main problem with the POTY candidacy arg was the added file page clutter. Removing the verbosity from displaying the redudant information in the template is a good first step. I agree that having the hidden POTY candidacy category on the file pages is OK. Of course it would have been more transparent just to have added that category to the files pages in the first place. I agree with you that to reverse the bot edits to place the category there is net negative as it would again spam the watchlists. --Slaunger (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Regarding the bot abuse claims, it is important to review the Bot approval request. Perhaps it was a failing on the part of us Bureaucrats, but the bot request specifically asked for and was granted 1 edit/sec, so I don't think there is a sanctionable violation there. The request asks for permission to "Also mark the image as reviewed.", and that is sort of what has been done here. However, bot edits should always be doing something for which there is a clear consensus, as you said you would in reply to Eugene's question. If modifications to the terms of the bot permissions or deflagging are desired by other users, they can be discussed by opening a new request. --99of9 (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have checked the link you provided but it doesn't seem to be the right place to ask for the removal of bot privileges and/or the blocking of the robot. Could you please help? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You are right. I had looked at the request, but somehow overlooked the 1 edit/s in the request that was approved. So I have redacted those parts in my comments above. --Slaunger (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • My main concern is the use of the bot to carry out mass changes, when explicit opposition has been raised against those changes, and no consensus had been established in support for the bot operations. --Slaunger (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Where is this explicit opposition to the "candidate" tagging? There is no such opposition. There is no consensus against what the bot is doing either. A handful of users are creating drama over nothing. I on the other hand have a logical reason to merge related templates together. You have a mellow template on your userpage perhaps you should read the link it leads to! -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 21:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
      • It seems that you don't understand something important : there is no need of explicit opposition, but a strong need of explicit agreement. There is no consensus against is not the good argument. Bout could you say There is consensus pro ? If no, don't move, and ask for a discussion, then for a vote. No negative never means positive. There is no drama and everybody stays mellow, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarity

OK, seriously, what is going on here. I read all this stuff and I still don't really understand. Someone other than Whitecat please explain what is the problem, but do it clearly and concisely. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: if you don't understand, don't care ! ;)--Jebulon (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think that the very first paragraph describes the situation in a clear and concise way. A conclusion and a proposal for a line of action is presented by Slaunger some lines above (under 'in conclusion'). Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure, its clear and concise but also incorrect. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The core of the problem is a dispute about the scope and future development of the {{Assessments}} template among 5-10 editors. White Cate is of the opinion that the template shall be extended to include a wide variety of Assessments, like FP, POTD, POTY, QI, VI, and also the more informal ones (which is not based on a vote) like wall paper, pics of the month on portal y on wiki x. The advantage would be a consistent ordering of templates on a file page. In addition White Cat is of the opinion that the template shall be extended to show, e.g., content categories of the type "Featured pictures of ..." with small icons, like the flags of countries. The other editros with a few nuances basically think that the template should not be extended to a unified template for all these types of assessmenst. Basically, these are concerns:

1. The template is already very complicated. Adding more functionality will make it very hard to maintain (it is so already).
2. Merging QI and VI into the template gives rise to complications for the bots maintaining those processes (especially VI).
3. Merging QI and VI into one frame gives rise to confusion regarding the project identities as the color schemes are designed for the project (especially VI).
4. The template text becomes bloated with icons and text which is of very little relevance and which is redundant to categorization.
5. The template is being extended with functionality which is not in use and probably never will be (like former QI, we do not have such a thing)
6. Whereas the idea of consistent ordering of information in a unified template is good, this can also be achieved by ordering individual templates on file pages using a bot.

Whereas such content disputes are very normal and part of everyday life, the reason why we end up at COM:AN/U is that White Cat believes so strongly in his ideas with this template that he ignores opposition to his ideas and simply goes on with them, either by continuing to add functionality in the template or by using his bot to get rid of stand-alone templates and merge them into the Assessments template. I think, Rocket000, which we all know as a mellow editor and brilliant template coder summed it up nicely yesterday

...I haven't looked at that template for a long time, but the changes seem to be an improvement, at least technically. I don't think subject auto-categorization should be added and I would suggest keeping things simple. Instead of merging everything (categorization, related templates), improve upon aspects of its main functionality (e.g. nomination link intelligence) and appearance. If you're like me, you like the idea of powerful all-encompassing super templates since it centralizes your template work and the complexity is not an issue, but from a template user's and design point of view, simplicity is the way to go. Sometimes keeping related templates separate is better. Do one thing and do it well, as they say.

Yet White Cat insist on proceeding, the most recent example is in Template talk:Assessments#Merging subcats into this template. Here Foroa, 99of9, Alvesgaspar and I ask him not to implement FP content categories in the template following an extended openminded discission. Yet White Cat just ignores the opposition and continues implementing lots of new code on a heavily used template. It is this consistent en:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, which is the main problem. --Slaunger (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not implemented FP content categories in the template. Any claim that I have is as far from the truth as possible. I sandboxed something, sure but it is inaccessible from the template. I can sandbox whatever I like as long as it doesn't impact any other page (as visible, only ONE transclusion). Among other people I am NOT convinced the idea is a good one. Which is why I preferred to code a sandboxed version instead of directly adding it to the main code. I find advertising of this thread at other peoples talk page to be unhelpful. I also find out-of-context "round 2" quotation to be greatly unfair. It makes it sound like I am fighting when in fact I am not. That "round 2" remark was a response to MY 18 April 2012 comment to Rocket000 asking what he thought of the improvements I made to the template. We are in July now. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Round 2 from Rocket000s comment is irrelevant, so I have removed that from the quote and replaced it with "..." to avoid any ambiguity in its meaning. And yes, it is a response to a question from you in April, but since he just reappeared his reply reflects the status of the template as it is today in July. I found it relevant as he had not been involved in the dispute and thus represented a fresh external view on the situation with the template. The link I gave on Rocket000s page was not an advert to this case but a simple courtesy link to tell Rocket000 I had quoted him. --Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please DO NOT implement anything without PREVIOUS discussion and then, PREVIOUS consensus ! It is not difficult to understand, is it ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Which authority do I need to ask to be allowed to make sandbox edits? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Way out

• There is only a narrow path out of this situation, one that does not harm the project or the editors. But I don't see White Cat willing to follow such path. On the contrary, he has already stated that he is not interested in reverting all non-consensual changes and starting a fresh discussion. Please give us some sign that I'm wrong. I will be the first to aplaude. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I've fully-protected {{Assessments}} as a highly-visible template (nearly 10k transclusions, plus the uses are on highly visible content). So there won't be any more unilateral edits to the template (hopefully). As to the rest: mass changes shouldn't be made without adequate consensus, as someone who's been around along as White Cat has well knows. I suggest White Cat refrain from making any more mass changes in this area unless specifically requested to by someone else (who should be acting on the basis of a clear consensus in an appropriate location). Rd232 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I only marked pages as candidate per "Commons talk:Picture of the Year#Commons:Picture of the Decade" which I felt was consensus enough. I remarked on this end already. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Lx 121

Can someone explain to that user, that I dislike being accused of some kind of stalking ("the user only nominated this file because i'm using it")? Thx, --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC) PS: Btw it is not the first time. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

this complaint would have more merit were it not of the fact that user:yikrazul IS tracking my activity, & reverting, DRing, commenting, etc. in locations well outside his normal range of activity, merely because i'm there. i use a file, he DRs it. i make trivial copyedits in a "rules" page, he reverts it, i vote/comment on something, he joins the discussion to oppose my views. & as he himself states, this is not the first time that we've been in such a "grudge match". also, yikrazul can be (moderately) insulting in his choice of (english) language at times, with other people as well as myself, which makes his comment on my talk page about "being insulted" somewhat ironic. a comparison of our histories in comments & discussions should make this clear.

i'm no saint & i have strong opinions, but i don't use personal insults, name-calling, or anything more scathing than "humorous irony" when i comment. i also try to say something useful in each comment, & demonstrate/explain my concerns & my reasoning. whereas i have found that in our exchanges, yikrazul tends to express a stated opinion (sometimes rather angrily), & then repeat it without providing detailed explanations, or reasoning.

if the user has any substantial complaints to make about me, i invite him to do so.

Lx 121 (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I need to add more complains: Edit-War of User Lx121 in Commons:What Commons is not, Commons:Nudity against others as for POV-reasons and not waiting consensus of discussion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Info for others - both pages protected for a bit to prevent edit warring which is soooo pointless. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

One striking thing: I don't see recent edits by Lx 121 of User talk:Yikrazuul nor recent edits by Yikrazuul of User talk:Lx 121. Why not talk to eachother before talking about eachother? Ices2Csharp (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that really a good idea, to suggest they should go at each other on their user pages instead of in public where hopefully having other people around and topics besides their mutual dislike should moderate things?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

At least I am not blaming others to be this or that, and at least I have been on his user page, so learn to read. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Your 22 April 2011 edit exceeded my definition of 'recent'. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Gabriel bier

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

This user has uploaded nothing but copyright violations (save the one he got lucky on that is PD-text), and has done so despite many warnings, including a last warning. Please block this user to protect the project. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Botaurus-stellaris

Dispute with categorization, German Deutsch

• Botaurus-stellaris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User talk 13 File:Alexej von Jawlensky - Sitzender weiblicher Akt.jpg

File:Alexej von Jawlensky - Spanierin.jpg

User Botaurus-stellaris doesn't accept categorization policy and rejects discussion. He doesn't understand that wiki commons is a community and he has no personal rights in a category. We have a conflict with the Defaultsort and over-categorisation. Furthermore his behaviour against me is not complying with wiki commons user policy. Categories of Jawlensky can't be categorized with Jawlensky in any way, categorization should be by title of painting. By adding Category:Paintings by Alexej Jawlensky in the Lenbachhaus it is no longer necessary to use over Category:Alexej Jawlensky Please help with the Defaultsort and categorization and prevent User Botaurus-stellaris from talking against me like this. I started the discussion after User Botaurus-stellaris simply redid my changes without discussion. He continued in redoing his categorization/sorting rejecting any discussion in very unpolite way. Thank you and let me know, if you need further information.Oursana (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper

I decided to move the discussion to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Pieter Kuiper as the tread is getting far too long. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Cristianho19

Cristianho19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) uploaded File:Jordi Alba FCB.jpg, a likely copyvio photo, almost immediately after coming back from a second block for persistent copyvios. The user seems unlikely or unable to follow Commons content rules. --Ytoyoda (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done asked a spanish admin to assist with this case, since user is spanish. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Need advice about user problem

A Commons user sees «improperly named» category filled with images and description, and super-categories. The user deletes is completely, without renaming, thus clearing out its description. A user knows about Cat-a-lot tool, but uses it to move the images to wrong category. What can be done in this case? Thank you for the advice.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to link the user and/or the category in question, as the admins can't help you if they don't know about whom you're talking. Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The categories are, Category:Пересечение 2011 в Переславле, Category:Публичные слушания в Переславле 13 апреля 2012 года, Category:Выставка «Дорогами Залесья», Category:Выставка «Пространство надежды», Category:Роль и значение ботанических и дендрологических садов 2012 (конференция).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been already mentioned that category names should be by preference in English and as a minimum using a Latin character set. This has been discussed many times with and opposed by PereslavlFoto. Last weeks, I deleted tens of categories in Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew and Korean. Last days, PereslavlFoto gave the example by moving himself, without any form of CFD or Move procedure many categories in French into English ones; someone will block him for that sooner or later. Long ago, I attempted proper move procedures for categories in Cyrillic script, and the only reactions I got was that the name was not correct in English, without any alternate proposal. As the concerned categories contained overall only 25 or so files, I decided that it was quicker to move them to the upper level and delete the categories than to wait several weeks for a sabotaged move procedure.

I checked all the categories on google, and none of them returned an event with the same name, so they cannot be that notable. If PereslavlFoto has made up his mind for a properly named category, tell me, and I'll put the few lines of the original data back in it. --Foroa (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

1) I warned in the page User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, see [4], also see [5]. You might have seen those changes. Second, I moved to the separate categories with no data loss, and gave you the example of correct deed. Third, I do not know correct translations of proper nouns of those expositions or conferences. Fourth, you could suggest the translations. Fifth, non-English titles are not prohibited by any rule.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if PereslavlFoto moves manually the items on this list which has been refused on the delinker, partially because it makes many categories inconsistent with their parent or sister categories, partially because such move should go through a CFD or {{Move}} procedure at the parent level. --Foroa (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Google reason is a weak reason. Search results without «that notable» may be caused by searching in a foreign language.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The moves were not «refused», they were skipped at the discussion page of delinker, and returned to my discussion page for manual changes. The main difference is, I do not delete and do not move — but rename; and you did not move — but deleted the named categories.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You have already explained that you accept only English names. Now you show the protest against English names that are transferred from French (non-English). This may look inconsistent.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

With Category:Пересечение 2011 в Переславле we have a perfect example what little game is being played. All files in it are by the same author, use a non Cyrillic name and have an English description. Two hours after deletion, all the images are in an acceptable named category. --Foroa (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• I cannot call this «acceptable» — 1) because it's a transliteration, not a translation, and there is no word «Peresechenie» in English; 2) because the event does not have official English title. Please check Commons:Форум where the people discussed this item and suggested possible transliteration as the smallest possible evil. You could start the same discussion, or suggest any possible wayout, or address to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands (as I did). Because moving is much better than deletion.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• [6] shows that so called «English description» (as well as Esperanto description) were added by other editor who faced your deletion (instead of movement). Is it really English, do the words «Peresechenie» and «Pereslavl» exist in English? They are no more than transliterations.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero

The user Cambalachero in a recent commentary has insulted me, I request that he be blocked.
You can read the comment here.
Thank you. GMoyano (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Although you did indeed say, contrary to Cambalachero's comment, "In addition, have been taken all necessary precautions in the image that was uploaded is not allowed, due to the resolution of it, which read the addresses listed on the poster," [7] your statement was patently false. Review of the deleted image shows the names/addresses to be absolutely legible. To take offense at the comment seems rather unreasonable, and to request a block for it even more so. Эlcobbola _talk 18:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OrionHsu's uploads

We may need Special:Nuke for images contributed by OrionHsu. If you look at his en:wp talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Old Jade, you'll see that his whole presence on WMF wikis appears to be elaborate advertising and hoaxing, and I fear that his uploads are too problematic to keep around — hoaxing and advertising is sufficient reason for deletion of images. Moreover, after checking a few of his uploads, I noticed File:The Bronze Money-Shaking Fortune Tree of Qing Dynasty China.JPG, which is credited to a "web museum" — potential copyvio? Of course I understand that a DR on hoax/advertising grounds may instead be appropriate, but there are so many contributions that I don't want to start that until/unless I'm told that Special:Nuke is not appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Q.v. the "Problem articles - possible fraud?" section at en:wp's administrators' noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The suspicious of fraud is worrying, but I don't understand it. Well, I am a newbie concerning old Chinese art, so that may be the reason. ;o) I find the pictures interesting, and I would not delete these provided that the descriptions are not misleading. It would probably be very difficult to get pictures of the originl items if the price at the auction is real (3 M$). Regards, Yann (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There is already a discussion here: Commons talk:Deletion requests#Can I request deletion of all images uploaded by a user? Yann (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to say that the files of OrionHsu, Orionwebmuseum, and Orionandhsu, all suspected to the be same person, have been nominated for deletion. Pages here - Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:OrionHsu, Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Orionwebmuseum, Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Orionandhsu. Axb3 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the local CheckUsers might wish to take a look at this? Trijnstel_talk 13:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mattbuck

Mattbuck has engaged in personal attack against me (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AzaToth&diff=74300454&oldid=74291087), and as he have decided to ignore my request to retract the personal attack, I would like to ask the community to admonish Mattbuck from further engaging in such behavior. _→AzaToth 19:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

AzaToth, you are the one making trouble on QIC. So do not complain that people get angry after you. Yann (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say it's a wide difference between conflict of interest, conflict of interpretation and lack of optimal communication from my part, and to engage in personal attacks. _→AzaToth 19:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that AzaToth is declining promotion of other user's QICs more than other users do there. And I guess some of the rejections are arguable but I often see that they contain a valid reason for critique (not saying it must be a reason for declining). But I also notice that some users like to push their images through QI to get the seal on their files despite they are far away from "quality". All in all I don't care for this page like many other users do — due exactly that reason.

But this thread is about Mattbuck and I would appreciate if he would choose a more suitable and extensive wording. Blind is inappropriate and should be removed, incompetent is not a personal attack, I think, but it should be in Mattbuck's interest to change a general critic into a specific one. Reading Commons:Talk page guidelines#Communication good practice might be a good start. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I know that both users are often on IRC and wonder whether they could solve their problem there? -- Rillke^(q?) 20:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just reviewed the interaction between these two on #wikimedia-commons, and I can only LOL to the suggestion that these two will solve the problem on IRC, seeing that they are both intent on furthering their pissing match there. russavia (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I had been holding off on an apology for one very good reason: I wasn't sorry. To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure I'm sorry now either. I did let my frustrations get the better of me, that is not in doubt. But the sentiments? I still hold those to be accurate. The wording was not calm, but I feel that the message, that I was dissatisfied with Azatoth's reviews and that he should refrain from commenting on my uploads, was conveyed. I apologise for the language used, but not the message. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Context for this is Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates#user:_AzaToth. I suggest that Mattbuck's frustrated comment can be put to one side (whilst acknowledging that he could have expressed himself better and tried to direct the dispute more toward dispute resolution). Meanwhile AzaToth has somewhat acknowledged at the linked page that aspects of his QIC voting have annoyed people (not just Mattbuck), and I hope he'll change it accordingly. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Gomezs28

Gomezs28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues uploading copyrighted images besides warnings. Ralgis^talk 21:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done for 1 week by Yann. Trijnstel_talk 13:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Emymal

The user has been uploading copyvios, many of them deleted, some of them now nominated as copyvios (only two images that exact sources couldn't be found for are at DR now), could someone delete them all? The upload spree lasted only four days last year and the user hasn't returned since.—SpacemanSpiff 06:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 1 week by Yann. Trijnstel_talk 13:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Shared account

• An organization from my town hopes to publish their multimedia materials with a free license. To do this, they need to create an account. As an account of the organization, this will be a shared account, for the account name and password will be known to 2—3 employees performing the task. This looks agains the rules, yes? If it's a violation, how the organization may publish their multimedia materials to Commons?
• Unhappy answers: 1) Separate website with free licensed content — bad, for the organization doesn't have its own website to publish those materials. 2) Flicr — bad, for it has no media response, while the «collaboration with Commons» is a loud event. 3) Only one employee to use account — possible if the employee changes the password when changing the workplace, but noone can ensure this; the password will be recorded and thus available for the director of that organization.
• Dear Commons people, could you please help me to find the solution? Thank you very much.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have a suggestion: separate accounts for the president of the organization named for instance User:Pereslavlorganization, and for every employee or member, with an identifiable reference to the organization in the username when acting as representatives of the group ? Something like User:NicolaialexandrovitchPereslavlorganization, User:AlexandrafedorovnaPereslavlorganization, User:DimitrinicolaievitchPereslavlorganization and so on ? And maybe a permanent link in every user talk page to an unique talk page, the one of User:Pereslavlorganization ? Not perfect, beware of usurpators and sockpuppets, but just the beginning of an idea...--Jebulon (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Right, shared accounts should be avoided for a number of reasons and for everyone's sake. The best approach might depend on things like the nature of the organization, the nature and number of the files that they intend to contribute, and whether they intend to upload a single batch of files or contribute on an ongoing basis. For content under corporate authorship, the licensing permission needs to be sent by an authorized person to OTRS. I think one possibility, then, would be for the involved employees to register accounts and for the director to send an e-mail to OTRS stating the user names of the employees that are authorized to issue copyright licenses for the organization's content. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • 1) It's an organization of cultural importance with many employees. 2) They intend to upload a single batch of dozens of files on an ongoing basis. 3) The images are from their long-time archive they hope to scan and publish.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • For example, Commons:RIA Novosti published with User:RIANbot, and we cannot check if is's a private or shared account. Looks like shared, for we cannot check how many employees are behind this account. Same situation is with Commons:Deutsche Fotothek, where they use User:FotothekBot.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• A shared account is good and easy until something gets bad. As accounts are not limited in time, there is no guarantee that something might happen in the long run. I think this explains the reason why shared accounts are discouraged. Yann (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

DR as retaliation tool action review

Good evening,

A Commons contributor named Popolon made an accusation againt me on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Weihai-Xinwen dasha.jpg I would like further review.

He considers I used Wikimedia Commons as a retaliation tool opening one DR against a photo he uploaded, some hours after we met for the first time on IRC and ten minutes after an issue between us on the #wikipedia-fr channel. This issue weren't related to Wikimedia Commons, but on the right to use English words in French or the need to speak a pure French, making the best effort to translate every technical term form English to French, and the opinion of Popolon not doing so means a poor language skill (in French). Today, after I banned him from the #wikipedia-fr channel for a few days durations, following issues he had yesterday with two other contributors (a ban approved by channel regular users), he made a strong statement I'm in a power position and have abused of my moderation tools.

The community recently expressed the idea DR couldn't be used as a retaliation tool in the Pieter Kuiper affair, so this accusation is grave and if he's right, I will abide to any decision the community would like me to take, like an recall process (I didn't use my administrator tool in this affair, but I could understand it means the community couldn't trust me anymore).

My official position is I didn't open the DR as a retaliation tool, nor browsed the Popolon pictures in the goal to open a DR. I wanted after the clash to know who he is, and to better understand him. As I consider photographies reveal people personality, it's his Wikimedia Commons uploads I browsed. Then, I saw a licensing problem and opened a DR. The problem were real (Chinese FoP requires the architect's name of a photographed building is published, and this requirement is explained on the license tag) and quickly fixed by the uploader. I then closed myself the DR as Kept.

On the other hand, I could (i) have anticipated in such context a DR opening would be seen as an hostile act and instead ask him gently if he has the information available on his talk page (ii) avoid ambiguities the DR were linked to the previous discussion.

Indeed, here how I notified him of the DR opening on the channel:

11:15 <+Dereckson> popolon: au fait http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Weihai-Xinwen_dasha.jpg
11:16 <+Dereckson> il y a lieu d'ajouter le nom de l'architecte, et le titre qu'il a donné au bâtiment
11:16 <+Dereckson> sans ses deux infos, l'exception de liberté de panorama ne s'applique pas en Chine
11:16 <+Dereckson> une faute de grammaire a été volontairement glissée dans cette phrase
11:16 <+Dereckson> histoire de bien te montrer que puisque tu m'indiques que je suis un con, je rentre dans ton jeu, et je  joue au con.
11:16 <+Dereckson> Cela te convient comme cadre relationnel ?

To open a DR, then say "histoire de bien te montrer que puisque tu m'indiques que je suis un con, je rentre dans ton jeu, et je joue au con" isn't an acceptable behavior for a trusted Wikimedia Commons contributor.

I referred to the grammar stuff (« une faute de grammaire a été volontairement glissée dans cette phrase ») and not the Commons one (we had a conflict about grammar, use of English words in French, language level, ...).

But it's absolutely plausible to read this statement as DR-related instead.

Should also be noted the DR rationale weren't offensive: “Is this file covered by {{FoP-China}}? If so, relevant template should be added.”

I hope I've given a comprehensive overview of the situation and I'm now listening to the community feedback. --Dereckson (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As was said very often in the Pieter Kuiper discussions, everyone's uploads need to be continuously open to review, and ruling out DRs on uploads of everyone one has unrelated disagreements with is not helpful: copyright enforcement is important. Even with someone who made a long-term habit of DRs that were clearly retaliatory, the community couldn't agree what to do... Unless there are many more (potential) examples, then this one-off DR (which looks OK, really) is not a problem. You recognised that asking for info before DR would be helpful (a point I've often made), the DR was polite, nothing to see here, really. Rd232 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bon soir, Sébastien, as long as Popolon does not put his claims here or on another public board, I think there is no need for further actions. I think he expressed his personal opinion which is not commonly shared by other users.

As for translations: I prefer no translations over bad ones. Recently I received "Die Ereignisbehandlung des Consumers rief eine nicht reentrante Methode beim Provider auf" in an M$ application. I am sure even someone with native German and English skills, won't have a clue about the meaning of the error. I also know that French people care a lot for their language and I don't think it's wrong. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Serdechny, Rillke

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Feel free to move this to a separate page if you get annoyed. The green markers from the history are reused as evidence for my thoughts and avoid unnecessary clutter of this page. In section #Thoughts of Rillke, you can click on them to jump to the according place in the history-section. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal motivation for bringing this up

This is the first time I am going to complain at this board about a perhaps, controversial issue. I would like to have it avoided but before speculations and the numbers of claims grow to an impenetrable jungle, I think it is better to bring this up here. Also I am currently negating conditions for a larger upload from an external source and a potential de-adminship request during this time would be rather counter productive since trust is expected from the one who provides the photos.

History form the Point of view of Rillke

I don't know whether I had previous interaction with Serdechny. His previous user name was SerdechnyG. The first one, I can remember is starting Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mack Bolan Books – Set Nr. 1.jpg while patrolling new files. I used a sloppy language and used fuzzy phrases there, I admit.

Serdechny asked me to review some of his uploads awaiting review. It turned out that most of the files were screenshots of videos, most of them from YouTube. The descriptions of the files were in Russian and also the audio track. Looking at most YouTube-user's contributions, I discovered that they uploaded material that was not entirely their own work, including TV-captures. This led me asking Trycatch, a former administrator (retired) and native Russian speaker for help. Trycatch found for example that a video from Vimeo contained text contradicting the free-license-claim on the website in Russian language that I was not able to understand.⁽¹⁾

During this conversation it turned out that Trycatch previously had interaction with Serdechny.

Therefore I had a view on Serdechny's talk page history and found this version and this deletion request.⁽²⁾. His Flickr-account is 53914344@N04 "Big George 237".

Given this fact and Trycatch's reply to my enquiry, I wondered why Serdechny was never blocked for Flickr-washing, which is a common consequence of doing so on Wikimedia Commons. I expressed this in my reply to Trycatch.

About 3 hours later Serdechny posted to this board implying that the discussion with Trycatch was uncivil and indicated that he would “appreciate a lot somebody warning these two gentlemen”.⁽³⁾

The full post and the responses until it was closed are visible on Special:Permalink/73973243#Is there any ethics and/or civility guidelines at Commons?⁽⁴⁾

I notified Trycatch about the thread on COM:AN/U (this board). I was not notified but had it on my watch list.⁽⁵⁾ My reply to the post by Serdechny contained a malformed sentence.⁽⁶⁾

After this thread was closed by Bidgee, Serdechny started a thread on COM:VP, entitled “Kick the embarrassment out of the project!”⁽⁷⁾

Thoughts of Rillke

On top of this page it reads It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. — I was never notified⁽⁵⁾, also all other users who were either brought to ⁽⁷⁾ or ⁽⁴⁾ were not by Serdechny. This and other user's actions let me loose my good-faith assumptions in him.

First I fully agree with Trycatch's statement “He had (has?) very interesting views on copyright, views that are radically different from the views of the rest of the crowd -- flickrwashing is ok[...]” because ⁽²⁾ which was cited in the complaint⁽³⁾ posted by him; it was even one substantial reason for posting, I think.

Also, Serdechny complained about the fact that I was wondering (not intending) why he was not blocked for his copyright violations through Flickr washing or at least a similar tactic⁽²⁾ and expressed this on a user talk page that is not dedicated to Serdechny, nor I pointed him to this page. I should be warned for doing something totally valid and not necessarily impolite.⁽⁴⁾

99of9, a bureaucrat and administrator on Commons replied that it is common practise to talk about blocks, I would have expected Serdechny stops accusing me of having insulted him. But he did not: “After I witnessed User:Rillke, openly discussing my personality, wondering "why he [i.e. me] was never blocked" and few other things, which are obviously insulting”⁽⁷⁾, consequently suggested “for this we had User:Rillke and User:99of9 stripped of admin rights on this project, and temporarily suspend User:Bidgee”.

Besides the crime Serdechny did in the past with copyright violations⁽²⁾, he is now going to personally insult me with wrong claims and calling my English (which I admit, it is not the best) AYBABTU-like English and highlights this mistakenly wrong phrase⁽⁶⁾ unnecessarily more than one time, just to disgrace me; not explicitly asking for receiving any answer or clarification of mine, while crying in his posts (UPPER CASE, bold, yellow background).

One last example of his attitude is his reply on his talk page. I don't like to comment that but until I posted this — what you are currently reading — there was nothing serious that “backfired on” him; no revenge deletion request or similar. Perhaps Serdechny wants to explain this more in detail. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Requests of Rillke

Despite my mistakes I am going to request a block of Serdechny for harassment and defamation that, the past seems to show, won't stop. I request this block immediately because I believe not having withheld anything guileful and everything relevant I said is proven. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• So you are requesting a block for me for the copyright issues, aren't you? You forgot to mention that I volunteered as a User:Trycatch new disciple, and asked him to review again all my previous upploads and overlook all my future uploads, in order to disprove the superstitions and rumors, which are circulating here about my "guileful" position on copyright. I strongly encourage anybody to check all my uploads again and again to refute those rumors once and for all. — George Serdechny 14:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I just nominated a couple of them, but basically they can be mass-deleted, as I was not able to find a sigle one which would not be a copyright violation. (Possibly a few exist though).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, list them all so I personally put the {{SpeedyDelete}} tag on those which were not reviewed, and/or are copyright violations. Besides, before nominating, would you please examine sources. — George Serdechny 14:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's better. Keep on reviewing. — George Serdechny 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Serdechny should be blocked for what he's said so far recently, though he's skating on thin ice and would do well do to apologise and withdraw his threat to pursue de-adminship. I'm more concerned with the longer-term history of copyright violations, combined with Ymblanter's remarks about recent history. Serdechny was previously User:SerdechnyG (renamed in March 2012). He is also clearly the person behind en:User:George Serdechny (en:User:SerdechnyG was renamed en:User:George Serdechny on English Wikipedia in Oct 2010 [8], indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia in April 2011 for copyright violations following en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110429. Maybe Serdechny has made mistakes and is now willing to learn, but his attitude is not grounds for optimism. Rd232 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not the person behind, I am en:User:George Serdechny, blocked on English Wikipedia in April 2011 for alleged copyright violations (I was framed with alleged direct Russian to English translation of non-free books, but nobody ever examined sources, thus I was blocked on suspicion, which is quite different from unambiguos CV). Yet, I just don't want to come back to en-wiki, thus I did not contest that decision yet. I suggest you concentrate on my Commons-activity, before we start discussing each other social accounts on Twitter, or Facebook. — George Serdechny 14:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take User:moonriddengirl's word on copyvios over just about anyone's (certainly without evidence to the contrary). Anyway, looking through Commons deleted contribs, there is for instance Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ivan Drago.jpg, File:Yul Brynner as Chris Adams.jpg File:Mad Max & Tina in Beyond Thunderdome.jpg. Rd232 (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They were uploaded at Commons under the free license, thus I uploaded them here. Reviewers found that they were actually derivative works, so they deleted these files. Quite normal procedure. — George Serdechny 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you uploaded them to Commons from Flickr; I don't know what you're talking about with "derivative works" (Commons:derivative works). Anyway, I take it you've learned something since the Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:SerdechnyG mess of 2010? Rd232 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Derivative works" means that it turned out that paintings, which I uploaded from Flickr, were made from non-free photographs, and thus they were considered derivatives. If you think they are not, you can contest the deletion decision anytime you want. — George Serdechny 16:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't a "mess". I've uploaded all those files with the permission from their owners (who provided me with photos), by that time I didn't know that I would need a written permission, I've been told that e-mail is all right. — George Serdechny 15:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As the above discussion shows, he did not learn to be civil. FoP seems to be one more point for desired improvement.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

More facts, Yaroslaw. I appreciate your opinion on my contributions to this project, but please, while accusing me of incivility support your accusation with the facts. — George Serdechny 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is clearly incivil, given that we are discussing your problematic uploads, not mine (and the fact that the youtube licence seens to be ok does not yet mean that the file is free - I have just no time to investigate the issue). The other three files I nominated I just do not see how they coud turn out free - unless you have permission from the sculptors.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

O.k. excuse me for cheering you up, that was definitely incivil, I appreciate any minute you find to examine my uploads. As for the last three, I think that the entire category should be deleted. What do you think about that? — George Serdechny 15:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is more complicated, I have written in the request. But, indeed, most likely the whole category consists of deletion candidates.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention that 90% of them are not my uploads. After I found this massive category, I thought it's O.K. with freedom of panorama in Ukraine, but definitely you know it better than anybody. — George Serdechny 16:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

---

No point in there any more. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Cris.real293

• Cris.real293 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I have just checked this user's own category and I'm afraid it's full of copyvios and copyrighted photos: Category:Cris.real293 --Ileana n (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think so. His descriptions say what piece in what museum he photographed them and there's no tineye hits. Looks legit to me. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've deleted two which appear to be scanned out of books from the 1990s. Those run into DW issues. I'm not sure what to do with the rest. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • After re-reading his descriptions I'm forced to agree. I left him a warning about derivative works. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 04:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I did a Google reverse on a bunch of his works and they appeared in many sites, some of they even claiming copyright over their content. This for example, can be found in many sites. Heretoo, same size. Kind regards--Ileana n (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ResolvedUser blocked for 2 weeks; remaining uploads collected in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cris.real293 Rd232 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Cristianho19

Resolved

The user Cristianho19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) upload copyrighted images continuously. He have been warned repeatedly, but he ignored. Perhaps, it would take further steps with him. Sonsaz (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month by Denniss (talk · contribs). Tiptoety ^talk 22:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Lobotras

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

This user has continued to upload copyright violations past last warning and then some. Please block. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Jafeluv (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jigd13

Recent uploads look like they're all copyvios, user also has uploaded the same logo 3 times. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Deleted the copyvios and gave the user a last warning. Only two batches of bad images, one in October and this one, so I figured a last chance was fair. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Varghesejacob

This is a sock of Vrghs jacob who has an extensive history of copyvios here and on en.wiki (including flickr washing, claiming to have taken a picture in New Delhi, India while at the exact time the picture was taken, editing from an IP in Michigan etc). This time there's been uploads with dubious OTRS tickets. I've nominated them all as a Mass DR -- Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Varghesejacob. However, the user needs blocking as a sock. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_26#User:Vrghs_jacob, Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_27#User:Vrghs_jacob_redux, Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_24#Copyvio_uploads_by_user_Ravelnine are a few of the discussions pertaining to this user here. On en.wiki there are far too many socks and violations, if any evidence of that is required, you can look at en:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob and en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob and en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vrghs jacob. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for indef by Morning Sunshine. Trijnstel_talk 15:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mladifilozof

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

I saw that this user uploaded tons of disputed and questionable images. Just check his talk page. How can his entire contributions be checked in detail? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You lead a war against User:Mladifilozof? --Botaurus (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, i lead a "war" against commons abuse, and wrong usage of wikipedia as a political tool. And, despite that, your question is pointless. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong use is one thing - political use - as you said now is - another thing. Can you substantiate on that? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC).

User:Matthewterence

Resolved

The user is uploading non-free images after he has been warned on the 16th of July by EugeneZelenko. He also reuploaded a previously tagged image: File:Rms stadium.jpg and File:The rizal memorial staidum.jpg.  Daniel  Message  14:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks by Denniss on 27 July. Trijnstel_talk 15:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User:PK1913 overwriting files

User:PK1913 insists on overwriting photos of Fu Jen Catholic University with new pictures; their initial edit summary was Year 2012, so I posted {{Dont overwrite}} on their talk page, with a specific note about why it's important not to just update images. PK1913 has made no reply on their talk page, and has reverted my reverts without comment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that template isn't translated into zh. I guess they're good faith but haven't understood the corrections. Can you split them to new filenames then make a list of the files you want protected? If anyone reading this speaks zh, a translation would be much appreciated too.--99of9 (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sock farm

Hello,

See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/MariamkhalifaAlazmi. What do you think about blocking this lot for abuse of multiple accounts? Yann (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you found any useful contributions in all thoses socks ? --PierreSelim (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Only 2 images were not deleted among dozens of uploads. Yann (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please some help

Dear admins, in a very emotional state I added today some lines of text at this talk page User talk:Elcobbola. I regret what I did and would very much like it removed. The page is now protected by this user. Can anybody remove my comments, please including the history? Thank you very much. Elly (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Elly, but I'm afraid we cannot forcefully remove that. That's not allowed, and entirely depends on that user, if s/he would allow the removal. If I were that user, I would not worry over its removal (as it contain nothing that serious). Perhaps you could try emailing that user and explain your situation to him/her? If the user agrees, I could easily remove all the relevant histories. Sorry I couldn't help. Rehman 18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks. Behaviour like this wil fire back anyway. Elly (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ellywa (talk · contribs) & Elcobbola (talk · contribs)

I nominated several uploads Ellywa (talk · contribs) for deletion, a circumstance to which Ellywa responded by leaving emotional messages on his and my talk pages.

• I responded to the message on my talk page, after which Ellywa removed the discussion with no edit summary. I restored it.
• Ellywa removed his comments again.
• I restored the comments, and left a note explaining my talk page policy (I retain comments), and that further removal would be considered vandalism.
• Ellywa removed that comment, with puerile edit summary.
• Ellywa again removed the content from my talk page.
• I restored the content and edit protected my talk page. I understand this is use of the tools in a situation in which I am involved, but 1) it is intended to stop the situation whilst the issue is brought here, 2) I understand that users have wide discretion over their own user and talk pages, and 3) use of the tools on one's own page is acceptable in cases of vandalism. Ellywa received warnings and notice that this was disruptive. That notwithstanding, I'm happy to unprotect my page if this was inappropriate. I would appreciate, however, third party warning to Ellywa} not to remove comments from other's talk pages. Эlcobbola _talk 18:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note I am a female. Not that it would make any difference, but for the record. Elly (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Elcobbola, you are not required to, but I would recommend removing that, as it is not really a big deal. Just make everyone happy :) Also, Elle, just a heads-up, you might not want to put out any more personal information or emotions :) Rehman 18:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

To note that the tickets as mentioned here are perfectly free as the tickets were in info-nl::wikiportrait (I can confirm Elly was an OTRS volunteer btw). Trijnstel_talk 14:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing. You should know Elly is/was an appreciated Dutch volunteer. I can understand that someone would reply this way if someone would nominate lots of uploads for deletion - even ones which were uploaded in 2005! No reason to threat her this way imho. Please try helping her a bit. That would be much better. Trijnstel_talk 15:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket discussion is not relevant here. Let's keep focus, shall we? Elly's contributions elsewhere are also not relevant. She removed content from my talk page, despite requests and warnings not to do so. This is not appropriate behavior, and a seasoned contributor would be expected to know that. There were no threats. Further, I can't magically make copyvios not be copyvios; Elly has a significant problem with derivative works and if she is distressed by errors being brought to her attention, she might wish to reevaluate her decision to contribute. Эlcobbola _talk 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I say is that it would be better if you threat her a bit less agressive. Replies as these really won't help. Believe me. Trijnstel_talk 15:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Replies that ignore the issue are what do not help, Trijnstel. An editor who has been active for at least 7 years, and has been sysop/bureaucrat/OTRS (!) does not need coddling. Aggressive is removing content from other’s talk pages despite their explicit requests and general talk page etiquette. Aggressive is adversarial and flippant remarks like these. Эlcobbola _talk 15:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Эlcobbola, you're acting like a jerk. Please be a bit more respectful to the other users. Changed the topic to reflect that this problem is about two users. Multichill (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, what I read in this whole discussion, is that user 3lcobbola is the only one that knows the truth, and is always right, and does not need to discuss anymore, because he is always right. Don't you understand that mass-deleting someones work makes people agitated? And that stopping the discussion by protecting your page will make people only more angry? Maybe it is better to overstep your pride, and let this matter be handled by someone else? Edoderoo (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally agree with Эlcobbola here - you do not remove stuff from other people's talk pages unless you're an archive bot. I make no comment about the rest of the situation, but I think that Эlcobbola is perfectly correct to prevent unwanted removal from their talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps both parties would agree to the talk page discussion being archived early? --99of9 (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeated copyright issues after warning

• Gdrg22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Hi. I was notified on En Wikipedia that a user was adding images of dubious copyright to articles. Investigation finds that he's uploading them here and was given a block warning if he didn't desist on 25 May.

I have flagged it for speedy deletion, but on 1 August he uploaded File:John Wheeler.jpg claiming it was PD as it was pre-1923. It's not. It's a 1946 portrait managed by the Associated Press (see image page). Since the subject of the photograph would have been all of 12 in 1923, it's absurd to claim PD under that status.

I believe that there is no basis for a presumption of pre-1923 in either of these:

• File:Solvay 1927 16 Hendrik Anthony Hans Kramers.jpg
• File:Milne.zoom52.jpg

In 1923, the subject of the first article was an associate professor only 4 years after the awarding of his degree. He was honored in 1947, which seems a far more likely date for what is obviously an image scanned from a newspaper. The latter was born in 1896 - does he look 27 in that photograph? I have not flagged either of these for deletion yet, since I don't have definitive proof that they are fraudulently tagged. Can they be deleted speedily here or should I nominate them for deletion debate?

With File:Proto alien by deadgirlart-d534a2t.jpg (which I did tag), he seems to have completely fabricated the license for this. We couldn't keep it even if the painter had released the image under the indicated license, because it's derivative, but so far as I can see she didn't. It's marked "©2012 ~DeadGirlArt" and "Art (c) ~DeadGirlArt Proto Alien (c) Ridley Scott"

This user shows no interest in complying with copyright policies. Unless that changes, I don't believe he's a benefit to the project. I think a block is in order. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. User has today been blocked for 1 week by Herby. Remaining uploads have been requested for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Raghdaa M. Nouh

User has uploaded the same logo 4 times and the same photograph 3 times, please check for likely copyvios. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications (SRTA-City).jpg (file)" is uploaded 7 times. Of course different sizes, orientation and names - some in English and probably a few in Arabic. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC).

Now. It was only uploaded 3 times when I posted here. The logo the user also uploaded 4 times appears to be deleted. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User warned. All files tagged as Unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Please move article to a category

Please move Fjälkinge kyrka to Category:Fjälkinge kyrka. This "article" was intended as a new category. Stigfinnare (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have created Category:Fjälkinge kyrka now. Just delete Fjälkinge kyrka instead. Stigfinnare (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Common Good (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Murilo Grillo

Murilo Grillo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user has uploaded several copyvios, all with blatently incorrect license tags, and all now tagged for speedy deletion. This is a new user, and I'm not sure this is at the block level yet, but at least an admin waning would be helpful, I think. DESiegel (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done User warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Anna walking.JPG deletion tag

The DR of this file is in favour of keep. Still the DR tag is still tagged on the page. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC).

 Done by User:Ezarate. -- Common Good (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:ZolPar and User:Кохане пиес - raster SVG and spam

Hello. I'm detected two users with similar pattern of uploads (may be, ask for checkuser?). User:ZolPar (talk, uploads, contribs) and User:Кохане пиес (talk, uploads, contribs) both are constantly uploading:

1. Raster images, "converted" to svg with graphing.ru (raster image embedded into svg = BadSVG). For example: File:Croixrouge_logos.svg, File:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.svg, File:Skyshot.svg, File:Googlelogo.svg - click Metadata->"Show extended details" and note Image title="Created with graphing.ru and Raphael". Some files are self-made screenshots and some are png files from Commons.
2. Logos of different web-sites marked as "{{PD-textlogo}}", both wiki-related and commercial: File:Логотип_.РФ.svg (cc-by-nc-nd), File:Chatovod-logo.svg, File:Dot_TK_logo.svg, File:Smaxi_logo.svg, File:Wikinews-logo-ru.svg
3. Screenshots of different commercial web-sites, some marked as {{PD-text}}: File:Google_web_search.svg, File:Chatovod mainpage.svg, File:Kqa16966445.svg, File:Smaxi.svg; File:Яндекс..png, File:The Pirate Bay screenshot.jpg, File:Яндекс, 30 мая 2012.png
4. Some files are out of the scope: File:Kqa16966445.svg,
5. I noted, that both users uploaded files (1, 2, 3, 4; by second user: 5) with active external link to web-site www.chatovod.ru - may be this is spam.
6. File:Smaxi_logo.svg - has active link too.

• I think, this is the same user because they both are spamming with chatovod.ru screenshots and both uses graphing.ru for creating raster SVGs. Please, review their uploads and then search files, created with graphing.ru (google search for graphing.ru on wikimedia.org) `A5b (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted a few more. Yann (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Morguefile license

Here is the license for images from the website. Can educational image be uploaded on Commons from the website?Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC).

No. "You can not sell, license, sublicense, rent, transfer or distribute this image" is not an acceptable term. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And thats not a license for you at all, its a license contract between morgueFile and the copyright holder that allows morgueFile - and not someone else - to reuse content under the conditions described in http://morguefile.com/license/morguefile/. From that license you (or anyone else) achieve no rights to do something with the content. --Martin H. (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

 Thank you. for the clarification. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC).

Seita-kun (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Spanish-speaking administrator help needed. This user definitely have trouble with understanding Commons policies. I already recommended (in English) him/her to read them before continuing uploads, but looks like this did not happen. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

One such admin is User:Waldir. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC).

User:Imanishagodara

Resolved

Self-promotion only account. Delete all uploads and block user please. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Files deleted, user warned. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Cris.real293

Resolved

The user is being blocked because his hoaxs, and here all his images are problematic, copyvios, hoaxs and aren't own work as he claims --Ezarateesteban 17:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Likely you meant "his hoaxes" and "his images". After finding more of his uploads as copyvios and considering his last block, I've blocked him for 3 months. --Túrelio (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Martin H.

I need a second opinion on a dispute I have with user:Martin H.. Few days ago he radically and without any discussion changed Commons:Creator removing a section which have been there since the beginning. The content of this section was discussed in various forums over the years and I believe that it reflected the majority view (at least of the few people that ever discuss it). I guess Martin was trying to bring the proposed guideline in line with his recent deletions of creator templates like Creator:Jérémy Jännick or Creator:Holger Motzkau. I by the way, I agree with Martin that creator templates are not a good match for use by Commons users, but since a lot of people use them that way I do not see any harm in it, as long as they tag it with "Type=Commons user" so we can exclude them from maintenance categories. I reverted the change and invited Martin to discuss it first, however Martin revert that. I do not want to start an edit war with him, but I also would like to have a discussion (hopefully at Commons talk:Creator) before any major changes like that. --Jarekt (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that since the material deleted had been in place for several months or more that a discussion after Jarekt's first reversion would have been good. Martin's second edit comment suggests that the discussion should take place before putting the material back, which is OK, although one step earlier might have been better.

As for the question at hand, I agree with Martin that the Creator template should be reserved for notables. Those of us who create a lot of images for Commons can use an appropriate User Category, but I don't think we should clutter up our image descriptions with the Creator template. I note that none of Jarekt's 900+ images use the template, so he seems to agree in practice. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts (and does editing a proposed guideline actually impact allowing/disallowing things?). Creator templates are intended for notable people (people who have an entry in at least one Wikipedia, or ought to have). Other cases like studios are reasonable as well, but not Commons users. Rd232 (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm using the creator template for most of the 2000 uploads of my own photos. The template is widely used for Flickr users, press photographers or reproduction photographers, and when fixing batch uploads we have been asked by admins to create templates for museum staff being far away from noticeable. There is no consensus that the namespace/template must not been used for commons users, except for an edit without any reference to a discussion. There is a draft for a policy which was uncontroversial for more than one year, and the Creator template supports Commons users so that it doesn't cause any further problems. So what is the reason for being inconsistent and throwing away machine-readable metadata? Are Commons photographers less worth than professional or flickr photographers? --Prolineserver (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The changes to Commons:Creator also included sections on creator templates for corporations (like Creator:Chelsea porcelain factory or other corporate creator templates) and groups (like Creator:Abdullah frères or other Group_creator_templates). And as I said I also do not like creator templates used for Commons users, but I do not think we should prohibit it, at least not without discussion first. Also one of the main purposes of a template is to allow quick verification of the date of death for files using {{PD-old}}. This means that we try to use it on as many images using {{PD-old}} as possible no matter how obscure is the author, as long as we have verifiable dates of birth/death. --Jarekt (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unlike WP:N, authorship and copyright are not related to the notability of an author. Therefore it does not matter if an author uploaded one or a million of his images to the Commons. In a long-term view, future generations will be able to determine if an image has fallen into the public domain or not, if living dates of an author are available. We can't and won't ask users to provide their personal data such as real name or birth year (which is the minimum to properly identify an author and the legal status of his works), but it's helpful if they do, like in Holger's case.

Prolineserver pointed out the machine-readable metadata. We are currently using {{Creator}} with an hcard microformat which is great for several reasons. hCard can be used to improve search results, extract details, index the data, build upon it through mapping tools or statistical software, etc. etc. A simple name instead of the template might therefore not be the best solution. As Jarekt pointed out, the type parameter assures that Commons related maintenance is not harmed by users applying them. Creating a second template for users seems to unnecessary as for now. I wonder how special cases such as User:Allan warren will be treated, who are both, Wikimedian and "notable" author. Technical aspects of either approach must not be underestimated.

The actions taken by Martin H. are inappropriate and without basis. A middle-term solution might result in a policy on this question - one way or the other. Until then I plead to continue creator templates for the common user.

Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Creator templates for non-notable users is verification. They're set up so that sourcing is done by linking to a Wikipedia article - that's the basic idea. Other forms of sourcing, assuming that reliable sources for non-notable authors are available, aren't provided for. If we're going to allow non-notable authors, we need to think about how to provide evidence for the asserted information (most crucially, often, date of death). Rd232 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't we have the verification problem all over Commons? Are we sure about the uploader, the license, or the depicted object at all? --Prolineserver (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no policy or guideline against user creator templates, we are allowing them already. A variety of "sourced" articles on people, especially photographers, is based on a single source or sources that are widely considered to be not trustworthy. In other cases we are relying on sources that are "reliable" just because the institution issueing the information is. If the Bundesarchiv/National Archives/Library of Congress/etc. is providing metadta on photographers we tend to adopt the information without questioning it. Point being: a user declaring his personal information is not more or less trustworthy than an institution doing so for authors in their collection.

However, if reliability needs to be "secured" we have mechanisms to act accordingly. Providing copies of your ID through OTRS or depositing a copy of your ID at the WMF or local chapter could be an option. Nonetheless I abstain from these solutions, since for the reason mentioned above (e.g. someone has a fake ID).

Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Peter Weis and Prolineserver. Notability stuff from en-wiki has absolutely nothing to do with Commons. What does it even mean, "notable"? It's just some en-wiki cruft that has no relevance to Commons, and has no any real sense outside of en-wiki. Commons is not an encyclopedia, it's an educational media archive for God's sake. I've never heard about media archives that use in their descriptions different notations for "notable" and "non-notable" artists. It's just ridiculous to import from Wikipedia ideas and concepts that are so alien to archives and databases like Commons. Many photographers from e.g. LoC are not notable in any sense of that word, so their templates should be deleted... for what exactly reason? Verifiability? Verifiability and "notability" are orthogonal things, information about artist could be verifiable, but the artist themselves can be not "notable" (and vice versa). Because Creator templates "clutter up" description pages? Well, it's not even serious. So what are the reasons to drop consistency, machine readability, simplicity (you maintain single description of the author in the single place instead of hundreds), copyright-relevant background information (mostly date of death, but the citizenship could also be important), and other goodies?

What about Help:Namespaces, it's neither a policy nor a guideline. It's a help page, it should explain existing rules or consensus, not to define it. So I am going to remove.that clause from Help:Namespaces, because obviously there is no consensus about it. --Trycatch (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:66.97.232.152

66.97.232.152 (talk · contribs) is probably well-intentioned, but his/her edits seem to be to be as often as not problematic. I left a note at User talk:66.97.232.152, but since this is an IP address that seems to have just popped up, made some changes, and left, I don't give great odds of my having reached the person. Someone with more patience than I have might want to go through all of this user's edits & see what should be either reverted or further worked on. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments on En Wikipedia

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1
• Wikiwatcher1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Hi. I know this is a bit irregular, but there's a "Request for Comment" on the English Wikipedia about a cross-project issue. Since people here may have opinions - on either side of the divide - I felt it was appropriate to notify. The base concern is whether or not uploads from this user are "best practices" in terms of verifying copyright status. The user has been notified, of course, on English Wikipedia.

Having never participated in an RFC on Commons, I'm not sure if they're conducted entirely the same, so I'll note that "threaded" style commentary belongs on the talk page, Wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1. The face is for endorsing or making "statements". :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

May be a bad moment now as the Server admin log[9] just says: Nemo_bis: more or less everything at !Wikimedia / !Wikipedia seems down. ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like most problems come from the contributions on Commons, it's a bit weird to go on enwiki to comment about it. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues on Commons, which is why I notified you guys. :) On En Wikipedia, an RFC is not really a disciplinary process, but a chance to convince a contributor to reconsider his behavior or approach before disciplinary processes are needed. (Or, alternatively, to convince the people who filed the RfC that they are wrong that the behavior is a problem.) Participation can be very helpful in making sure that the contributor understands how the community approaches issues, hopefully so as to avoid the need for disciplinary actions. Input would be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The RFC on en.wp seems all about Commons images rather than a "cross-project issue". Raising this on en.wp seems misplaced when a review on Commons by those that understand Commons policies and norms would have been a more obvious approach. I am not surprised at the lack of comment by Wikipedians on en.wp about a non-Wikipedia problem, or the lack of interest on Commons if the noticeboards here are treated as a second best option as a place to handle Commons problems; particularly by someone in a WMF Community Liaison role.

RFC/U on en.wp often results in community sanctions, however as these could only ever apply to the English Wikipedia, it would be bizarre to expect that the result of an en.wp dispute resolution process would be considered by Commons Administrators to apply to this user account on Commons, in effect an attempt to bypass Commons processes. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

However - equally it would but unfortunate if Commons folk were not aware of what was going on on en wp so the information is appreciated. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the user has uploaded problematic images to both projects. Check Wikipedia and Commons logs. Red links at both places. It is thus in my opinion not correct to say that this is a problem which only affects Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So which process would you now recommend for MRG to follow? --Fæ (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not treating Commons' noticeboards as "a second best option as a place to handle Commons problems" - this is a situation that I have been dealing with for some time in my capacity as a volunteer on both projects, a capacity in which I've been operating for years. However, a CCI was requested on Wikipedia and opened on Wikipedia, and hence I centered the RFC there even though it (and the CCI) is based on issues on both projects. We routinely cross projects with those, because they are of course not political - the problem of copyright issues is one all projects share. And I'm not the only volunteer who moves comfortably among projects. :/ The intent of inviting others who care about the issue to weigh in is similarly non-political. This is an opportunity, I hope, to put an end to the problem so that we retain a contributor who has provided us much valuable content, unfortunately mixed heavily with material we can't keep. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Politics? That seems an odd interpretation of project concerns raised here. If there is something political going on in the WMF that I am unaware of, feel free to email me the details. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Politics refers to assigning best/second-best status to projects - determining questions of jurisdiction, if you will. That's a pretty politicized approach. We're all Wikimedians, working together towards one goal. The problem crosses projects. Would Commons have been a better place for the RFC? Probably, it seems, since most Wikipedians don't really get into copyright questions, whereas users here do. But it is where it is, and surely the main point is just making sure that we can clearly communicate a need for good upload practices. (What does this have to do with the WMF? :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I assumed you must mean WMF politics as using the word to describe the choice of process between those on the English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons still seems a very odd word to apply. Presumably a cultural gap in language, so let's consider this discussion of words off-topic, especially as you now seem to agree that Commons would have been the best place to address the apparent user issues. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Politics seems like an entirely natural word to me to use to describe jurisdictional questions. :) But, as you say, cultural gaps make language challenging sometimes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh. The RFC doesn't seem to be working anyway. Among his most recent batch - some of which may be fine and some of which may be guesswork - is File:Evelyn Keyes - 1944.jpg. This is marked "This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice." It looks to me like it had a copyright notice, before it was cropped. :/ Does it not say "(c) Evelyn Keyes" in the bottom corner of the original upload? Since it's here being discussed, I haven't tagged it. I suspect (unless I'm misreading that copyright symbol) it needs to be gone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I filed that file for deletion, but only to find that currently our DR notification template is broken :/ . --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to come from his user_talk page, if you preview the section the template displays correctly in preview mode. (Is there a limit of call to the {{Autotranslate}} ?) --PierreSelim (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have boldly archived where nobody has archived before. This seems to have corrected the transclusion problem. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

. --Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the massive history of copyright violations I am amazed this user has not apparently been blocked so far? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support a block or a last chance warning, given the history on his user_talk page. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

They are engaging in dialogue at least, on the en.wp dispute resolution process. I have invited them to comment here on the basis that they are actively being considered for a block on Commons as a precaution against future significant numbers of apparent copyright violations. --Fæ (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

He does a lot of good work. I would personally hope that he could continue doing so. Personally, I'd just really like for him to understand that the burden of evidence is on him and to exercise some due diligence in his uploads, as well as making sure he doesn't assert guesses as facts. Mopping up behind him is requiring a significant amount of time from other users; because of his history, it's difficult to take his assertions about copyright status on face value. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I do understand your point, however I would like to point out that the 130 notifications on his talk page were not enought to make him understand this. His comment at the RFC looks to me he is not willing to take that seriously. On the block thing I was thinking of something like 1 week so he that he undertands it's not ok. Now If someone thinks we can still discuss with Wikiwatcher1 to get a positive result this is the way to go (discussion is always better). --PierreSelim (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly can't argue with you there. And I have to note that my only prior RFC/U experience (also on a cross-project issue) didn't end as I'd hoped. I'm not entirely sure how effective they are. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion was just brought to my attention with a request to comment here, but after reading through the comments so far I'm not sure any response from me is requested since there are no questions. But I'll at least mention some personal observations:

MRG stated up top, an RFC is not really a disciplinary process, but a chance to convince a contributor to reconsider his behavior or approach before disciplinary processes are needed. This statement seems to imply an agenda premised on ABF. I only mention the ABF issue since it's not the first time I have repeated that assertion to MRG. Besides the Evelyn Keyes photo with the "c" symbol an obviously defective notice (and ignoring film still copyright laws,) all of this talk so far is aimed at bypassing any problems with the recent uploads, which is strange.

Someone is again relying on the large number of images tagged and removed over the years, 130 tags they said. I would first mention that about 70% or more of those tags, and removals, were IMO, erroneous. One admin at the CCI wrote, After seeing what Wikiwatcher1 has said here and reviewing some of the deleted images, I think most of their images are probably okay and were deleted too hastily. . . .

Some of the main problems with the deleted images were of a few types:

1) About 70 photos were machine-gun tagged over two phases, by one commons non-admin user, and deleted because there was not way to respond; another non-admin tagged 36 a few months ago in a similar blitz-tagging, but they were all untagged after I posted a note about it at a copyright forum. A quick example of the boilerplate copy-paste pretext used to delete the 70 images, was this:

There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untruthful) rationale. That editor, who apparently is on the opposite side of the globe from Hollywood, totally ignored the cited U.S. laws, calling them OR, and relying on them as "untruthful." Result, about 70 imaged deleted! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

2) A large number of the remaining images that were uploaded as PD but tagged and removed, were for reasons which I don't argue about, but are still questionable. Namely, an obvious publicity-type head-shot with no notice, but the editor later found the same image used on the website of a stock photo agency with a general copyright notice covering all their images. A recent tag for a 1940s publicity photo was found on a Sony site, where the website was copyrighted 2012! Image deleted. Many of the other deletions were of this very tenuous type assumption of copyright protection, more of a "We Own the World" copyright notice, sung to the tune of We Are the World ;)

3) A large number have been tagged and deleted based on a totally new rule, still not covered anywhere, that a scan of the reverse side of the image must also be added. So now I try to include that. One editor wrote about the subject that they had uploaded over 30,000 images over the years and this was the first time they ever heard anyone mention that idea. However, I'm still trying to comply with these unilateral demands.

In all honesty, considering the efforts made to find, fix and add valuable bio images to articles, I consider all of my uploads, good or questionable, to be extremely good faith work. To read anything biased toward the ABF side strikes me as ridiculous. My comments at the RfC and CCI, both initiated by MRG and We Hope, are similar. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You might benefit by reading en:WP:AGFC. I do not assume that you are operating in bad faith; however, I think you have clearly demonstrated that your practices are not as rigorous as they need to be. While I know you will object to this being mentioned again, it is demonstrably true that you have claimed dates on images and copyright renewal practices by publications that were easily disproven. There have been a large number of images deleted due to such errors. It is this practice that needs to be corrected; diligence needs to be applied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering where we are, could you point to a Commons policy that makes your point? Perhaps a part of Scope or Precautionary principle could be useful, or just the Staying mellow essay? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that links says what I want to say. It doesn't really matter so much to me who hosts the sentiment. :) The distinction between "assuming bad faith" and "assuming correction is needed" is the important thing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been around en.wp and Commons for many years, I have even worked closely with yourself there in the past, however I had never seen the AGFC shortcut on en.wp until you linked to it here. I have seen the WP:CV policy it points to, but that is not quite the same thing as the case made in the behavioural guideline. The same form of words is available as a proposed guideline for Commons (Commons:Assume good faith), but there are likely to be good reasons why it has remained in than state since creation in 2010. If the outcome of this discussion is for administrators to consider if action is needed or not, then it should be seen to be established on clear policy grounds that are accepted on this project rather than on the English Wikipedia. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether AGF is a guideline on Commons or not, the gist of AGFC certainly applies on Commons: "Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices." In this case, I would suggest to Wikiwatcher1 that he be more scrupulous about verifying the PD status of images. He should only upload images which are clearly public domain, not probably public domain. Kaldari (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the English Wikipedia AGFC guideline does not apply on Commons and "the gist" of it would never be a rationale to block a user, particularly when used on its own as a rationale without being underpinned by Commons policy. Assuming that the international community of administrators on Commons must be familiar with English Wikipedia policies and behavioural guidelines and then take decisions accordingly is not a supportable position. I note, for example, that on the German Wikipedia the "equivalent" document Geh von guten Absichten aus has no mention of Good Faith and Copyright. I have suggested to Moonriddengirl how a similar point can be made using Wikimedia Commons guidelines on my talk page at User_talk:Fæ#Request_for_clarification. Persisting in this thread with defending the approach that English Wikipedia guidelines must somehow be shoehorned into the international context of Commons, is far more likely to just distract from the possible copyright issues of concern rather than help reach a resolution. --Fæ (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Recently there was a discussion at enWP re: UPI photos and copyright protection, as per information from the US Library of Congress about their status-"However, the Library’s legal office has advised the Division that photographs published with proper copyright notices between 1923-1963 may be protected if properly renewed, while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office.". The user's file from UPI was deleted due to uncertainty re: its status. As of now, he has uploaded six UPI files here today which would appear to have the same uncertainty.

• File:George C. Scott - UPI 1972.JPG
• File:Sharon Tate 1965.JPG Bettmann/Corbis copyright
• File:Jerry Lewis - directing - 1969.JPG
• File:Rod Stewart - 1971.JPG
• File:Sellers - Hawn 1970.JPG
• File:Mick jagger 1981.JPG

The enWP discussion closed on 14 August with deletion by the uninvolved admin. We hope (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion and deletion revolved around the remote possibility that maybe there was a copyright notice on the reverse side. One user wrote, "Insufficient information available. The image might be in the public domain, but the copyright status can't be determined without seeing the back of the photo." As noted above, this non-guideline requirement by some editors is disputed, as even MRG found no copyright notices on the UPI images she added.

In any case, these images do have a scan of the reverse side, and I would have hoped, and expected, you would have pointed that out, instead of me. Not everyone has time to read the linked discussion, after all, and without mentioning it there is potential innuendo created. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is illustration of a similar case of use of UPI photos which happened there with a photo you uploaded. If you choose to perceive "innuendo", so be it. We hope (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If the above 6 examples are illustrative of the alleged copyright problems, then the issue appears to be one of what constitutes "significant doubt" in line with the precautionary principle. On the surface, Wikiwatcher1 appears to be correctly applying Commons licensing templates that rely on the scheme (or more accurately a sub-set) presented at http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. The challenge, to me, appears to be whether an appropriate search for copyright registration has been completed sufficiently to remove any significant doubt as to the public domain status.

On the assumption that these images are illustrative, I propose that these 6 images are treated as a test case and all six have Commons deletion requests created. Everyone then has a chance to either confirm the license as valid, or that there remains significant doubt as to whether a copyright notice applies that has not been found yet - without the need to rely on prior discussions on the English Wikipedia. Should these six images be deleted, I would expect implications for a large number of other images on Wikimedia Commons (not just Wikiwatcher1's uploads) that treat a failure to find a copyright notice being taken as sufficient evidence to remove "significant doubt" as to the public domain status of the image. Checking the license templates on these 6 files, for comparison purposes it can be seen that across the whole of Wikimedia Commons, 155 files rely on {{PD-US-1978-89}} and 4,110 rely on {{PD-Pre1978}}.

It should be noted that none of the 6 files above has a prior deletion request on Commons.

In order for Wikiwatcher1 to be seen clearly to be making good faith attempts to avoid "repeated uploading of inappropriately licensed media" (per Blocking policy), I would like to recommend to Wikiwatcher that for the period that the deletion requests are under discussion, they avoid uploading any files that would introduce similar concerns (i.e. UPI photographs). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and created the deletion requests at:

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:George C. Scott - UPI 1972.JPG
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sharon Tate 1965.JPG
3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jerry Lewis - directing - 1969.JPG
4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rod Stewart - 1971.JPG
5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sellers - Hawn 1970.JPG
6. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mick jagger 1981.JPG

--Fæ (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1 block

I have blocked him for a month, enought discussion, Wikiwatcher1 (talk · contribs) is not listening to any concern raised. We have lots of files to investigate, no need to have more, almost all his last uploads are from the UPI which is said to be problematic by the legal departement of the LoC, which was pointed out to Wikiwatcher1 but still fails. As Herby said it's amazing to see the copyvio history in Wikiwatcher1 talk page and see he has never been blocked. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wikiwatcher1 has made an unblock request (If a fellow admin wish to review it). --PierreSelim (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal In consideration that this is Wikiwatcher1's first block, I propose this is changed to a 1 week block rather than 1 month. I have seen far, far more rude and disruptive contributors being taken by others to AN, who appeared to actively intend to create a hostile environment to spoil the ability for other contributors to access and enjoy contributing to Wikimedia Commons, without such a serious sanction; indeed a 1 week block has often taken several discussions on AN before even that is put in place. A 1 month block here does appear a heavy first action. Wikiwatcher1 appears to be prepared to take part in deletion review discussions in good faith to help reach a consensus on how to interpret copyright requirements, where copyright notices have not been found for photographs they have uploaded. A suitable warning or temporary constraint on what they can upload for a period (say, 1 month) might be a better and more positive way of handling this issue. I note that the block log states "Until we sort out the mess you have created" which implies that the block is intended to enable a period of review by others, however for the six deletion requests I created above there has been no comment apart from feedback I copied from Wikiwatcher1 from their own talk page, despite it being 5 days since these were created. Consequently the block itself does not appear to be helping 'sort out the mess' as it was intended to do. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against a reduction to 1 week really. The goal of this block is to not increase our backlog when it is clear that almost every upload by Wikiwatcher1 raises copyright problem (this is what I meant by until we clear out ...). He must understand our COM:PRP, and do a clear research for each file he uploads. 1/4 of his contribution to Commons have been deleted (the same problem can be seen on enwiki, which is not what we are talking about here, but it shows a pattern), and there are maybe more copyvios still waiting reviews.

Now as You said it's his first block (which is quite surprising according to his copyvio history, we generally block faster than that), 1 month might be too long, However I would feel we miss something without a conditional unblock such as until the UPI DR are closed Wikiwatcher1 must not upload UPI picture and he must improve the documentation of why pictures are PD.. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: to explain the quite long duration of the initial block, I've felt that Wikiwatcher1 was clearly not take this seriously while having a RFC opened on his uploads on enwiki, a CCI opened also on enwiki, an AN/U threads here, massive number of deletion notifications here too. Now if there is any indication he is willing to improve (and not contest everything) the block can be lifted anytime (blocks are preventive for me, not punitive). --PierreSelim (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing that an admin or admins review the uploads of this user and appropriately tag any questionable files. The last time this was attempted there was quite a bit of static regarding tagging one month's worth of them. Another editor met with the same resistance about a year ago. There are more UPI files to be tagged as questionable in light of this being a "test case". Regarding UPI and other news service photos, it's possible we may end up with a separate discussion of whether they are a problem.

• 1975 Associated Press photo
• same photo with a Columbia pictures copyright

A search for copyright done on the photo under Associated Press would probably produce no results, as the second one is copyrighted to Columbia. User good faith would not be a factor here re: wire service photos, but whether there's enough solid information to truly determine that wire service photos are in the public domain. We hope (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Asking again for an admin or admins to review this user's uploads. I tagged some remaining UPI photos for DR and this was the result at en.WP. We hope (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Bad Boy97

• Bad Boy97 (talk · contribs)

This user has continued to upload copyrighted material and is ignoring the copious number of messages on his talk page asking him to decease. Please block him. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked MorganKevinJ^(talk) 02:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Italienske_markarbejdere._Abruzzerne.jpg

There is somethimg wrong with this file - can somebody help me? I looks fine in full size. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Tried a re-upload but the same result. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be an error of the thumbnail, the 100 % view is okay --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And how to fix that? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

See Category:Bug 27635. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

thx - saved as RGB color space and now fixed. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

User:OfficialLiamHowlett

This user is not Liam Howlett, so there is a username issue. All of his uploads are problematic, and are additionally only being used to vandalize enwiki. Not all of the images have been dealt with as of yet, but this user needs o be blocked to prevent recurrence. MSJapan (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

 blocked indefinitely as per username policy. INeverCry 17:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

User Yikrazuul is disrupting a Featured Picture Candidate voting process by introducing a FPX template in an advanced voting period alluding to reasons not found in the guidelines of the forum #REDIRECT[[10]]. The FPX template will close the vote after a certain amount of time and it robs the voters in favor of the image to have the opportunity to override according to the rules because of the date. I request that user Yikrazuul be admonished and the template removed. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Template has been removed, please discuss with the user if you disagree (it's the spirit of the wikis). --PierreSelim (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Anomey

Semi-annoying person, inserts rotate-bot requests for random images that do not need rotation... AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've warned this user on their talkpage. INeverCry 06:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Arulraja's uploads

Almost all of the user's uploads are from [11], which is copyrighted "Copyrights © Kagapujandar.com. Designed by Mslive.co.in". The user are previously also uploaded copyrighted images, which were deleted. Please take necessary action.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User warned. All files deleted, except one. Yann (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Changing the policy for anonymous works on Commons

Dear friends, I would like to draw your attention to this DR. The DR is closed and Jim has rightly decided in favour of deleting the file as per available conventions.

However, the world is moving at a faster pace. We are currently witnessing political upheavals in Arabia and probably are likely see the same in some residual communist / dictatorial countries. pieces of art / painting/ posters by totally anonymous persons - people would not like to reveal their identity at all are more like to surface. And they are valuable from academic point of view. I therefore request a policy change on Commons to keep them. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC).

There's an escape clause for illegally-placed graffiti, and another de-facto loophole for anonymous works which originated in a strongly anti-copyright context (which is why the flag of the Anonymous group was kept), but what you mention doesn't appear to fall under either of those cases. In any case, the proper place would probably be Commons:Village pump/Copyright‎... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In France it's sadly not that clear since 2006 and a court case declaring graffiti on trains as legal temporary artwork. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This can be uploaded under fair use. Yann (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If the creator is anonymous and doesn't tell us anything in the EXIF or other associated information, how would we distinguish between an anonymous work where the creator definitely wanted to keep the copyright (John le Carré for example) and anonymous works such as the subject poster for which the creator presumably wants maximum exposure and would be happy to have us keep it? My two examples are obvious, but there is going to be a grey area when it is not so clear. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios?

Please look at the uploads Wiki 0007 (talk · contribs). Lots are already deleted for copyvio and I suspect the others to be also copyvios. Any thoughts? Trijnstel_talk 15:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bollywood Hungama stuff is fine. It's a horrendously unprofessional website that employes rather talentless photographers, but the licenses are fine. Haven't checked anything else, but I'm seeing a lot of BH uploads. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Saleem100 a new account of Sridhar1000?

I've come across this rename request. Since the requester's username is similar to the uploader's username who is an indefinitely blocked user, I did not immediately adhere to the rename request. Please check if this is an effort to evade indefinite block by a new username. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

I'm a steward and therefore I was able to perform a CU on te.wikipedia. Result: Confirmed. I blocked and locked the account. Thanks! Trijnstel_talk 13:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tm (talk · contribs) disregards COM:C

Hi.

Today I did some cleanup with categories Category:Lusophony Games and Category:Jogos da Lusofonia. Before today, these 2 categories existed and were not linked. I joined the content of the 2 categories, selected the English name to be the main category name (per COM:C: "Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy).") and transformed Category:Jogos da Lusofonia in a redirection. Tm (talk · contribs) reverts my changes without any justification. I revert back and point him to COM:C (diff). He reverts back, just copying my edit message and appending the sentence "However there are exceptions.". He never says why he considers that this might be an exception.

Could you explain COM:C to Tm (talk · contribs) and make the English name the main name of the category ? Cheers. Badzil (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

He seems to be more willing to discuss now but I am not going to revert again. Badzil (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This user has the terrible habit of reverting without discussion, even when called at his talk page. He uses that scheme until he is on the verge of being a disciplinary problem. Even when he seems to comply, it's only temporary. He waits in the shadows some time until the other user is away from Commons, then goes and does as he wants, however deprived of logic it may be. Such was the case of Manors in Portugal, which he recurrently adds to the "agriculture" cats, even when it has been explained to him exhaustively that only part of the Portuguese manors are related at all with agriculture. More recently, he insists - while preposterously ignoring all discussion - that Jewish cemetery in Funchal should be in one of the 10+ Portuguese names it has - it's merely a functional name, the cemetery of the Jews - instead of the English version, quite prominent at the very gate of the cemetery. Very unnerving. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've given up, especially I never got any support whatsoever. He renamed hundreds of churches and castles in Portuguese, thereby chasing away user:Zeorymer which spent months of work to get proper names in Portugal. Look at the history of Category:Manifestação dos Sindicatos Europeus em Guimarães a 5 de Julho de 2007 and here: that is really ridiculous. --Foroa (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why hasn't he been blocked in the past for his behavior? Someone should give him a month off, that should be plenty enough time to learn our rules.--FAEP (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness, the system adopted by user:Zeorymer had some huge flaws - such as translating freguesias to parishes, when we have true parishes (not civilian) in Portugal. Or using hybrid names - "Church of Santa Maria Madalena", for instance - which had the worst of the two worlds - it was neither in English nor in Portuguese, therefore making those names virtually useless on Google and perceptible only to those with a grasp of English AND Portuguese. Indeed, I've come to the conclusion that it is much more useful to have the names of monuments and buildings generally on their native tongue, or else one risks to only find garbage when googling for them. For instance, a search for "Chapel of Our Lady of Sorrows" and Caniçal returns only a lot of unrelated garbage. Try "Capela de Nossa Senhora da Piedade" + Caniçal, and see the difference. English names should be avoided for monuments and buildings as a rule of thumb, IMO; unless they are merely functional as is the case of the Jewish Cemetery.

In any case, the point should be made that user:Zeorymer, with all his problematic system, was nevertheless a polite user with who one could discuss things. user:Tm, on the other hand, simply ignores all discussion until you menace him or similar, then pretends to comply only to do the same after sometime. It's unnerving and leaves a feeling of impotence, since those matters generally do not deserve the work of escalating the issue. Victory by fatigue.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

At least, user:Zeorymer tried with very little support, being reverted all the time by TM and he finally agreed to rename parishes to freguesias. And don't tell me that the names here are a clear example how things should be named. And I doubt that a church prefixed with "church" instead of igreja will jeopardize the usability; people knowing romance languages will find their way in that, it becomes completely different with Slavic and East European languages when they apply the same rule. --Foroa (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(side note: There is a serious problem with this category, it is a collection of Portuguese odds and ends located at Vas County, Hungary?!))

Freguesias should never have been renamed to "parishes", I warned Zeorymer about the confusion it would cause with the religious parishes, and he agreed to stop it and wait for further discussion.

About the "Church of", "Chapel of", etc, it is quite fishy. I initially tried that system along with Zeorymer, but it has so many flaws that I abandoned it. We have some peculiar ways of naming buildings and monuments that simply can't be translated, or the meaning would be lost. In any case, it is fundamentally wrong, since most of the time there are no sources for such names, and they are nothing more than chimeras invented by Wikipedians and Wikimedians. Or by the casual tourist, which is the same. It is not as bad as translating everything into English, which is the worst case scenario, but is not as good as keeping the original name most of the time. You never call Rua dos Murças "Street of the Murças" for very good reasons, and this basic rule should apply to buildings and monuments as well.

Anyway, we digress. The problem is the uncivil behaviour from Tm. It would be great if an uninvolved administrator could warn him about his horrible habit of revert everything he does not like without caring the least about discussing the subject. This is a collaborative project, we may all have our flaws and differences, and everything, but if one part is like a wall with whom you can't discuss, it is hard to go anywhere. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"It would be great if an uninvolved administrator could warn him about his horrible habit of revert everything he does not like without caring the least about discussing the subject." I agree. Badzil (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is somebody going to take any action? If no, why? Badzil (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of revert war ban

Hello all:

I have just delivered harshly worded messages to the users Walter Görlitz, Gustavo neto, Principal adjoint, Bruno-ban, PeeJay2K3, Fma12, Ricky Sen, and Lemonade51 instructing them of the following:

1. The long term and occasionally rapid revert wars over whether football kits should include logos or not (see File:Kit body rmcf1213a.png and File:Kit body arsenal1213a(2).png for example) are unacceptable.
2. They are advised to upload two seperate versions if they cannot agree on what the proper image should be. Those versions should be linked through the other versions section on the information template.
3. Putting each other's versions up for deletion at DR is unacceptable.
4. I am ready and willing to block any one of them for a month if they don't stop immediately.

This is an edit war that has occurred over dozens of images (every major team's home, away, and third kits, several year's versions), and sometimes hit the dozen reverts in one image in one day mark. Attempts at resolution both here and on English Wikipedia have failed. I am convinced that this is the only valid option.

I hope I have the backing of the rest of the administrative body in this, Sven Manguard Wha? 16:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, fully. Your suggestions are good. Yann (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks appropriate to me. INeverCry 17:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You have. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You have my support too. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You have my full support as well.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Ermis177

All uploads are attack images for the purposes of vandalizing the en:Loubo Siois article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Images were deleted as copyvios. User will be warned. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Mandi (Garo) Women, Bangladesh, Adivasi Day, 2006-00, (C) Biplob Rahman.jpg

Hi, I would like to know the status of this file - (c) apparently indicates copyright whereas the uploader has used {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} tag under licensing. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

There's nothing inconsistent about that; if a work is under the CC-BY-SA, then it's under copyright. Licensing a work freely uses copyright, it doesn't get rid of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Category: Wemen, Victoria

I suppose Category:Wemen,_Victoria should ideally be Category:Women of Victoria or Category:Women, Victoria. Cf: Womyn. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

errrr? First of all, this page is for issues with other editors; second, it is a name of an locality in the Australian state of Victoria. Please do a little more research first, before making such suggestion! Bidgee (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:MarkMysoe

• MarkMysoe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

I'm suspecting that User:MarkMysoe is sending permissions to OTRS from several e-mail addresses he created only to impersonate the original photographer. For some background please read my messages to User:Sphilbrick. If you read it, please look at the File:Kwasi Danquah III.jpg. User:MarkMysoe denied to provide source of this photo saying "A photo does not have to be sourced to a website, photos can be kept on mobile phones and computers, and not always on a person's website. OTRS has been received from the author. Stop forcing deletion due to personal beliefs and accusations."[12] But that's not thruth, I found the source of this photo, it comes from FHM website, exactly the same resolution. As we can see on that website Lucy Hancock is an author of the article, but not necessarily a photographer. I found Lucy Hancock e-mail address: removed[13], so you can compare this e-mail with that from OTRS or contact Lucy Hancock directly regarding the matter.--Oleola (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I just received a response from Lucy Hancock[14]. She denies that this is her photo, and this confirms my suspicions - User:MarkMysoe pretends to be original photographer by sending fake e-mails to OTRS. I bet he did the same with other photos he uploaded.--Oleola (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks for contacting her. Contacting an author to get a confirmation is what I'd have suggested on my talk following your question. I fully agree, that guy is a copyvio uploader and at some point he made a very bad finding that it is not only possible to take other peoples work without asking, no, its also possible to fake legal documents. Both is unacceptable, indefblock on all projects imo. --Martin H. (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a fraud to me too. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Two files have been deleted outright, several have been placed up for deletion, and the user has been blocked indefinitely. Considering that the person deliberately perpetrated fraud in a way that cannot be blamed on misunderstanding copyright or Commons, I don't see anything wrong with an indef in this case, and neither did anyone I consulted. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Fastily: Harming Users and Wikimedia Foundation

More trolling by an editor evading block Bidgee (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrator FASTILY (TALK) made a baseless accusation against a user. (See "Sock question" in User talk:Fastily.) "Serious accusations require serious evidence," (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) but no evidence supports the serious accusation made by FASTILY (TALK). It appears his only purpose was to censor the legitimate discussion of another administrator's violations of Commons:Policies and guidelines. Such blatant censorship of legitimate discussion, and such blatant cronyism, harm the legitimate interests of Commons users and the [Wikimedia Foundation]. [Wikimedia Foundation] cannot afford to condone such cronyism and illegitimate censorship. --150.135.162.16 00:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I need help with a harassing user.

Hello I really need your help since yesterday I really can't understand why this user Ytoyoda has been harassing me. And I ask her/him to stop and anyway keeps on replying at my talk page things that I didn't even ask. This person removed my permission to check files without reason. Keeps changing and changing the tags on my files. I am not in this place to play these crazy games with this kind of people. I just want this person to stop bothering me. Could someone tell this user to erase any of her/his communications on my talk page and to permanently stop to communicate with me and to permanently stop reviewing my files please? I don't want to have any further argument about this with this user. I just want this person to leave me alone both on wiki commons and on Wikipedia. This user had taken a personal vein on me just because I talk to her/him bluntly. I kindly ask for some other user to check my files. I want this person to be blocked over my personal activities please, anyone else can do it. I demand respect. If I replied to this user angry I apologize but she/he provoked it. And won't let things rest. I want this person to leave me alone I tried to reason personally with him/her, both I find this person to be extremely intransigent and unkind. Please help me. Solve it please. Thank you.[[15]] --FR9 05:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to respond to these charges because, for one, I have a hard time understanding what this user's trying to say. But for what it's worth, here's the extent of my communication with this user and the sockpuppet: User talk:Ytoyoda#You are wrong_and_mean. Long story short, the above user uploaded copyrighted images and I tried to explain the vagaries of copyright and derivative works, etc, but some things apparently got lost in translation. Maybe someone who speaks this user's native language can help? --Ytoyoda (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The user has been told to visit COM:OTRS and email us there to discuss about the issues. I also told him that an image with the no-derivatives condition will never be accepted here. I think there is a language issue, but I am not certain what is the user's main language. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Zscout370 hello look I speak English I replied in a hurry anyone can make mistakes and it is not that bad don't exaggerate. I don't think someone who is not a native English speaker will ever write as well as I do even with the mistakes. And look this is not about the files it is about this user attitude just ask her/him to stop communicating with me and checking my files. Let someone else handle it. That's all. Thanks a lot.--FR9 05:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Look Ytoyoda I replied in a hurry I speak English, you don't even know what you are talking about I think you are projecting actually. Haven't you ever made a mistake. And you very well know why I am complaining about you. I warned but you insisted. What are you also a racist? Your remark is. Anyway let's let this go, is not worthy of you time nor mine. Let's live in peace. The only thing I am asking you is to stop communicating with me none got lost in translation. Are you the only one working on this website? Just leave me alone. Do whatever you want with others this post is not for you. You are very rude. You see why I say this user is harassing me any time I do anything she/he is right there to reply or do something aren't any other people in charge. Please Ytoyoda stop. Thank you. I already apologize for my angry replies and for my spelling mistakes. I don't even want an apology from you, just forget I exist and stop getting in my way. Please why can't you let it go and stop it. Please understand.--FR9 05:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue we have here is that you are uploading files that are not free in any way. Similar images were pasted at an undeletion request and there are similar issues. One image, so far, has turned out to be taken from Getty Images. We cannot accept anything from them, unless they are public domain due to age. Second, the license you chose cannot be used on the Commons at all. Anything with non-commercial and/or no-derivatives will never be accepted; we only accept images that can be used by anyone, for any purpose and anywhere. As I said on my talk page, there are times we are not able to see an image issue for months or years. Also, when a user has been caught with uploads with a questionable license or have been stolen, he/she has every right to check other upload to see if any other issues exist). This is what Ytoyoda and I stand by his actions. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand but I DIDN'T STEAL ANY PICTURES that is not my intention in any case. I made a mistake by uploading the image with the Getty Images copyright, but that was Friday or Thursday that is a long gone issue. I am sorry I didn't know that was so wrong, but so we learn right? And let's clarify again the reason I am writing here is not at all the images! Clear? It is about the motioned user YTOYODA ATTITUDE in general this is the issue. Maybe you find it appropriate I certainly don't for many reasons and many, many details that I am so tired of I won't enlist. As I mentioned I just want to be assured this user won't ever get in contact with me again nor have anything to do with my current or future files if I ever again collaborate with you. Because no matter how much I asked him/her, this user kept on insisting and insisting. I don't know about you but to me that is really annoying and in many ways harassing. And I think annoying users is not the point. That is all. And allow me please if your final call is for my files to be erased I will personally do it. Thank you for your kind help and understanding.--FR9 06:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frog890 (talk • contribs)

I see nothing wrong with Ytoyoda's edits. To the contrary, it's marvellous how again and again he tried to explain[16] to a rather unreasonable user and how calm replied[17],[18] to the postings of Frog890, who were aggressive from the very beginning[19]. He even guided Frog890 to COM:AN/U when he asked where to report another user[20], surely well aware that it was himself who was going to get reported.

Whereas User:Frog890 who uploaded (few examples)

• File:Trevor Moore 1.png from a questionable Flickr account and still ND-restricted.
• File:Zach Cregger 2012.jpg originally from Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images North America[21], which he openly declared, but at some point added CC-Zero[22], then PD-heirs[23] license tags.
• File:Zach Cregger 2.png originally from Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images North America[24], though uploaded as a photoshopped version by Fxz100 (talk · contribs) from Flickr for which Frog890 falsified a positive Flickreview-report[25].

Frog890 refused communication from the very beginning by repeatedly blanking his talkpage[26],[27],[28], [29].

Most extremely, Frog890 accuses a user of racism[30] who just tried a assume-good-faith explaination for Frog890's unreasonable behaviour.

Frog890 reactions to the well-justified nominations of his uploads are far beyond what we sometimes see. In addition, User:Frog890 has shown a similar behaviour on :en Wikipedia. If he doesn't immediately stop with this kind of behaviour and with uploading copyvios, he should be banned from the project IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Per Túrelio - a block may well be appropriate given the attitude/approach. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Plus - I just blocked the puppet account... (Fxz100 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the main account (Frog890) indefinitely. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 11:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Need help with user Yax3 and his imports

Hi,

Larely I found an image that seems to be imported from a website and modified with PaintNet, and then claimed as his own by user Yax3. I proposed it for deletion according to the proposed produre in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cyclonnes2.jpg. I then left a message in Yax3 discusion page, so he can give reasons for not deleting it. He then proceded to threaten me with Court procedures for Vandalism below the notice (User talk:Yax3#File:Cyclonnes2.jpg). When I tried to explain to him politely that Wikipedia has rules and that he should read the pertinent Help links that I left for him, he began rambling about his right to import whatever he want and threatening the Administrators with too sentences like:

“	Trial seems inevitable in the long term to punish vandals Wikipedia and administrators who do not respect the founding principles or who trying to fake it. When the number of users is sufficient and create an association for the defense of Wikipedia and other websites vandalized, officials still alive will have to answer for their actions financially	”

He does not seem or want to understand the rules of Wikipedia. I've checked his other downloaded images and in each case they seem to be website or book captures modified with PaintNet to add French terms or other details. To me they all seem to have the same copyright problem as the one I flagged but I cannot be sure.

I don't want to get more involved directly as he could turn to harassing me. Could an administrator take the relay and try to make him understand Wikipedia rules and look at his images to see which could be a copyvio.

Thanks in advance, Pierre cb (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Only a detail, sorry, but necessary to avoid any confusion for what will surely follow: here, it is "Commons", not "Wikipedia"...--Jebulon (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for partly having ignore this problem, I'll try to leave a clear warning message to this user:

• Copyvios are not tolerated, even if there is a part of own work in the derivative work produced. However, we do accept mistakes: Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum

wow, j'aime bien quand tu parles japonais ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Legal threat are not tolerated, if the user persists he'll probably end up with a block.

PierreSelim (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Donperfectodewiki

Please warn or block the user. He has uploaded the logo of the Madrid 2020 Olympics bid a third time, I've nominated it for deletion twice before as a copyvio and it was deleted each time. He doesn't get it. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 Warned. Any more copyvio uploads and the user can be blocked. INeverCry 22:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Iseo1000

The user has huge problems to understand our copyright policies, just have a look at his talk page. Despite a fair amount of warnings and hints he's continuing to upload pictures he found on websites. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

 Warned. Any more copyvio uploads and the user can be blocked. INeverCry 19:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Dûrzan

edits

He/she is probably the same user of User:Dûrzan cîrano who uploaded useful images before. We are extremely grateful for his/her contribution. But his/her images was not open most of description were written in Kurdish language and their own terminology (Kurdish descriptions mustn't be removed off course). In this situation, those images were closed to be use by most of all users. So I try to universalize them by adding English descriptions and categories. He/she changed Category:Diyarbakır Province to Category:Amed Province, Category:Mardin Province to Category:Mêrdîn Province. He/she continues to remove helpful categies. He/she removed Category:Agriculture in Turkey and replaced with Category:Culture of Krudish people. As long as I understand, he/she dislike Turkey. I can understand his/her ethnic sentiment, because I'm also non-Turkic user. However, Turkey is a country and doesn't mean Turkish ethnic group in the system of categolization in Commons. Categories related with country is important basis and mainstay of categories related with places. So his/her behavior is very harmful for users of and readers of Wiki projects. Takabeg (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If <PA censored> user Takabeg changies continuous my categories,I will delete my uploads.He is advocate formel ideologi of Turkey.Because my categories are universal,No ethnic...--Dûrzan (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

@Dûrzan, calling another user a "racist", especially when there is no evidence for that claim, is a serious matter. In his earlier comment, Takabeg has voiced understanding for your sentiments about Kurdish issues and expressedly stated to be himself non-Turkic. I strongly urge you to retract this personal attack on Takabeg.

Disputes about categorization should discussed in a calm manner and if 2 editors cannot agree, they should call a neutral third user. --Túrelio (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Copied by User:Dûrzan from unknown location:
Sorry,my english not good. I am a Kurdish user and benefactor for wikipedia.There is a free platform for all people.The man whose nick is Takabeg changes my categories according to formel ideologi of the goverment. If i cant make categories according to my area(my publice) realties, there is no neat to stay here.So if everbody write their ideas comments according to formel ideologi of countries,it ca not be said that wikipedia is free.Good evening--Dûrzan (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/05/Category:Geography of Kurdistan and read the en:Tower of Babel. This has nothing to do with ideology: Wiki software can handle only categories with one single name. Good night too. --Foroa (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Harpsichord246 possible chronic problem

• Harpsichord246 (talk · contribs)

Multiple files by this user are asserted as "own work", but are likely not actually so, as some look like they were done by different photographers with different license holders for different purposes. I see some deleted contribs where there were concerns about blatant issues like this, and the user responded by blanking their user talk page. Perhaps a further investigation is in order of the users' uploads? -- Cirt (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, but found only 2 rather likely copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

See prior history at users' deleted contribs. At this point, likely grounds for block, especially taking into consideration the talk page blanking. -- Cirt (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos

AnonMoos has been repeatedly harassing me on my talk page (some of my replies can be found at his/her talk page). AnonMoos took issue with the terminology I used to name one of my uploads, and since then, has continually badgered me about it. After attempting to simply ignore the user for some time, today the user decided to reinstigate the argument, making personal attacks against me, accusing me of wanting to "Throw the Jews into the sea" simply because s/he disagrees with my politics, which should never have needed to enter into the discussion in the first place. All I want is to be left alone. I want the harassment to end. I have tried to ask the user to do such, with little result. So now I'm here, and I hope this will enable some sort of end to the harassment. Mnmazur (talk)

Since I posted this, the user has posted further personal attacks against me, accusing me of having a 'narrow closed mind'. Mnmazur (talk)

Anything I said has very little to do with Mnmazur's politics as such, but instead with Mnmazur's attitudes and way of doing things, which I like less and less the more I know about them. I didn't intend to reignite a dispute, but when I happened to come across someone else's well-named file, I thought I would just drop Mnmazur a little hint about how it should be done (as opposed to Mnmazur's previous extremely poorly-named file, which created easily-predictable hard feelings and turbulence). Mnmazur chose to take advantage of the occasion to launch into a classic 1975-style UNGA 3379 "Zionism is racism" ranting tirade, thereby displaying yet more of that attitude which I've come to like less and less the more I know about it... AnonMoos (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know how it makes any sense to say that your comments had little to do with my politics, and then bring up something like UNGA 3379, which asserts a political opinion which I may or may not agree with (it's not relevant) to pass judgment on my character. Mnmazur (talk)

It has to do with the fact that if you had held a rational anti-Israeli position, then you could have expressed it in a rational manner, but instead what you did was launch into emotive semi-hysterical hyperbolic jargon of exactly the type exemplified by 1970's third-worldism ideology and UNGA 3379. UNGA 3379 does not "state a political opinion"[sic], rather it sought to use emotive rhetoric to brand a whole people and nation with a scarlet "R". It's the kind of loose sloppy rhetoric which sounds vaguely left-wing, but actually has no real connection with rational progressivism. I consider myself to be a rational progressive, but emotive pseudo-left-wing jargon strongly annoys me when it takes the place of reasoned thought. AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Continuing this bickering is not constructive. Stay away from me. Mnmazur (talk)

The most recent exchanges have certainly forcefully brought home to me how pointless it is to attempt to engage in rational discussion with someone with your particular personal attitudes and ways of doing things, so if that was your intention, then "Mission Accomplished"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to state for the record how extremely disheartening I find it that when I post a notice of a user harassing me on the administrators' noticeboard, and the user continues to attack and harass me even in that very topic, the administration has made no response whatsoever. That's all. Mnmazur (talk)

Whatever -- you chose to upload a file under a highly-inappropriate name (perhaps even intentionally chosen to be provocative or inciting) and you refuse to deal with any of the consequences of your action (leaving the burden entirely up to other people), and you're completely unwilling or incapable of even discussing the matter in any useful or constructive way. What you perceive as "harassment" is actually the record of my mounting frustration with your attitudes. I can hardly claim to be consistently coldly logical, but I'm a great believer in the idea that if you have a factual dispute with somebody, then just repeating shallow slogans and pre-canned propaganda rhetoric isn't adequate -- eventually you'll have to actually come to grips with the facts involved in some way. Too bad for you that you don't seem to have ever learned that lesson... AnonMoos (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read the above, and what's on both talk pages. What I see is basically an argument of an ideological nature, but I really don't see anything that's been said that I would call a direct personal attack. I see terms like "zionist" on one hand and "throw the Jews into the sea", but these are pretty general.

File names that could be found offensive should be avoided if possible in favor of neutral names. If a file name seems offensive I would recommend requesting a rename to as neutral a name as possible. I would also advise anyone tagging a file's accuracy as disputed, that the reason be kept straight-forward, without highly charged phrases, as was done in the case of File:Flag map of the land of Palestine.svg, where the second sentence in the accuracy tag was a bit much. I've removed it.

Anyways, I'm not going to place blame on either of you or say one is right and the other wrong, but I do think you should avoid each other, atleast for the time being, including both your talk pages. I don't think further argument would bring any kind of agreement or good result.

The note on usage in the file in question's description seems suitable to me, but "irredentist" could be added to the description (or the file could be renamed with that term added, though it's widely linked already). I hope that helps. INeverCry 04:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Good luck getting him to agree that the file should be renamed -- he was utterly incapable or unwilling to substantively discuss this with me... AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

On your talk page he suggested a rename to File:Flag map of irredentist Palestine.svg, but the file is currently linked to about 150 pages, so perhaps it might be better to address the issue in the description only. In any event my concern is in ending a fruitless argument which has already taken up way too much time for both of you; time better spent on editing. INeverCry 05:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I would bet that the vast majority of uses are generated from a small number of templates on Arabic Wikipedia, so that would not be the problem. AnonMoos (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's used in a stub tag. However, after looking at Category:Irredentism, I don't see any files that actually use the term in their titles. I think the description and disputed accuracy tag are enough, and that the dispute over the name of this file should be at an end. INeverCry 07:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Multichill and his robots

Multichill has a long history of running bots without going through the usual process. Representative for this is the discussion from Commons:Bots/Requests/ErfgoedBot. This has been tolerated so far because his actions seem constructive. In the last few days, however, he decided to expand the purpose of his bots dramatically, acting on all the categories relating to Wiki Loves Monuments without any consultation with the local organizers.

In the following paragraph I will only limit myself on his actions regarding the Romania-related categories and templates, as I am familiar with those. He decided to have his bot add add categories of the form Category:Monumente istorice din județul XXX, which were previously added by {{Monument istoric}}. I've raised this issue on the WLM mailing list, with no effect.

I decided to re-add the template categorization despite the advice on Commons:Categories because the vast majority of WLM uploaders are newbies that will not add proper categories to their images. The automatic categorization would prevent having all the images in one huge category, without depending on a bot. Do note that this is not the only template categorizing images and that the note about template categorization in Commons:Categories seems drafted as a suggestion, rather than a policy. Also, the template included automatically-categorized files in a maintenance category that helped volunteers divide the files into the proper categories.

Multichill reverted my change and left me a message, to wich I responded.

I decided not to further revert his change until he had a chance to respond, but I did change the template (as anonymous because of a mistake), adding an error-check mechanism that Multichill had removed (if the fist two letters are not a county code, the image is added to a category tracking errors in the codes). I did not re-add the categories in question in this dispute.

Multichill probably did not check that change properly and reverted it, protecting the page.

I believe the final edit by Multichill as well as the protection are uncalled for, therefore I ask another administrator to unprotect the page and bring it back to revision 77748299. Also, I would like some help mediating the dispute about including the categories directly from the template. Thank you.--Strainu (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Categorization by a template should be avoided because it makes it harder to split up huge categories in relevant subcategories. Therefore I think that the idea of removing the template categorization and replace it with a bot categorization is a good idea.

Does the bot add wrong categories (compared to what the template did before)? If yes it is ofcourse a problem but that could probably be fixed.

If his bots add the correct/missing categories then I do not see the problem. So perhaps you could explain further? --MGA73 (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There actually 2 problems right now:

• one is the last change Multichill did to the template, removing a valid error-check mechanism and the associated protection, which was a hasty decision.
• the second is that the robot is a third party tool that could disappear at any time. I don't think we should depend on such tools if alternatives exist. The template has an options (nocat), specifically designed to remove the categories we're talking about when another, more specific one is added. If we want to use a robot for such task, perhaps a better approach would be to add the nocat parameter automatically. My problem with the robot is that it's running different non-trivial tasks without consulting or even announcing the community.

I understand the reasons why categories should generally not be added manually, but I believe this is an isolated case where there are very good reasons to use this system.--Strainu (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that a error-check mechanism should not be removed unless there is a good reason to do so. Either the bot could check or the check could be added without adding the auto categorization.

As far as I know the bot does not only work on files uploaded in WLM but on all files with the template/in the categories. So there should be no loss of categories.

Important bots are (or should) be created as multi maintainer bots so if one user goes then others could take over the task. So I do not think that there is a big risk here. But yes the bot could go sometime in the future but if it does it is possible to have another bot do the task or if needed add categorization via template again. --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Multichill was not informed about this post. Anyway I asked him about the error check on IRC and it resulted in this edit. So the error check should be restored now. --MGA73 (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you MGA. I see that the protection was still not lifted, do I need to file a separate request for that?

I also want to make it clear that I feel my objections to the path chosen by the admin have only been circumvented rather than addressed. MGA has only made it clear that he supports Multichill, without saying why my alternative solutions were inferior.--Strainu (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the addition of all categories added by this bot seems to be implausible to me. It allows easier usage of e.g. the HotCat-tool to recategorize the file in more specific categories. Also when using Cat-A-Lot, it wouldn't automatically set |nocat=yes. As for the concern with the availability of the bot: As long as it is there, I think it should be used. If it will be unavailable at some point, make a new template or set a parameter by default, e.g. by subst-ing a template. If I lift the protection of the template (which, btw. can be protected for the valid reason of the high transclusion count), will you revert back to your version?

You agreed that adding categories directly is better; do you think there is something remaining to do?

Yes, Multichill was too hasty with the removal of error-checking and he should have notified you/ the local organizer before doing this replacement. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Templates should not auto-generate topical categories that cannot be bot moved; they are a nightmare for maintenance and renaming, while often creating hundreds of badly named red categories. This is well known for years. I am surprised that people keep making such templates and fully support the action to remove them. --Foroa (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I will not revert the template to the previous state if you lift the protection, even though I only agreed that adding categories is generally better, but not in this specific instance when files are added in the vast majority without relevant categories. I specifically don't see how changing a category in a template can be more complicated than moving hundreds of files, even with cat-a-lot.--Strainu (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As with Foroa's comment, I believe that the norm is that categorization through templates should be avoided. Such templates can make it hard for others to edit or categorize images without unexpected results. This looks more like an issue that needs a consensus on the template rather than an issue suitable for AN/U. It would be nice if those most interested in WLM could reach a consensus you can point to. The rationale that new users fail to categorize is a fair point, but there is a strong case for this to be resolved by a bot tidying things up with straight-forward categorization rather than specialized templates with embedded categories. Unfortunately Multichill is so incredibly useful that he is always busy, please do try and give him plenty of mellow good faith as he has an impressive track record of doing good work for Commons. In the meantime you might consider using Template:Bots until a consensus is clear. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I had much time to discuss this before it was implemented, but I did tried to have a discussion with Multichill before the protection and will try to raise the issue again.

Thanks Fastily for unprotecting the template and thanks to everybody else who took the time to comment; I think this concludes the need for administrative action.--Strainu (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"I specifically don't see how changing a category in a template can be more complicated than moving hundreds of files, even with cat-a-lot." Consider a user with HotCat likes to move File:Apulum - Porta Principalis Dextra - 02.jpg from Category:Historical monuments in Alba County → Category:Castrum Apulum, Dacia. The user would have to 1) Enter the new category name. 2) Edit the page in order to set |nocat=yes.

With the category on the page, the user can 1) (↓) select Category:Castrum Apulum, Dacia from the list without having anything to enter and pressing the enter-key. Similar issue with Cat-A-Lot, Commons Commander, …. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Request by user to rename against our generally accepted naming conventions regarding non-English names

My friend has requested renaming of a file which I've refused to rename twice. I look for opinions of others on this issue. I'm reproducing our dialogue from his/her talkpage:

Please read this guideline for which files should not be renamed? # 2. We cannot rename a non-English file into English. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC).

Well I totally understand this rule, but it was for harmonizing as a set of images:

• • File:NATO Medal Yugoslavia ribbon bar.svg
  • File:NATO Medal w Służbie Pokoju i Wolności BAR.svg
  • File:NATO Medal Eagle Assist ribbon bar.svg
  • File:NATO Medal Active Endeavour ribbon bar.svg
  • File:NATO Medal non-article-5 Balkans ribbon bar.svg
  • File:NATO Medal ISAF ribbon bar.svg
  • File:NATO Medal Macedonia ribbon bar.svg

as you can see, this one is the only "non english" filename, for this set of images. And as english is the official NATO language I thought its "better" if its english. I just want to highlight this fact. If I cant change ur oppinion its ok as well :) --Flor!an (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Harmonizing a set of image names is an accepted reasoning for file renaming. I don't believe there's a over-riding and absolute rule that "We can't rename a file from one language to another" even when it's in the best interest of the file(s) and is acceptable under the 7 renaming guidelines. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Fry1989, for your opinion. I now look for the opinions of at least two admins / fellow filemovers before deciding on the rename request as I see a conflict between the harmonizing rule v/s honouring non-English filenames. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

There are plenty of files in other languages in category:Ribbon bars of NATO; harmonisation is not desirable (and not feasible) in such case and has lower priority that the the respect of the uploader language. Harmonisation and/or extension of the file descriptions will be much more effective. --Foroa (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@Foroa: FYI here I'm talking about the "NATO issued medals". Some nation wear different variation of these eg. Norway Version (File:NATO-medaljen Former Yugoslavia.svg) (with "fullsize" Plate on it) = Norwegian Name; or German Version: (File:NATO FORMER YUGOSLAVIA ribbon (Bundeswehr).jpg) (smaller size). And for allot images in this Category I requested a delete because there are simply wrong drawed. --Flor!an (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

See Commons_talk:File_renaming#Naming_convention_for_ranks_and_insignia. If you want harmonisation for templates, use a naming scheme that redirects to the best picture available in that class so that better versions/colors/formats don't need renaming of other files. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So, as I see, Flor!an's rename request seems to be endorsed by Fry1989, whereas my cautious approach in not renaming the file straightaway is endorsed by Foroa. I still need one or two more opinions of at least two admins / fellow filemovers from this noticeboard. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

 Comment This has nothing to do on the ADMIN noticeboard, no admin actions are needed. Please Hindustanilanguage use the village pump (COM:VP) for this kind of questions. You are regularly posting this kind of question on the COM:ANU. Please avoid this when not needed. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Selim, my personal view on the issue is that status quo should be maintained. But Flor!an insisted on "harmonisation" principle over our guideline for which files should not be renamed? # 2. Since there is absolutely no ego issue involved, I felt let me take the "opinion" not "action" of you people on the issue. If this open, friendly and democratic approach causes you inconvenience, sorry. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

The approach is not the problem, but you'll get more answer from the village pump (which is the place for thoses kind of questions IMO). The administrator noticeboard is to be used when administrators are needed. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. Additionally, this isn't so much a problem with the user who requested the renaming as with the policy to be applied, so it doesn't belong in User problems. It's more of a "policy wonk" question, and those people tend to hang out at the Village pump. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads of Wikipics (talk · contribs)

The uploads of Wikipics look like copyvio as this one has a watermark and this one is at panoramio, but I'm not sure about them all. What do you think? What kind of actions should we take? Trijnstel_talk 10:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

All taken with the same cam it seems, at least they have very similar exif data. Several (all?) images are found in this Panoramio account. I'd tag them as no permission as there's a remote chance they are the same user. --Denniss (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

DaniBet

Somebody should definitely keep an eye out on his latest edits. He had all his photos deleted once at the beginning of the month, now he's back with more of the same.--Strainu (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

At least three of the images are copyright violations. {{Copyvio}} tags added to those. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Files deleted and user off for a month. I remember some of these files were used for vandalism on en or another wiki. --Denniss (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by User:Onjoly

I have recently tagged many of uploads of Onjoly (talk · contribs) for copyvio. They are all of actress Category:Ragini Khanna. Few of those were easy to find whereas others were difficult as the user seems to be morphing all images. I request that all uploads be deleted and some suitable action be taken on user. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Files nuked, user warned. --Denniss (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Esoglou edit warring on File:Holysee-arms.svg (and other files)

Esoglou has reverted this file once again against previous standing consensus and official sources. As promised if such an action was repeated, I bring this here. Previous consensus was made at this Deletion Request (I apologize, it's a very long page to read).

To be absolutely clear for those reading this, we are taking about the arrangement of the two keys. A: with the gold key bending upwards to the right, and B: the gold key bending upwards towards the left.

Esoglou was the only user supporting the idea that the keys are the way he has arranged them (arrangement B), while all other users agreed, based on all available official sources that the keys are the other way around. The official sources include The Holy See Press Office in English (and it's Italian version shows/describes) the same arrangement. Also showing this arrangement is the website of the Holy Diocese of Rome's website (wherever it shows the keys symbol in colour), and the Vatican City's website site. There are no official sources showing it Esoglou's way only secondary opinion-based sources that he is fond of. Because of that, when it was made clear that all three of us on that DR would not change out minds, he switched from trying to convince us that his sources are right to trying to say that the Holy See and the other official sources are wrong. He took this battle up to English Wikipedia's article on the Holy See and Vatican's coat of arms, and again here on this other talk page where I have limited involvement. He claims a "new consensus" has been formed, but it appears to be without the involvement of any of the three of us who were in the DR. Most likely, he simply brought down people who agree with him from English Wikipedia, held a fake vote and pretended that it erases everything else, including the simply fact that the Holy See is absolutely clear what way the keys are arranged.

I am therefore asking for the file to be reverted, protected, and a proper and complete discussion take place to solve this once and for all. Esoglou's forcing of his ways against the sources he doesn't like is neither appropriate or helpful to the problem. This AN/U is not to further discuss the issue so I ask that any opinions about the arrangement of the keys be left out, the only purpose of this AN/U is to enforce a hold on any reverts or changes until a broad discussion involving all sources and many users can take place and a final decision based on true consensus is made and enforced. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I think my name is bound to crop up in this discussion one way or another. I was dragged into the discussion when I tried to respond a rename request about File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg. The rename request could have not been fulfilled; even if it could, I would have declined it on the merits of being controversial. So, I tried to resolve the problem by unmerging file's history but I was unsuccessful because I didn't know who deep the problem goes. These editors have issues with an image description; however, to make their point, they have resolved to revision warring, a Deletion Request and even making up rules that Commons do not have. The only thing they have not tried yet is a civil discussion in absence of all consensus-disruptive activities. The fact is that apart from the restrictions on licensing and project scope, a contributor has wide latitude to contribute his free work of art. Another editor may upload newer revision and overwrite that image for the right reasons, but has no right to overwrite it with a completely different image because the original is not what the editor thinks it should be or because he want to usurp the file name. Fleet Command (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• The issue is not the name, whether it be "coat of arms", "emblem" or whatever else. The sole issue is that the Holy See is explicitly clear on it's websites, in two separate languages, of how the gold and silver keys are arranged. Esoglou insists on reverting to have them arranged the opposite, choosing to ignore what the Holy See says (about it's own symbol, no less), in favour of secondary sources, saying that the Holy See is wrong. Because of Esoglou's absolute insistence on this issue, I am asking for the file to be reverted to how the Holy See says it must be, and protected while a broad discussion can take place with all available sources from all users, and once a true consensus (of more users than just the original 4 who were involved) is formed. Once that consensus is clear, it will be enforced on the file(s), and Esoglou will have to abide by it, just as any other user. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fry, a "free image" by definition is a work based on which derivative works can be made, in spite of the consensus, the opinion of the Holy See or that of the secondary sources. That is why we do not have COM:RS or COM:CONSENSUS in Commons. F l a n k e r has irrevocably donated a free image to the public domain that you, for whatever reason, wish to censor. What you should have tried at the very beginning was to politely show Esoglou that both files can co-exist peacefully on the project. Fleet Command (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Of course both forms can coexist peacefully. If Fry wants to have an image with the gold key in bend sinister, he is free to upload it. He does not have to eliminate the existing image that has the gold key in bend. As for his argument "that the Holy See is explicitly clear on its websites", the Wikipedia rule is "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Fry has referenced no secondary source for his interpretation of the website. Reliable secondary sources explicitly say that in the coat of arms of the Holy See the gold key is in bend, as in the original form of File:Holysee-arms.svg. See Donald Lindsay Galbreath, A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry (W. Heffer and Sons, 1930), p. 9 and Bruno Bernhard Heim, Heraldry in the Catholic Church: Its Origin, Customs and Laws (Van Duren 1978 ISBN 9780391008731), p. 54. The same is stated by the Heraldry Society of Great Britain. See also Michel Pastoureau, "Keys" in Philippe Levillain, The Papacy: An Encyclopedia (Routledge 2002 ISBN 9780415922302), vol. 2, p. 891. Fry's attempt to overwrite out of existence the existing image of the coat of arms of the Holy See as described in reliable secondary sources is surely wrong. Esoglou (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, the two versions can NOT coexist peascefully when you Esoglou have edit warred to get your way on atleast two files, against the reverts of multiple users. You caused this problem, and now it needs to be dealt with. The Holy See is clear. If you think they are wrong, you need to form a consensus and get others to agree with you, not edit war until others get tired of dealing with you and walk away. This discussion is absolutely necessary to clear this issue up, because it didn't work in a DR when 3 users all told you that you're wrong, you refused to accept it and edit warred anyways. I should be asking for you to be blocked. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I repeat myself for one last time: The type of thinking that caused a problem cannot fix it. The solution is to stop commenting on each other and start negotiating a course of action. Instead of using past tense verbs and second person pronouns, start using present tense sentences in subjunctive mood. Politely request an admin to unmerge the history into new file with appropriate licenses. Then, go to Wikipedia and request Mediation Cabal to mediate your discussion. If that didn't work, file for Mediation Committee action. At all this time, both version must remain available on Commons and none should comment on another.

The choice, of course, is yours. You can continue in the current path, but I assure you, if you do so, by the time an admin even comes to intervene, you are both disenfranchised with not only the project but the world itself. Fleet Command (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fry, in line with consensus among the editors discussing this file, I reverted it to the original, thinking it right to restore an image of the arms of the Holy See for which reliable secondary sources vouch. You reverted this same file to an altered image, thinking that Commons should contain no image except what corresponds to your interpretation of a certain webpage, an interpretation unsupported by reference to a secondary source. You had earlier altered out of recognition the other file that showed the arms of the Holy See with the gold key in bend, File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg, the history of which is now, as a result of overwritings aimed at eliminating images of the arms as described in the secondary sources, to be found at File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg. Which of us (if either) is right? Your changes both to this file and to File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg contravene the proposed guidelines Commons:Overwriting existing files, which exclude overwritings that involve "controversial or contested changes". The discussions on the matter, including this one, amply show that your overwritings to eliminate all images of the coat of arms of the Holy See as described in reliable secondary sources are indeed controversial and are contested and should not be allowed. This is something that the Administrators should look into. Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

FleetCommand, at present the image of the arms of the Holy See as described in the secondary sources is not present on Commons. As long as that continues, Fry will feel no need to do anything. What should I do? Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I AM trying to do something. I'm trying to get a community discussion started so this problem can be solved once and for all. YOU caused this problem by edit warring on File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg and File:Emblem of the Holy See within 3to2.svg (and possibly others). The fact some of those edits have been deleted doesn't change the fact you did it, against the reverts of multiple users telling you not to. I'm trying to fix this, and your stubbornness is making it worse. Community consensus on this issue is absolutely necessary for as long as the Holy See says one thing about it's own symbol and Esoglou the user refuses to accept it and edit war to get it the other way. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am quite willing to discuss the problem of our divergent views on whether an image of the coat of arms of the Holy See as reliable secondary sources describe it is allowed on Commons, or whether instead any and all such images can and should be altered to what you say the arms should be. Your withdrawal from the discussion begun at File talk:Holysee-arms.svg#Correct image left a consensus there on the basis of which I restored the image that the secondary sources describe. Where do you want the discussion to take place? Here (if such is allowed)? Or where else? Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I withdrew from that discussion because you simply brought down your friends from English Wikipedia to agree with you and form a false consensus so that you could revert File:Holysee-arms.svg, the third file you edit warred on. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Asking again for review

of user's uploads by an admin or admins. I tagged some remaining UPI photos today and here's what happened at en.WP. Thanks, We hope (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Donaldduck100 a new account of Sridhar1000 or Saleem100?

I've suspicion that going by the uploads / edits as well as the naming, Donaldduck100 is a new avtar of the two blocked accounts. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC).