Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 31

Request for protection of file

Multiple reliable sources say that the coat of arms of the Holy See has the gold key in bend and the silver key in en:bend sinister. See Donald Lindsay Galbreath, A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry (W. Heffer and Sons, 1930), p. 9; Bruno Bernhard Heim, Heraldry in the Catholic Church: Its Origin, Customs and Laws (Van Duren 1978 ISBN 9780391008731), p. 54; Heraldry Society of Great Britain; Michel Pastoureau, "Keys" in Philippe Levillain, The Papacy: An Encyclopedia (Routledge 2002 ISBN 9780415922302), vol. 2, p. 891. Two images of the coat of arms of the Holy See as thus described were uploaded to Commons. One, originally titled File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg, has been overwritten out of recognition and renamed File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg (see its history). The other image is File:Holysee-arms.svg, and attempts have been made to overwrite this file too so as to remove from Commons the image of the coat of arms described by the reliable sources.

I ask the Administrators to be so good as to protect File:Holysee-arms.svg from elimination of the image it was created to present or else to use some other means to preserve on Commons just one image of what these reliable sources describe as the coat of arms of the Holy See, leaving editors free to upload additional files representing whatever ideas they may have of what the coat of arms of the Holy See is or ought to be. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wise admins would take notice that there is already an AN/U above and that there was a previous consensus which Esoglou ignored and edit warred against. This issue needs a proper discussion of all the sources and a true consensus, which the above AN/U is requesting. To blindly take Esoglou's request of file protection without looking at the issue would be a grave mistake considering Esoglou is the one who has caused this problem by his absolute refusal to accept an undeniably straightforward official source. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989 has again eliminated the one image of the coat of arms of the Holy See on Commons that corresponds to the indications in reliable sources. It would be better if Fry simply uploaded a version of the coat of arms corresponding to his personal interpretation of what he calls "an undeniably straightforward official source", an interpretation for which he has presented no reference to a secondary source (in spite of the Wikipedia rule that "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"), an "official source" moreover that Wikipedia editors have declared an unreliable source for either of two opposing claims of its meaning. In the absence of protection for the lone image left on Commons of the Holy See coat of arms that has reliable secondary sources to back it up, I am forced to restore it in what appears to be an edit war.

On second thoughts, I am delaying the restoration of the reliably sourced image, which is at present quite missing from Commons. Esoglou (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You're the ONLY person saying the Holy See isn't reliable about it's own symbol. You're the only one who seems to think that edit warring to get his way is better than having a broad discussion that would sort this out once and for all. You're also trying to apply Wikipedia rules for reliability and validity to Commons where the rules are very different. I don't have time for you to say bullshit about me, I've worked very hard to keep the peace in this matter and to get it worked out, and the only reason it isn't yet is because there are admins here who are so incompetent in their job that they would rather ignore an AN/U started by my name regardless of the validity than deal with a real issue that needs to be solved. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, Fry, it is you who, on finding you were a minority of one, refused to discuss the matter further on the talk page of the image. You have engaged in an edit war with me. Let's instead discuss reasonably the appropriateness of eliminating from Commons the single remaining image that has the backing of several reliable sources. Why cannot it be allowed on Commons? Esoglou (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You brought your Wikipedia friends down to Commons to that talk page to build a fake consensus, I had nothing to add to such games like that. What I'm trying to achieve is a real consensus involving dozens of users, a consensus that regardless of the result both of us would have to accept. You are the one edit warring against an official source, that's how things work here, you are approaching it with a Wikipedia understanding of reliability rules which simply do not exist here. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It was a real consensus, not a fake, and I look forward to a result that "both of us would have to accept". I do not expect to be shown the Commons rule that you claim entitles you to eliminate this well-sourced image, as you have already eliminated another. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It WAS fake, it was just you and two buddies, which actually makes it a tie 3/3 to the three of us who disagree in that DR. There is no consensus and until there is this will not be resolved. Faking one doesn't give you the right to do what you have done. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

a) Of the other two, one had no involvement whatever with the question on the English Wikipedia; b) There was no previous threesome in favour of your present claim: even you were against it, as shown also in the discussion on the reliability of either your then interpretation of what you call an undeniably straightforward official source or the opposing view of Bellae artes. But let us leave these side-questions alone. The essential question is still: On what grounds do you claim that the reliably sourced image cannot be allowed to exist on Commons? I don't object to you uploading on Commons either your earlier interpretation of the "undeniably straightforward official source" or your present interpretation of it. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Enought of this, I've deleted the file and splited in two version so each of you have his own version, now go fight on wikipedia to use the right version:

• File:Holysee-arms-A.svg
• File:Holysee-arms-B.svg

--PierreSelim (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As is obvious from what I said above, I am happy with this, as long as Fry does not now set about eliminating this file too. Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Selim, don't tell me "enough of this", I've tried to do everything right. There are disputes like this all the time about flags and coats of arms, they're almost always solved by a consensus-forming discussion, which is what I am trying very hard to get going. It's a childish and short-sighted to think that simply splitting up the files is a magical cure to a serious problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do we care to let you edit-war until you get your way? There are choices of images for the projects to use. Let them choose.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you just blind or what? This entire thing is an attempt to solve the issue, not make it worse. If the Holy See says th esilver key is on one side and the gold on the other, then to flip them around is FAKE! There was already a consensus formed to follow what the Holy See says. It's Esoglou who has edit warred and fought and even gone so far as to build a fake consensus to over-ride it. I've been consistent in trying to follow the official sources and have a consensus. It of course doesn't matter to someone like you, all you care about is getting in the way without adding anything valuable. This isn't about getting my way, my language has always been that once a consensus is formed, both Esoglou and I would be bound by it regardless of the result. Does that sound like I only want my way?? No, it's the opposite, but of course you've never been able to read my posts correctly, you always misinterpret them. Btw, I reverted myself, in case you didn't notice. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Fry, please accept that Commons has room for more than one version. It has room even for the shield-less version that you formerly fought for, if you want it. (Congratulations on your "reverting yourself" by repeating the reversion already done by another editor.) Esoglou (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course there is room, but the proper room is to acknowledge that there is an official way the symbol is supposed to be, and that any other arrangements of the keys are unofficial. You are trying to force an arrangement against what the Holy See says it is as if that was the real arrangement of the keys and the Holy See is so dumb and ignorant they don't even know what their own symbol is supposed to be like. As for the self-revision, don't get smart with me, Prosfilaes and I clicked the revert at the exact same time, it was out of chance, I didn't do it "after" him for good measure. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for misinterpreting the reverting. You are right in that. I do not believe you are right in either your present or your former interpretation of what is on the Press Office website, and I do believe that what the cited experts on ecclesiastical heraldry expressly said is authoritative. Esoglou (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well since the Holy See's Press Office both says it in text and shows it in illustration in both English and Italian on two separate pages, you're the one who needs to convince people they're wrong, not me who needs to convince people they're right. As for how I mark my edits, that's none of your business. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Holy See Press Office shows an illustration of the coat of arms of Vatican City State, not of the Holy See. The arms of the state are exactly as in File:Holysee-arms-B.svg and were adopted by law in 1929, the year the state was founded. They have the silver key in bend. The same arms of the state are shown in the flag of the state, as AnonMoos says below. While the English version of the Press Office information does mention (without specifying) a coat of arms of the Holy See, the Italian version makes no mention whatever of the Holy See's coat of arms: it speaks only of that of Vatican City State. In short, the Press Office does not say either in text or in illustration that the arms of the Holy See have the silver key where the reliable secondary sources clearly state is the place of the gold key in the arms of that distinct entity, which is centuries older than 1929.

However, Commons has room for an image showing your present interpretation of what is on the Press Office webpage, and indeed also for the interpretation of that same material that you formerly argued for no less heatedly, when you overwrote the file that has since been renamed as File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg. Any Commons contributor who believes - as you did in the recent past - that the Press Office gives that as the coat of arms of the Holy See is free to upload it as File:Holysee-arms-C.svg. Esoglou (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

---

By the way, the Guide to the Flags of the World by Mauro Talocci, revised and updated by Whitney Smith (ISBN 0-688-01141-1), p. 53, shows the silver key in bend and the gold key in bend sinister on the coat of arms of the Vatican City State, but the reverse arrangement as supporters for the coat of arms of John Paul II! Otherwise, I don't know and don't care very much about the facts in dispute here -- however, I have observed in the past that sometimes Fry1989 is a little too quick to try to have only one image file for a particular emblem on Common, and to try to get all other alternative image files deleted or declared so-called "superseded"[sic], even when there's no real valid reason why this should be done...
In general, Commons should not host blatantly factually-false or hoaxing images, but it also shouldn't take sides in a legitimate dispute between competing interpretations, or attempt to arbitrate between conflicting somewhat reliable sources. Instead, Commons should allow the alternative legitimate interpretations to coexist, and leave it up to the individual Wikipedias to decide. It's not our job here at Commons to make such decisions for the Wikipedias. AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone who has used the new name User:Szillasst assinmk has overwritten File:Holysee-arms-A to make it identical with File:Holysee-arms-B. What should be done? Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted and warned this user. Yann (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyvio uploads by single user

See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BCooper116.jpg for the first one I found (on en.wiki). User:Tanough appears well-meaning but I don't see OTRS permissions for files, and they aren't obviously freely available. In addition, the contributor for many pictures on the GRG website (RYoung) is active on en.wiki, so I suspect if he wanted to release his photos he would have done so by now. Nevertheless, without permission, I think these all need to be deleted. (For questions, please ping me on en.wiki.) Frank (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:BCooper116.jpg seems to have been the only upload by this user until now. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There were 18 in total, all of which have since been deleted by User:Denniss. (Thanks, Denniss!) Frank (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Another Jermboy sock

This time it's named User:Jermboyfarish11, please block per norm. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked indef. INeverCry 19:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Beypeople and User:Akrampathan

User:Beypeople and User:Akrampathan appear to be the same going by the edit history of some of the files on Commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC).

Exhibitionist user

User:Acerman76 has uploaded several photos which are likely of himself. Check for scope and delete please. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Comment - If there is not a license problem, some of them at least would be on scope, since it's an uncommon variant of that part of the body.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not the body part that's the question, it's the multiple repetitious angles that makes this exhibitionist, and that's generally not in scope. I believe there's a guideline somewhere about "Commons doesn't need you to drop your pants for posterity". Fry1989 ^eh? 01:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That would depend on the subject, don't you agree? I don't know how many images of micropenis are here on Commons, but I suspect they are not that many. I believe a DR would be the proper place to decide that.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 02:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I would normally do a DR for an image or two, but not as many as were uploaded, which I believe require an overview. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Haven't looked at the photos, but Fry1989 may have been thinking of Commons:Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I knew it was something like that. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

However it is somewhat ironic to see someone who apparently wants everyone to know how small their weiner is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright and an old painting

Is this painting protected by copyright?

See the EXIF data.--Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• No.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

May be the photo is protected. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added PD-Art template, as the photo was not shot by the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

User talk:Dgolitsis

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

Please block this user indefinitely, for massive copyright violations even after previous warnings and blocks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done All files deleted. Yann (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

User:O497608

O497608 (talk · contribs) has recreated several times the File:Plot.JPG (log) after being deleted several times. Blond (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

- Copyvio deleted and user warned.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Alex Rott

The user refuses to categorize his uploads. I tried to discuss this with him (I offered him to put a general category Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Russia, then a bunch of users who work on this category would eventually place the files in more specialized categories). The discussion went nowhere, with him starting to accuse me. He subsequently continued to upload files without categories. May be an administrator will be more successfull in enforcing the policies. I am not sure the user speaks English, so that a Russian-speaking admin would be ideal.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A lot of uploaders do not either care or know about categorizing. I've myself added categories to some files after 2-5 years of upload. But may be, as pointed out, you can contact any of our Russian users. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC).

Per his talkpage, our colleague A.Savin is already in contact with him. --Túrelio (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets hope the issue is resolved soon. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC).

It looks like it was solved, in the files I checked the user started to add categories, thanks to the intervention of A.Savin--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That's wonderful. A Savin, as I told, is listed under User-N of our Russian users. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC).

User:SteP182

Can some Russian speaking user check edits of new User:SteP182. He is breaking stuff but he might have good intentions. --Jarekt (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

After closer look, I think user is OK. --Jarekt (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Iseo1000

There have been warnings, there was a block for an entire week, the user is still continuing to upload pictures he found on the web. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks, last uploads had been already deleted.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

to restore file

Висарик

Anybody can help me to restore file:Проект колористического паспорта 1997 г..JPG from the article Колористический паспорт - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82 ?

Permission OTRS|2012072010005154

Thank you. -- 11:47, 27 September 2012‎ User:Висарик

Go to standard location Commons:Undeletion requests... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

PeteBobb

When I uploaded these photos, the 'metadata' did not upload correctly. I would like these deleted so I can try to upload them again in the hopes the metadata uploads correctly. petebobb

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Entrance_to_Park_MG_2632.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fern_MG_2640.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redwood_Bark_MG_2647.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Catheral_MG_2652.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redwoods_next_to_trail_MG_2656.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cathedral_MG_2660.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jogger_on_trail_MG_2683.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_Huggers_MG_2734.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_Huggers_MG_2738.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redwood_scale_MG_2751.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteBobb (talk • contribs) 00:45, 26 September 2012‎ (UTC)

The metadata displayed in the "Metadata" section of the File Page look fine to me. They appear to agree with that embedded in the file, at least for the ones I checked. I wonder if you would be kind enough to explain why you think the 'metadata' did not upload correctly, please? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting these files.

When I looked on wiki, the author of the files was 'Windows 4'.

When I look at the EXIF data in PhotoShop, the author of the files is 'Pete Bobb'.

PeteBobb (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Alexander Liptak

Alexander Liptak is back as User:Alexander on Commons, and now he's using a copyrighted free use tag that demands "This original file which has been provided by the author is that which is to be used in Wikipedia articles; a derivative, modified, remixed and/or subsequent work work may not replace the original file in Wikipedia articles." I'm all up for just blocking him instead of going around in circles with him again.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_19#User:Alexander_Liptak_and_User:Xanderliptak and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_23#User:Xanderliptak_.2F_User:Alexander_Liptak. He's filed takedown notices for his work against the WMF before; see the first of those links.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

After reading again the COM:AN/U thread, I support the removal of all his uploads and a perma-ban, which is not thing I do easily. He may be a great artist, but obviously is not community-compatible. --Túrelio (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Is he also behind ChrisRussell05 (talk · contribs)? --Túrelio (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a duck, blocked! Bidgee (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Under the "Legal threats" policy, he's pretty much banned himself. No reason to allow the nonsense to start up again... AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 Comment I think Prosfilaes, Turelio and AnonMoos almost said everything. I would only consider him to return if he specifically states he understand why he was banned and that he wishes to contribute by the rules of the Community. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked both Alexander on Commons (talk · contribs) and ChrisRussell05 (talk · contribs) since they're in breach of there block by creating not just one account but two to by-pass the current block. Bidgee (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Agreed. He has exhibited no willingness to cooperate or to provide material under acceptable licenses. I also found another Likely sock, which I have blocked. On the grounds that the license is unacceptable, I am about to nuke most of the uploads of:

• User:Alexander on Commons -- all nuked -- strange personal license with several unacceptable provisions
• User:ChrisRussell05 -- all nuked -- license CC-BY-NC-ND
• User:Bellae artes -- most nuked -- license CC-BY-NC-ND, a few with acceptable licenses kept

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

FurnitureArtCollector sock park

Per the edit-summary of a copyvio-tagging I stumbled over the ongoing SP investigation en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FurnitureArtCollector. Many of the suspected/confirmed sockpuppets, though not all, have also an account on Commons. What they seem to be sharing is that most have only 1 upload.

• Artenthusiastandfan (talk · contribs) 1 likely derivative
• ArtenthusiastNY (talk · contribs) 1 copyvio
• NewYorkChelseArt5 (talk · contribs) 1 copyvio
• UniversityArtProfessor66 (talk · contribs) 1 copyvio
• Artaroundtheworld5 (talk · contribs) no upload so far
• FurnitureArtCollector (talk · contribs) no upload so far
• Arthistoryoftexas (talk · contribs) no upload so far
• Aroundtheworldforart (talk · contribs) no upload so far
• Lovelifeandart (talk · contribs) 1 possible derivative
• Internart (talk · contribs) 2 copyvios/derivatives

--Túrelio (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly related:

• Artenmexico (talk · contribs)
• Artenelmundo (talk · contribs)

--Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Vasyka_K

Any idea what to do with the contributions of Special:Contributions/Vasyka_K: no real descriptions, too many and vague categories, ugly watermark ? I just noticed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Vasyka K --Foroa (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The site 1.b2bt.org which these come from allows just about anything to be uploaded as long as it isn't sexual content or offensive, and advertising content is limited to 10% of a member's total uploads. There's a "copyright holder's" link on the main page stating basically that anyone who owns the copyright for an image that has been uploaded can contact the site's administrators to have it removed. I think these should probably be deleted. INeverCry 17:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm nuking them all. I could find nothing concrete on the source site that gave any license, certainly not CC-BY-SA as claimed by the uploader. Therefore they are copyvios. Most of them also appear to be out of scope -- not useful for much of anything. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

User:N-mar

After this DR has been closed, N-mar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) began to upload the same deleted pictures. On my talkpage, she claimed that the photos were taken from a family archive of an acquaintance, which is obviously no sufficient argument to have the rights to upload the images here. - A.Savin 11:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added the usual copyvio warning to the user's talk. INeverCry 18:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, you say "she", but File:Администрация НАО.jpg, that this user just uploaded says "own work" but the EXIF and author states "Dmitry Pestov"? INeverCry 18:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess the user claims that these gentlemen are the aquaintance's family members? I'm tagging them for permission. INeverCry 18:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine thanks. As stated in the original RfD, the user uploaded a lot of pics with different camera data, as well as such scanned from somewhere. "She" is just the Generic feminine. - A.Savin 19:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring and accusations of vandalism by FAEP

This stems from two categories that I recently created:

Category:Automobile engines by model

Category:Fiat twin cam engine

FAEP objects to these categories, so re-created them as Category:Automobile engines by brand by model and Category:Fiat twin cam engines, then proceeded to empty the originals (no discussion). Per normal practice, I raised all four of these at CfD

Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:Automobile engines by brand by model

Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:Fiat twin cam engines

To save typing, please read the explanations already at those. No comments as yet by other editors.

Since then, FAEP has persistently edit-warred. They have de-populated these categories, they have tagged them for speedy deletion, they have stripped their parent categories, they have repeated these actions to the point of edit-warring and now they've labelled my changes as "vandalism".[1][2]

They've also taken to stalking my contribs or talk page. At another unrelated CfD, Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:Napier Deltic they have yet to make any comment or take part in any positive discussion, but they're happy to wade in and start de-categorizing.

The edit-warring is unedifying, but in particular I do not appreciate accusations of being a vandal. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alchemist-hp

• Alchemist-hp (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user marked me as a rotten fruit that has to be removed (in German: das faule Obst muß einfach entfernt werden) in the comment line. This is a very strong personal insult and not tolerable. Either Alchemist apologize his words or he has to be banned. This is by the way not the first time he provokes and misbehaves. Here e.g. he accuses me to be a liar and to kid some other which he removed later on by himself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• The main discussion can be read here. Wladyslaw is still pure aggresive with his words to me. That's all. This is by the way not the first time he provokes and misbehaves me, please read the discussion. "a rotten fruit that has to be removed" (in German: das faule Obst muß einfach entfernt werden)" is only a saying. It has nothing to do with the User:Wladyslaw. I wrote also: "Entschuldigen Sie bitte meine harten Worte und Zweifel, ich habe mich geirrt. Aber ich bin auch nur ein Mensch." = "Sorry for my hard words and doubt, I was wrong. But I'm only a human." --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

To have different positions is nothing special and not a reason for insults. To write in front of a term of abuse a "sorry" doesn't make it very believable that Alchemist regrets his words. To rectify Alchemist theory: on the page of Ritchyblack I had a discussion with this user and one other. Alchemist came to this discussion without being invited. After a few exchange of words he turned to a very unobjective style which he finished with the insult. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bla, bla, bla.... pure fantasy. And I also don't wrote "you are a liar". Please read it right. Please end to write untruths about me. Goodbye. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A disk side isn't close for other users. But Ritchyblack ask me for an opinion about the license here. It was also an interest from the User Ritchyblack. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You did accuse me to have lied, so this is the same to call someone a liar. No need for pea counting. Your ridiculous revenge announcement is a new indicator for your aggressive behaviour. I am not longer willing to tolerate your disturbing and offensive behaviour against me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If you two use this page to continue your dispute, I would be happy to block both of you for a week for disruption. Chill, and do it now please. It'll take some time for a German speaker to work his/her way over here, being that it's rather late over in Germany. Until then, I advise you in the strongest possible terms to avoid each other. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is also not an issue for AN/U. I don't see a danger for the project which would justify blocking either participant. But if you continue binding time in this forum that may change. --Dschwen (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sven: Because I am not interested in continuing this conflict I reported Alchemist offence here; especially Alchemist aggressive way was rather not the first time. This page is for Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance, so the introduction of this page. Being called a rotten fruit that has to be removed without any insult of me just because Alchemist is angry that I am not the same opinion like him is a very strong insult that exceeds a limit of tolerance. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wladyslaw

• Taxiarchos228 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user he say: "Ich pöbel" = "I'm swear" [3]. That is a very strong personal insult and not tolerable. He also wrote "simply untruths about me". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

revenge announcement of Alchemist. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That translation is not quite accurate, it should rather be I (AHP) use coarse language. This is not at all a personal insult, let alone a strong one. Taking into account what you wrote to prompt his comment (Dafür brauche ich Deinen nutzlosen Rat oder Erlaubnis nicht. Jedes Byte das Du schreibst ist für die Katz. Und lesen kannst Du immer noch nicht. For that I don't need your useless advice or your permission. Every byte you're typing here is a total waste. And you still don't know how to read) I tend to agree with Wladyslav. Anyhow, this is clearly an abuse of AN/U. --Dschwen (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

See my above comment. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sven: Because I am not interested in continuing this conflict I reported Wladyslaw offence here; especially Wladyslaw aggressive way was rather not the first time (he i indefinited blocked in the German Wikipedia because of similar behavior). This page is for Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance, so the introduction of this page.

I promise I'll avoid and ignore Mr. Wladyslaw in the future for ever. Sorry for the complications and your lost time. This case can be closed now. Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not blocked for similar behaviour. An other myth Alchemist is trying to establish. But my block in de.wikipedia is absolutely irrelevant. This is part of Alchemist behaviour: turning facts, bringing irrelevant stuff that sounds good and serves his statement. I'm still waiting for a exculpation for the serious insult. As long this won't be as long I will not close the case above. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely in de.wikipedia because of misusing multiple times many sockpuppets and you told the audience lies about that proven fact. So, Alchemist-hp is right. Despite of being blocked, you instantly are active again in de.wikipedia, using many new accounts, some of them acting, from time to time, in nearly the same aggressive and egoistic manner as before. Now you use Commons as a save operation basis for your actions in de.wikipedia. I call that inter-project misuse. By the way: In als.wikipedia you also have been blocked indefinitely cause of your misbehaviour. And, just being a short time here in Commons, you are threatening with legal action against Wikimedia, if one doesn't accept your egoistic re-licencing actions. We remember very well. But it's not Wladypedia here. --80.187.103.128 15:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here? Can someone explain it in a clear, concise manner please. russavia (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a kind of bashing that is happening here. But here is nothing to discuss because Alchemist hast closed this case himself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:TRAJAN 117

Resolved

I appreciate that we do not have a civility policy here as such, but would someone ask TRAJAN 117 (talk · contribs) not to call me a trolling imbecile [4]? Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

TRAJAN 117 is formally warned to avoid the bottom two levels of the pyramid to the right. DrKiernan is advised to develop thicker skin; while TRAJAN 117's beheavior is unacceptable, everyone on this project will be insulted from time to time, and for isolated, low level incidents, the best solution is often to just ignore the insult and disengage from the contentious area. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

106.3.98.89

106.3.98.89 needs attention.

Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

User:Donaldduck100

Resolved

This file upload as well as other edits seem to be clearly indicating that Donaldduck100 is a new account of indefinitely blocked accounts Napolean100, Sridhar1000 and Saleem100. Strange that admins are neither confirming nor denying my suspicion (Based on my earlier post in this noticeboard). Please also refer to earliest ref of this user. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC).

I missed your earlier post I guess, but based on a Checkuser on tewiki this new sockpuppet is definitely Confirmed. Thanks again! Trijnstel_talk 19:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Two indefinite blocks

Hello, this is just a note to inform that today I've made two blocks by indefinite time:

• Pedrojuanitodelachiquitita (talk · contribs) - Account used to upload a copyvio with the sole intent to vandalize a BLP in the Spanish wiki.
• Supplements SHop (talk · contribs) - Spamming account.

If someone finds something inappropriate with those blocks, please say so (or correct them).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain the first users "copyvio with the sole intent to vandalize a BLP in the Spanish wiki" which BLP? Also are the two representing only one user? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC).

Endorse the blocks. Picture was uploaded with the sole intention to vandalize es:Luis Carlos Vélez as can be seen here for example. Commons shouldn't be a place to propagate vandalism to other projects. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 18:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Help? Thanks.

Can someone do something vile or official to this person, 99.194.230.5 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)? Thanks! (I think this is a leftover from some VOA on the regular Wikipedia.) Drmies (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 hours. What is "VOA", surely not Voice of America? --Túrelio (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Now re-blocked for 1 day. --Túrelio (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yograj tiwari

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

and (based on user names and edit patterns) sockpuppets

• Sirmouryograj (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Yograj india (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Yograj tiwari1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Yograjyog (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

and (based on user names only) possible sockpuppets

• Yograjchhetri88 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Yograjkot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

The user keeps disruptively charging ahead in "rhino mode", uploading hundreds of low-quality photos of unidentified subjects of questionable notability in spite of repeated requests to read Commons:Project scope and to comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yograj tiwari. The only edits outside of the file namespace also seem to be utter nonsense. As the user is completely unresponsive, it probably needs handling with both ends of the broom. At the very least the needless additional accounts should be shut down. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

 Question The user has also uploaded one file to English Wikipedia: en:File:Rewa.jpeg which I marked as a copyright violation earlier today. It seems that Commons has several copies of that file in different resolutions. Are these files copyright violations or simply personal out of scope files? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

At least some of the photos have been previously posted on a blog, which may or may not be the uploader's own blog. As long as they choose not to communicate, who knows? I'm not sure it affects the appropriate course of action. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ping! The user has obviously seen the messages on his talk page, but continues anyway. 41 more nonsense files added today (so far). Over 250 files in total. Please do something about this sooner rather than later. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I blocked User:Yograj tiwari for 1 week and I filed a request for the CheckUsers. Trijnstel_talk 14:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And the sock puppets? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not blocked yet as I'm not sure if they're socks (I'm not a CheckUser myself you know ;)) . Trijnstel_talk 14:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither am I, but you don't need to be to know a duck when you see one. User:Sirmouryograj, User:Yograj india and User:Yograj tiwari1 all upload photos of the same cheery looking gentleman as User:Yograj tiwari with the same odd choices of file format and makes the same kind of empty edits to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback, and User:Yograjyog is chanting the same "Yograj tiwari" mantra on English Wikipedia as Yograj tiwari does here. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked all except the possible socks. Obviously they used Chrome and Firefox but hopefully from the same ISP. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Immediately after the block expired, he started with exactly the same behavior. Please block again and delete the new uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely.  ■ MMXX ^talk 16:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Now evading the block using sockpuppet:

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

Please block and delete the uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Also found the following pre-existing sockpuppets:

• Rewaindiarewa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user (obvious; same type of uploads)
• Rewa india1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user (based on user name and test edits at English Wikipedia)
• Rewa in m.p. (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user (based on user name – several of the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yograj tiwari have "rewa" and "m.p." in the file names – and test edits at English Wikipedia)
• Barahula (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user (obvious; same type of uploads; see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Barahula)

—LX (talk, contribs) 15:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a dummy edit to prevent archival of this unresolved matter, since this page is now archived after just three days (which is obviously too soon). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked indef. INeverCry 18:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Subida de Logotipo no Autorizado, Please delete this file

Favor eliminar logotipo del link asociado

We have not given permission for publication

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_Arenas_y_Cayo_2011.png

CRL CFO, Arenas & Cayo S.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.184.158 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC) diff

El archivo ha sido subido por la cuenta Arenasycayo (talk · contribs). ¿Han sido ustedes? En todo caso, la imagen ha sido marcada como "sin permiso" por lo que será borrada en el plazo de una semana salvo que alguien se oponga y abra una discusión al respecto, que podría acabar con el mantenimiento de la imagen. Un saludo. MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Silfdraco

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

Please block this user, as s/he has continued to upload copyright violations after receiving a last warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I want to change my user name

I want to change my user name. Whom should I apply for? Aviad Bublil (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You may go to Commons:Changing username and then follow the procedure. :) Trijnstel_talk 13:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Since only the bottom of the page gets read

Please look up. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 18:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

PD nature of the Pics of Swami Dayananda Saraswati

Hi. My friend Spiff had marked "missing evidence of permission" for File:Ds2asdsdasdasd.jpg. I added PD-India and removed the tag inline with the precedent of this DR. But he proceeded ahead with DR of the former mentioned file. He's marked "missing evidence of permission" for one more file of Swami Dayananda Saraswati. I'm sure this file will also be marked DR if I remove the "missing evidence of permission" tag but I again quote the case Ashraf Ali Thanvi whose image was accepted as PD Domain because of his death 70+ years ago and ask the admin intervention into these matters. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC).

All three files have been deleted, thank you for the intervention. —SpacemanSpiff 06:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The point to be noted here is that none of these pics are my uploads. What I'm looking at is that PD aspect of the uploads considering the fact that the subject of these pics died long back.

Are the pics of Swami Dayanananda not in PD in India ? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

The photos are in the public domain world wide, but these are paintings, therefore we need to know who is the painter. Yann (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that the files are deleted, I am clueless about the uploader to ask any question about the painter. Also, if I remember correctly, the uploader had added a pic of Maharashtrian social reformer on Commons with the description "f***ing b*****d" (the stars are my esoteric notation) and I warned him for that on his talk page. Can any body help me by asking this guy about the pic painter / source, etc? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC).

It does not help that the uploader did not provide a source or description. One of the file is this one and the other is this one. Yann (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Mpb eu (talk · contribs) was blocked on 22 September for three months due to repeated copyright violations. Three days later, White captain (talk · contribs) appears and begins uploading images with the same nationalist POV mentality as Mpb eu (namely uploading images of "old Bulgarian" buildings across Thrace which have now been "usurped" by the Greeks, most of which are complete nonsense or at best tell only a partial story, cf this or his naming habits, e.g. Fake 19 century greek inscription plate in Xanti.JPG, Porto Lagos old Bulgarian custums and port authority.JPG, the list goes on). The solid proof of sock-puppetry however is Dedeagach-Alexandroupoli Bulgarian church Saints Ciril and Metodius, which is the same photo Mpb eu had originally uploaded as "Old Bulgarian church in Dedeagach present greec st Elevterios.JPG". The image was deleted as copyright violation since a plaque clearly visible in the photograph that it was constructed in 1955, but now White captain re-uploads it with the additional explanation that it was "reconstructed 1955". Constantine ✍ 09:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

White captain (talk · contribs) has been blocked by another admin citing sock puppetry. Regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 09:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I also nuked his uploads. The only thing I failed to do was note anything here. My bad, Sven Manguard Wha? 23:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Faro

I think, some pictures are categorized in Category:Faro which do not belong there, because they are not specific for the city of Faro, Algarve, Portugal, but could have been taken anywhere: File:Collie Dog - Faro - The Algarve, Portugal - The Algarve, Portugal (1470393702).jpg, File:Man with funny coloured hair - Faro - The Algarve, Portugal (1469553175).jpg, File:Transit Van that looks like a hearse - Faro - The Algarve, Portugal (1470405186).jpg, File:Van that had just been hit by another van - Faro - The Algarve, Portugal (1470404578).jpg, File:No piso in the Portuguese McDonalds toilets - Faro - The Algarve, Portugal (1470408208).jpg. I have removed Category:Faro from these pictures giving the reason. User:Tm however, keeps reverting this without giving any reason. Looks like an edit-war. Can anybody stop this nonsense? How? Nol Aders (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• You are right, categories removed again. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And the edit-war goes on, does it not?! Nol Aders (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please block Tm (talk · contribs) for constant edit-warring. See his discussion page for previous cases. Badzil (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Dont they show especificaly the Streets in Faro or Category:Restaurants in Faro. So how dont this images belong in Category:faro?
(originally unsigned contribution by Tm (talk · contribs) at 03:26, 15 October 2012‎)

• Those are subcategories of Category:Faro. The general rule is that none of the mother categories of a subcategory is shown. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Some action is indeed necessary regarding Tm (talk · contribs). Neither explanations nor warnings seem to work here. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• I have blocked Tm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for two weeks because of a history of similar blocks and little evidence of a willingness to engage in an effective discussion in either English or his/her native Portuguese. The guidance on over-categorization cited by Alvesgaspar may be found at Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. I would be happy to reduce the block time if Tm engages in dialogue and demonstrates a spirit of cooperation with his/her fellow editors. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Liptak may be back...

Please look into User:تين. This new user has uploaded several of Liptak's works, which are not allowed on Commons. This may potentially be a new sock, or a friend, or could just be an admirer of Liptak's artistry. But in any case, these uploads must be immediately deleted. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And of course four out of the five uploaded files are ugly and almost completely useless. The username means "fig" in the Arabic language (don't ask me why). AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Naturally the onus of "why" is on User:تين (him/her)self. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC).

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander Liptak-Coat of arms of El Inca-2011.png. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Same image, different authors, possible violation of CC 2.5 license

• 
  probably the original version
• 
  improved color balance

The above two images are identical, to the pixel, including the locations of moving vehicles on the highway, yet the apparent original image claims to be by Priscila Micaroni Lalli (Pri Lalli or prilalli@gmail.com) while the apparent re-balanced copy claims the original uploader was Dasneviano. I found this while trying to geolocate images of Idaho Springs, Colorado, during which process I have tried to wedge the available info into standard infoboxes, added to one description and added a description to the other, but I have not corrected the misattributions. Someone should investigate the misattribution(s) and make a correction. If the correct attribution is to , then Dasneviano has violated the terms of the CC 2.5 license by his version in the public domain! Douglas W. Jones (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, after viewing the latter's :en talkpage and taking into consideration that Pri Lallii's version is from July 2006 (only 6 months after the image had been shot), while the other version was uploaded to :en in 2008, there is little doubt who is the copyviolator. --Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is what to do in such a situation: simply delete the copyvio-derivative (despite its encyclopedic value) or remove the wrong claims and templates and add the correct ones? For now, I've done the latter. Other opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Note also that there is a series of contributions to the Commons in 2006 from Pri Lalli that covers what is obviously a trip to the United States that includes New York and Denver; a visit to Idaho Springs fits perfectly in this context. The improved color balance of the Dasneviano version is significant, enough to that if someone deleted the derivative image, the best next step would be to recreate it. The original was definitely licensed in a way that permits such derivation. Note also that Pri Lalli and Dasneviano both appear to be Brazilian. We should not discount the possibility that they shared the digital original independently of Wikimedia commons and that neither knew that the other had uploaded the image. Dasneviano is the one who edited the Idaho Springs, Colorado web page to use his version of the image (appropriately) around the time he uploaded it. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense to me too. On a slight tangent, the colour balanced version seemed overprocessed to me, especially in the mountains. I've replaced it with an edited version of the original photo. --Avenue (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically, I believe Dasneviano never released their version under CC-BY-SA-2.5, and they had no right to release it into the public domain, so neither tag would be valid. (See Commons:Viral_licenses_are_not_automatic for a related essay.) I think we should therefore delete Dasneviano's version from the file history. (We might be able to work around this under clause 7a of the license, which allows people who received a derivative work to keep using it if they comply with the license, but I'm doubtful of this since Commons has also been violating the license and it does not include a forgiveness clause.) --Avenue (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd assume that User:Dasneviano released his modifications to the public domain. It's possible that he didn't have permission to do this (and in that case, User:Pri Lalli may sue him for copyright infringement), but that's not our problem. Also, User:Pri Lalli could sue him for not abiding to the attribution requirement, or for not providing a link to the CC-BY-SA licence, but again that's not our problem. A PD work (the modifications by User:Dasneviano) can be combined with a CC-BY-SA work (the original by User:Pri Lalli), as long as the CC-BY-SA terms are respected. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree Dasneviano's failure to follow the license conditions is not our problem, at least in itself. I'd also agree that if we were starting from scratch, we could use the derivative work under the CC-BY-SA license. I think our problem is that we have violated the CC-BY-SA license by hosting the derivative work without any mention of that license, which it requires. Since we have violated the license, our rights under the license are automatically terminated under clause 7a, so we can no longer distribute that version. (Perhaps we can no longer distribute the original photo either.) Am I missing something? --Avenue (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I see my mistake now. By "we", I was referring to Wikimedia Commons, but since Wikimedia (as an online service provider) isn't liable for copyright infringement in the same way we as individuals are, it isn't subject to my argument above. So please ignore all my posts in this thread, except the first (about my edited version). --Avenue (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Search

Hi, I´ve uploaded a picture, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Zollstrasse_7.JPG

I made categories and description etc.

Now I tried to find it by using different search-variables at wikipedia(name of the file, descrption and so on), but it doesn´t appear in any search-result-list. What´s the reason?

Thanks

Please always sign your comment, using --~~~~.

The image in question is File:Zollstrasse 7.JPG. If you uploaded it only recently, it may take some time until it's in the search database. However, our search algorithm isn't the best. --Túrelio (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Search is quite good but it can take 24 or more hours before items are in the search database and search returns sporadically no results whatsoever during a couple of minutes. Now it works. --Foroa (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Multiple copyright violation by this user Spfcimagens (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Fabiano ^msg 06:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

User warned. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Checho19

Checho19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps uploading copyvios after block. --Ralgis^WM-CR 04:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Morning ☼ (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin:Bidgee's forcing of a file in the wrong category and threatening approach

Bidgee over the last few weeks has repeatedly added and tried to force File:Australian Slippery Road Surface sign.png to stay in the Category "Diagrams of permanent warning road signs of New Zealand". This was inappropriate for several reasons. The first is the file name makes it obvious this is an Australian road sign. The New Zealand one is very similar if not identical, so if this was the only one available, it would make sense to have it in the New Zealand category as well. However, a New Zealand file exists, making that argument completely moot. Furthermore, the New Zealand file is in SVG format making it far superior anyways. I have repeatedly tried to remove the file for these reasons, and Bidgee has now gone so far as to rename the file to File:Australia and New Zealand slippery road surface sign.png to force it to be in the New Zealand signs category. This is incredibly childish, strong-headed, and unnecessary. Can somebody please undo this nonsense rename and get Bidgee to stop trying to force an Australian file to be in a New Zealand cat? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989, what I don't understand — in addition to your namecalling (now removed in part) — is that you are coming to AN/U before you did talk directly to Bidgee. I can see no edits from you on his talkpage (except the notification about this thread) and vice versa, and also the talkpage of the image in question is still empty. Bidgee might be a bit protective of this file due to some earlier edit-warring by IPs as the edit history suggests. Why don't you communicate directly before making a big fuss of such a minor issue? --Túrelio (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You wanna know why? Cause he called me names first, he accused me of "being purely disruptive" which suggests deliberate malintent. Why should I go talk to someone who attacked me for rightfully removing an Australian file from a category for a completely different country? There's absolutely no reason why it should be there, and I wasn't the only one who felt that way. Bidgee's forceful insistence IS childish, which is very different from calling him childish. It is an attack on his actions, not his personhood, and I stand by it. The file doesn't belong there, and he has gone to ridiculous lengths to force it to stay. I'm the one being disruptive? The only disruption I've committed is not letting him have his way. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989, you say that I called you names? I didn't, I'm calling your actions "being purely disruptive" and calling me childish proves that you will attack anyone whom stands against your POV. Irony that you added the {{vva|New Zealand PW-41.svg}} but then you say it doesn't belong in the NZ catgory as there is already a SVG and it has "Australian"? Tell you the truth, I see no difference in File:New Zealand PW-41.svg and File:Australia W5-20.svg (other than the SVG file size) so one of the files could have both countries names and codes rather then two of the same. Bidgee (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing ironic about me adding the New Zealand sign as a "vector version available", it was the only vector available at the time of a sign that is essentially the same thing until I recently uploaded the Australian version from a Queensland Government PDF, which I have now updated. You're the one who is forcing a file that was explicitly named "Australian" into a category for New Zealand which is a completely different country, so much so that you went to the lengths of renaming it to get your way. You called me (or my actions if you insist) disruptive, I'm calling your actions childish, same thing. So don't even try and criticize me when you did it first. Just cause you're an admin doesn't make your actions above scrutiny, you are not always right. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The simple issue here is you trying to force an Australian file to be in a category for another country, repeatedly despite quite reasonable explanations. You question that other user's reasons for renaming a file as unnecessary, and yet you unnecessarily rename a file yourself just to further your mood to keep it in a New Zealand category, hypocrisy abounds. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, both "designs" are used by both Australia and New Zealand (like many signs), so I solved your "Australian" name but seems you can't get over the fact. Really Fry1989, you need to be less aggressive. Bidgee (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How can you possibly stand here and call me "aggressive" when YOU are the one who repeatedly reverted a file into a New Zealand cat? So what if they "look the same"? It's a very simple concept, Australian files belong in Australian categories, New Zealand files belong in New Zealand categories. You felt it sooo important that this Australian file be in a New Zealand category, EVEN THOUGH there's a NZ file available too, that you renamed the file quite unnecessarily to further the cause. Everything you did was aggressive, right down to calling my intentions "purely disruptive". Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sick of repeating myself and clearly Fry1989 has issues with dealing with people having files in categories that he thinks is wrong. End of this discussion for me. Bidgee (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can't even reasonably explain why a file that's called "Australian...." should be in a category of a whole different country other than "they look the same", even though there's an equivalent of that other country, don't try and accuse me of being the one with problems. I have never had this problem with any other user in my entire time here, this is unbelievable. It's really all my fault that I somehow thought it odd that an Australian-named file was in a category for New Zealand, just as it would be all my fault if I thought it odd that a Norway-named file was in a category for Denmark according to your philosophy. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but why should I have to repeat why it is in both the Australia and New Zealand categories, also you can't wipe your hands clean when you're currently edit warring to your preferred version and the fact that it is always raised clearly points that you have ownership issues (Here are the archived discussions, User:Fry1989 again, Fry1989, User:Fry1989, User:Fry1989). Bidgee (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You're still here? I thought you were "done". Trying to point out I have "ownership issues" (which I don't btw) instead of answering a simple question only makes you look more foolish. You simply can not see why someone would have issue with a file from one country being in a category for another country, when that country already has it's own equivalent file. That says more about your reasoning ability then it does about me and any perceived ownership issues YOU think I have. Let's be clear here, you're the one who wanted it in the category so damn bad you renamed the file to get there. I have never renamed a file to make my point more valid. I had and still have a very valid argument, why should an Australian file be in a category about New Zealand? You won't answer that but rather choose to skip over that very obvious question simply because you don't have a good answer. All you have is "they look the same to me!". Fry1989 ^eh? 23:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you weren't so prejudiced and interested in deflecting any possible raised eyes towards you by trying to discredit me, you'd notice that your links claiming I'm "currently edit warring" is patently false. The files were reverted because of their proportions, not their colours. Therefore the colours from the most recent file should have stayed when the file's proportions were changed back. I corrected that in the two revision links you provided, by returning the colours but also the reverted proportions. Pay attention if you wanna talk about clean hands. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment it is not first edit warring by Fry1989 (first I noticed here). So I suggest to block him when such warring will repeat.--Anatoliy (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment seems like a storm in a teacup, a mountain made out of a molehill, insert third cliche here. Both points of view about what should have happened with the file are understandable; two experienced users should have been able to resolve the disagreement without it coming to this. As Bidgee is an admin, I would highlight his/her remark about Fry "You're being purely disruptive" as crossing a line. As to the content: either the Australian sign is the same as the NZ one or not. Only if they are not the same is there a real content problem here. Rd232 (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to correct Bidgee's outright lies that Anatoliy now acceopts as gosppel truth, the two links that Bidgee gives as "edit warring" are nothing of the sort. The first link labeled "edit" was the only revision I made of that user on that file. A single revision with no past history of dispute does NOT an edit war make. The second link by Bidgee labelled "warring" is me reverting myself! Reverting yourself most certainly is not an edi0t war. I will not have someone lie about me to save their own face because they can't even answer the simplest of questions; why should an Australian file be in a New Zealand categroy? Because of Bidgee's forceful insistence of this file being in another country's category, he not only was rude to me, he has shown disregard for Commons' most basic categorizing practices. You wanna call this making a mountain out of an ant hill? Fine, go ahead. But don't lie about me to deflect any raised eyes about your perculiar insistence of a file being in a category that has nothing to do with it simply because they "look the same". Fry1989 ^eh? 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

My final point here, since nobody else will publicly acknowledge the wrongs of Bidgee for his forcefulness in this and his faulty reasoning. This sign and this sign look exactly the same (they should, I used the one to make the other). I'm gonna start adding the Nepali signs that look the same to UK categories, and vice cersa. I'm gonna do that with every two countries which have their own equivalents that happen to look the same, good categorization practice be damned. And in every edit summary I'm gonna put "they look the same". And you know what will happen, every one of those will be reverted by one person or another as "wrongful categorization". But none of you will admit Bidgee did the exact same thing. And I'm gonna revert them saying "they still look the same!" and when that person reports me, I'm gonna distract everyone by saying that other person edit wars (using links of their edits which don't even match the deffinition of edit warring, including an edit where that user reverts themself! how can you edit war with yourself?) and is rude and anything else I can think of to shift the focus. But yet that's exactly what Bidgee has done, and he gets away with it because he's an admin. I wash my hands of all of you who defend lies and show nepotism. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

@Fry1989 , you were accused of being disruptive for not getting your way. Your response to this situation is not to de-escalate but rather to suggest you will escalate it further in order to make a point? --LauraHale (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If you check my edits, you'll see I haven't done that at all. I'm speaking figuratively. If I did that, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind the response would be exactly as I laid out. But not a single person has said that Bidgee was wrong for doing the same thing. Now what's the only obvious difference between me and Bidgee? Could it be that he's an admin while I'm a lowly "basic user"? I think so. Why it is that I'm the one bitching cause I'm "not getting my way", when the far more obvious issue is Bidgee bitching cause I found it incredibly peculiar that an Australian file would be in a category for a completely different country? He was SO upset that he "couldn't get his way" that he renamed the file to do so! If I used my file naming rights to do that, I'd have my right removed IN A SECOND! Fry1989 ^eh? 21:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Also for Rd232, they in fact are not the same signs. Here's the Australian one which I downloaded from the Government of Queensland, here's the one I got from the NZTA. Of course, I stand by my view that even if they were 100% the same, Bidgee still was wrong. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm confused about what to do with the file: the file was originally File:Australian Slippery Road Surface sign.png, but based on your links, it is the New Zealand style of the sign! Since Aus/NZ styles are slightly different it does need to be renamed, but should it become File:New Zealand slippery road surface sign.png then? Rd232 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I created it off a photograph (my own) of a local sign in Wagga Wagga (Australia). Don't know if I still have the photograph as it could be on my dead hard drive. Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Further to it, the RMS (formerly RTA) in NSW is closer to the NZ sign. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we saying that the signs vary by region in Australia? (Fry's sign was from Queensland, yours from NSW). Rd232 (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

They sometimes do but the code remains the same (in this case W5-20). It was common to see the US standard one way signs in NSW, ACT and Vic, many still exist and still being replaced with the very same US standard even though the standard was replaced with R2-2. Bidgee (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't have a whole lot of free time but headed back to where the original sign was, it has since been replaced (also moved further back from a sweeping bend in the road) and is in more inline with the RTA/NZ sign. Bidgee (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I left it open-ended, because I didn't know if they were the same or not. OK, they're not. If they were the same, I don't think it would be unreasonable to avoid unnecessary duplication in the way Bidgee seemed to be trying to do, as long as it can be done in a way that doesn't confuse users (which is partly a matter of opinion). NB I ignored Bidgee's claims above of edit-warring on your part in other areas because it was irrelevant.

I think the question increasingly becomes: what do you want to happen here now? If you're considering a desysop-proposal, you need to be a lot more systematic about making a case (probably in a separate thread). If you're not considering that, then what outcome are you after here? Rd232 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If that question was directed at me, no, de-sysop is something very severe that has never come to my mind. I think that's for admins who show consistent disregard and distaste for policies they don't think apply to them, or who bully others and act very unbecoming of an admin on a regular basis. All I want personally, is an appology for Bidgee's forcefulness on this file being in a category for a different country from it's name when my reasoning for removing it was completely understandable, and also an appology for his calling me "purely disruptive" and lying about me "currently edit warring" using two links, the first being a single revision of one user on a file with no past history of dispute, and the second being me reverting myself (again, how can you edit war with yourself?). An appology on those issues is enough for me. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting. I don't like when people lie about me. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Demanding apologies is rarely productive. And it would be helpful if you stopped stating as a fact that Bidgee "lied" here - lying is intentionally not telling the truth, which is not shown to be the case here. Rd232 (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not demanding, I'm asking, there is a difference. And I will repeat it for as long as it is true and remains unacknowledged. Bidgee not only attacked me, he used two links to accuse me of currently being in an edit war, when both links couldn't be farther from the deffinition of edit warring. You can not edit war with yourself, and an edit war is not made by a single revert on a file with no past history of dispute. Bidgee knows this, it was a deliberate untruthful attempt to distract from himself and accuse me of wrongdoing which I did not commit. It also resulted in me recieving threats of a block on my talk page by another admin who didn't even take the time to look at the edits themself, but take the accusations as gospel truth simply because Bidgee is a fellow admin. Nepotism at it's best. I deserve an appology, and I want one, but I can't force Bidgee to do it nor can anyone else. I'm asking that he give me one, and then I'll move on. If he doesn't, I wont be quick to forget this. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Claralawrence claims of own work

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Claralawrence

Pics available on internet - no evidence of ownership - please delete all asap. thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. User blocked, files nuked. INeverCry 17:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Good work. Many thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess we need to caution the user first. Please revoke the block and add a note of caution on the user's talk page. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC).

User was warned, even was given a final warning but continued to upload after the warning. I do think a week is a little long for a first block but I do support the block. Bidgee (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Donaldduck100 a.k.a. Saleem100, Sridhar1000,Napolean100 - now User:Goldduck58

I request check if the indefinitely blocked user with the above usernames is now back as User:Goldduck58 in the light of this upload - typical of his interests. Also is the case of his rename requests. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC).

Will get back to this asap. I thought he quit, judged by User:Sachin100 (his latest sock), which is why I didn't block Sachin100... :/ Trijnstel_talk 15:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see what's wrong with this file? Yann (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The file is perfectly ok. I am assuming the sock going by the uploads and rename requests. This, however, is subject to further verification. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC).

The intitial version was quite sloppy, and banned users should not circumvent their ban using sockpuppets for any edits or uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm not 100% sure about this being socket puppet, if it really is one, then consider not glorifying the user by having this Unidentified media by Goldduck58. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is Sridhar100 and I've blocked on en.wiki. —SpacemanSpiff 13:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So still this person is using two accounts on Commons- Sachin100 and Goldduck58. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC).

No. --Denniss (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Trijnstel spoke about Sachin100 and Spiff confirmed Goldduck58. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC).

Got it! Both are now blocked as per Category:Sockpuppets_of_Sridhar1000. Thank God I've been able to detect three socket puppets of this user (Saleem100, Donaldduck100 and Goldduck58) out of the listed 20. But the problem is that this user keeps coming back again and again. Can blocking IP address be an option? Also should we retain this category Unidentified media by Goldduck58, especially by the same name? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC).

Unfortunately that's not possible. He uses IPs from a very busy range with lots of legit users in there too. :( Trijnstel_talk 13:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree images

Special:Contributions/Fazsufu seems a bit suspicious - lots of diagrams which may have been scanned. They're high res, but they don't appear sharp enough to be direct pc-made. I'd like some more eyes on this as I'm not sure. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

They're definitely scans, I can see telltale signs including ink-to-pulp diffusion and defects in the paper. That being said, that doesn't give us anything ironclad about ownership/copyright. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When I saw the earlier wave of uploads by this user (see deleted uploads), my main concern with it was "self-promotional". --Túrelio (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There was another wave yesterday. Own work seems doubtful to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Rotate robot request vandalism

In August, we had Anomey who added pointless rotate requests to files; now there are some one-shot accounts which appear to have no purpose other than to issue one pointless rotate request (Tomas.navarrete.gtz, Grozaman). Something to keep an eye out for... AnonMoos (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Mamtapolicedhody

Numerous copyright violations. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No action taken - Yes, he botched a great number of uploads by falsely claiming own work. However he has not done anything since the deletion notices and warnings went up, so I don't feel it appropriate to issue a block. Please come back if he resumes problematic uploads. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Sigfrid

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

Back in 2006 User:Sigfrid transferred a number of images from English Wikipedia. Intentionally or not (probably not), some of these images have ended up lacking sourcing and appearing to be own work when they may not be. Each upload needs an English Wikipedia admin checking at the original location. Could someone volunteer to do this? (It's only about a dozen files.) Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• File:Texas Longhorn.jpg: Uploaded by w:User:Hephaestos. No issues here.
• File:DeepSpringsCattleDrive.jpg: Uploaded by w:User:Plowboylifestyle. No issues here.
• File:St Louis Rivers.png: Uploaded by w:User:Bluelion. Derivative of a PD work, OK.
• File:Lafayette Square St-Louis.jpg: Uploaded by w:User:Xing979. It appears likely that Xing979 = Ralph Moran based on his other uploads.
• File:Saint-Louis Missouri USA.jpg: Uploaded by w:User:Msedwick. Uses {{GFDL-self}}, should be fine.
• File:Saint-louis-art-museum.jpg: Uploaded by w:User:Colin.faulkingham. No issues here.
• File:Missouri-history-museum-st-louis-forest-park.jpg: Uploaded by w:User:Colin.faulkingham. No issues here.
• File:Slu dubourg 1888.jpg. Uploaded by w:User:Wilson Delgado. No issues here.
• File:782px-Powell Symphony Hall.jpg. Uploaded by w:User:Big Brother 1984. No issues here.
• File:Polar bear stl zoo.jpg. Uploaded by w:User:Barfooz. No issues here.
• File:CharlesRiverSnowMotl.jpg. Uploaded by w:User:Lumidek. Lumidek = Luboš Motl according to userpage, so no issues here.
• File:RichardsonTrinityBoston.jpg. Uploaded by w:User:Carptrash. Carptrash = Einar Einarsson Kvaran according to userpage, so no issues here.
• File:Boston Public Library2.jpg. Uploaded by w:User:Dpbsmith. No issues here.
• File:Jfk library.jpg. Uploaded by w:User:Quinen. The uploaded did not indicate that it was their own work.
• File:Christian Science Center1.jpg. Uploaded by w:User:Physicistjedi. Found results on Tineye from 2010, so no issues here.
• File:ConleyTerminalBoston 2.jpg. Uploaded by w:User:ArnoldReinhold. No issues here.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that info - I've updated various files as necessary to correct misattribution problems. Two questions:

1. What do you mean with the TinEye reference? The file in question was uploaded in 2006, so a TinEye hit from 2010 tells us nothing.
2. The problem file that led me here, File:Jfk library.jpg, remains a problem. Does the original uploader have any deleted uploads? Rd232 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

en:File:Jfk library.jpg is that user's only deleted upload. All of the information from that image is reflected in the Commons: version of it. (The edit summary was even the same as the content of the "Summary" section.) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Given how long the image has been around, presence of EXIF, and the wording of the description, I've decided to label it PD-user-w. Rd232 (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

SweetValeria (talk · contribs) likely SP

This October-23-created account is likely a sock-puppet of FabyEmotiva (talk · contribs). On October 21, I had found User:FabyEmotiva's upload File:Anna Faby.jpg to be a copyvio, and also his/her 2 other uploads. The same day User:FabyEmotiva revenge-nominated my year-2007-uploads File:MotherTeresa 094.jpg & File:MotherTeresa 090.jpg wrongly as copyvios, which was speey-reverted by Bidgee. FabyEmotiva was warned not to so again and on October 22 he/she requested deletion of his/her userpage suggesting that he/she was retired[6]. However, today he/she recreated the userpage with "--Cancelada" and left a WikiLove-message User:SweetValeria's talkpage[7]. Checking of SweetValeria's uploads, showed that on October 23 SweetValeria had uploaded the above mentioned image under a slightly different filename File:Anna-Fabiola.jpg. This time, the EXIF date had been doctored to provide "Anna Fabiola" as title and "January 2010" as creation date, whereas the likely original image[8] says to be created in April 28, 2012 and does not carry a title (though the source site gives "Krista Ellman" for the depicted girl). Of SweetValeria's other upload, File:Lizette-Lombo.jpg, which he/she claims to be from July 2012, an uncropped version had been uploaded to Facebook in April 2012. I don't know whether it's worth to perform a CU on both accounts; however I suggest an indef block of SweetValeria. --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Both have been indef-blocked by Herby. --Túrelio (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Captain Zizi (talk · contribs)

This user has overwritten[9] in sequence 3 heavily used images from others users, namely File:UMP regional elections Paris 2010-01-21 n2 (cropped).jpg, File:Nicolas Sarkozy - Sarkozy meeting in Toulouse for the 2007 French presidential election 0299 2007-04-12 cropped further.jpg and File:Flag of Israel.svg, for the obvious purpose to attack the depicted persons resp. country. In addition, his "new versions" were copyvios. As this malignant behaviour shows that nothing good can be expected from this user, I've blocked the account for 1 year and propose an indef block. --Túrelio (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I support an indef block, as this looks to be a vandalism-only account. INeverCry 18:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think "zizi" is a French slang term for "penis"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You are right! see. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

I've gone ahead and changed to indef. INeverCry 19:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Histogeek (talk · contribs)

Could somebody please check all uploads of this user for copyvio. Sadly, since 2008 nobody noticed the strange claims of "own work" and "author=unknown". See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Placeroyalebxl.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Palaisjusticebruxelles.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maison-bellone 00-1-.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

All modern-day photos with these contradictory claims have now been nominated for deletion or tagged for speedy deletion. The rest of the uploads are probably all covered by {{PD-art}} or {{PD-scan}}, but some of the file descriptions could do with some serious tidying up. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Mayankkatiyar (talk · contribs)

I believe this user has uploaded exclusively or almost exclusively copyvios (all web-resolution images of india, including some extremely implausible photos like up-close images of tigers in the wild). Could someone look into this? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've done a mass DR on all but 3 of the user's uploads, as those 3 had EXIF and were high-res. Here's the mass DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mayankkatiyar. INeverCry 20:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Multiple copyright violation by this user Pedro gabriel viero (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Fabiano ^msg 02:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 month. INeverCry 03:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Six.stomachs

User:Six.stomachs is reuploading his photos which were deleted during a (now closed) deletion request. Will an administrator have a look on it? --79.237.182.252 10:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've re-deleted the files and warned the user. INeverCry 16:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Stubies0210

Stubies0210 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

• This user has now been indef-blocked on en.wikipedia (by me) for persistent copyright violations despite warnings and a previous block. I am unsure if a block is also warranted here. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm pessimistic about this user, I have "only" deleted most of his uploads and given a last copyvio-warning. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Information and request

:Hi. The discussion below is a copy of a debate we had in the FPC talk page, initiated by me. I thought that the involved administrator could resign there, but he did not. For days, nothing happens, and some of us think that the discussion should take place here now, and no more in the FPC talk page. I agree. :As for me, simple asshole among all the assholes of FPC, I ask at least for a resignation as administrator of this user, or, if not, for a de-sysop. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for complete information of all, please notice that here, one of our administrators wrote " (...) generally, FP makes assholes of everyone who goes there ". Of course, nothing will happen (another member of the admin brotherhood has immediately closed the discussion in order to make it to vanish quickly, with the funny comment: "Nothing more to say here"). For my part, I'm not very happy to be treated as a asshole just because I try to make the FP project alive. And I think there is maybe more to say, and maybe do. And you ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I still have the romantic idea that admins are 'the best of us' and should give the example of nice manners. For that reason, I asked politely mattbuck to retreat the gross comment. Naive of me!-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• I agree an admin should not use such language. But everyone is human and at times vents their feelings, sometimes with strong language. I disagree with the idea that a retraction is useless because to do so when requested at least acknowledges that one crossed a line that, if one is being measured and careful, should not have been crossed. On the other hand, who among us has not been an asshole at some point. I'm no angel. At least Alchemist has withdrawn his disruptive vote. Just like the IP who likes to pop into to FP from time to time to remind us all what assholes we are, mattbuck says more about himself when he makes such a remark than he does about his target. Colin (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Obviously Matt spent time at FP to couch his words as he did, but I don't think he is that far off the mark. FP here on Commons and en:WP is toxic at times. Anyone that denies that is fooling themselves. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. High emotions, vindictive voting and otherwise toxic behaviour have been running rife here lately. The responsibility is on everyone to keep the voting process separate from policy discussion and to generally avoid being an asshole. History has shown with both en:WP:FPC and com:FPC that failure to do so will result in participant exodus, which is not something we want. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    • snip -- removed a thread off-topic to this user-probem discussion -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Mattbuck's choice of words may be a bit rude and too generalizing, but IMHO he really has a point. Discussions about the different qualities of a photo (or whatever piece of art) use to be heated in a lot of forums. A lot of people will get emotional if their favourite work of art is questioned, and sometimes it escalates into flame wars. It happens on a lot of different occations in our societies, so FPC is no exception from that. We just have to try to ignore the heated arguments, and try to get along nicely. / Achird (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know what is FP in ENWP but OK, dear learned commentators: so, if I understand well, anybody here can say that everyone is an asshole ? Be sure I'll remember in some occasions, but it's a bit pathetic...--Jebulon (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Jebulon. If mattbuck doesn't accept that he's gone too far with his language then he shouldn't be an admin. Period. Like Alvesgaspar I agree they should be held to higher standards and if when they fail to keep them they also fail to realise that then there is absolutely no point in them being admins. Those are they guys who dish out blocks when other go too far. If you want to take this further with mattbuck, then I'll be happy to support you. The problem with discussing his behaviour here is that it gets mixed up in our own introspections. Colin (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Uff! I am glad that I came to the origin of my problem! Saved me the shrink´s fee! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for the continuous electricity problems in our place due to the heavy rain and ear blowing thunderbolts. Yes; our place is blessed with northeastern monsoon nowadays. In my little knowledge, asshole is also an important organ as any other. I heard from my uncle (he is pediatric surgeon) that some children born without an anus and he has to create an artificial one within hours to save its life. I’m happy that I born with one. Please don’t neglect the wonderful blessings that God gifted on you. I wish you all; especially the FP participants have fully functioning assholes in their entire life! -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• I'm entirely with Colin: If mattbuck doesn't accept that he's gone too far with his language then he shouldn't be an admin. Period. Sorry,Saffron Blaze, JJ Harrison and Achird, you are missing the point and trying to "hide the sun behind a sive" (a Portuguese saying...). Of course, most of us behaved in some occasions like assholes (I did, at least), but the generalization that everyone coming here is contaminated by some kind of "asshole virus" is gross, unfair (for the people and the forum) and totally inappropriate from an administrator. Some defend that an admin is just a regular user with access to extra tools. I don't. When you have the power to sanction the behavior of others, you have to watch closely your own. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• I'm entirely with Colon and Jee. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Is the above a freudian slip? lol! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Toilet humour he he. But as Jkadavoor's uncle will know, one's colon is as vital as one's asshole. Colin (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
      • --Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Since I'm not sure if mattbuck is actually aware of this discussion, I'm going to leave a message, seems to me that it's not a very nice way to judge in absence... - A.Savin 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • He passed judgement on all in absentia... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• I am in agreement Alvesgaspar and several, including on the fact that some of us we have behaved like assholes. Admins, however, must be above such behaviour. An apology is in order. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Dear assholes community, as an anonymous asshole, I'm sure I've had be blocked if I have written such a word to qualify another user. What could happen if an Admin qualify many users with this word ? I'm afraid an apology is not enough. De-admin, for sure. Indefinite or at least significantly long block ? Why not ? Assholes of all countries, Unite ! --Jebulon (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC), indignado asshole.
    • Perhaps I've got rather rude in the years of my activity in three WM projects, but... let you know, someone who left the German WP for good because a former arbcom member assumed him a psychical disease with a current arbcom member applausing that statement and several admins turning a blind eye, will hardly notice sth. like "asshole", although maybe an average Commons user is (which is good of course) far more sensitive for that chose of words, than someone who worked hard in a Wikipedia where productive authors are being mobbed everyday and every hour. Nevertheless, understanding your frustration due to being called an "asshole", I find the requirements for a de-admin or even a long block rather exaggerated and unnecessarily escalating. - A.Savin 22:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I understand well: the level of acceptable insults depends on the level of participating in the project ? How high do you estimate my participating level ? Escalating ? No, in any case. I just ask a question about a block (but indeed, I think a de-admin is a minimum). Again, I know very well what will happen to my own WM account if, someday, I insult somebody here as "asshole"...Anyway, no matter. --Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Of course not, sorry for misunderstanding - I rather meant where is the tolerance limit for me personally, given, however, that I was active in a much more misanthropic WM project than Commons is and hopefully will ever be... But my English is far from being fluent (probably the some better knowledge of German is my curse). - A.Savin 08:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not regret the sentiment I expressed, however I will apologise to those who were offended. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As you understand maybe, I was.--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

@ mattbuck, very well, then, I was deeply offended... when will I get my apology? You said you would apologize to those offended... The grammar you use denotes a future, personal event... When will that start? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Did it already happen? I mean - do you feel offended, right now? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, my work costs me time, money and other resources... I upload to share the product of my work free of charge, for the benefit of many, not expecting compensation for it, but to be called an asshole for that? If that is the compensation I receive for sharing my work, yes, coming from an admin it is an insult. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why you think that he meant you. To put it in my own words: He said that FP is a place that produces assholes and i think that he absolutely right in this regard. How often do we see otherwise friendly, generous contributers fight over minor details, getting revenge eye for an eye (vote for a vote) and so on. But don't worry. This phenomenon is not only FP related. You find it at any place in which contributors and voters/judges are the same persons. So i can fully understand that Mattbuck is annoyed by the constant noticeboard flames, just because a flower is not red enough, someone dislikes a topic or disliked someone else (and of course his works) to begin with. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 16:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Don´t get me wrong... I did not lose a second of sleep over the issue. But the point is not that if I take the insult personally. That some of us are assholes is not the point. The issue is that an administrator makes a value judgement like that on a community of contributors. And the point is that an administrator must exercise extreme caution in his behaviour as guardian of the system. Would you like a policeman enforce drunk driving laws while drunk? Hardly. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

At the same time i would not expect policeman to speak good about a city district in which he is permanently send to prevent people from cutting each others throats, getting beaten from all sides in the progress. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your comparisons are in danger of making the same over-exaggerated mistake as Mattbuck. How often does FP trouble the Admin noticeboard? A handful of times a year, perhaps? Given that basically on Commons people rarely interact (unlike Wikipedia which is much more of a collaborative exercise) it is hardly surprising that on forums where they do interact and make judgements then sometimes tempers flare. If you think Commons FP is bad, try Wikipedia FA! To return to your policeman analogy, he would be most unwise to draw conclusions about every single resident of that district from the behaviour of a tiny number of individuals that his job will naturally lead him to encounter. Colin (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried two times and never came back. Too much moral, to less common sense... You are right that my example is a bit exaggerated, but it would be also unwise that everybody (for example "Tomascastelazo") living inside this district has to assume that he is an "asshole", just because a policeman said that there are some assholes growing up at at the same place. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 19:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No "some" are assholes, but "everyone". It makes a difference, because it includes Niabot too... Asshole one day, asshole for ever --Jebulon (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Today I am a diva"... --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I’m happy to know that my humorous comment helped some people to relieve the stress they possess. I’m much tolerating to user problems than policy issues. Please spend time to fix the "asshole" (I mean security hole) in the policy than wasting time here. People (including admins) must pass; but Commons should survive (I wish). -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Only a short new "Hello" to all the assholes of this page...--Jebulon (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • No response; I think this discussion can be "archived". :( -- JKadavoor Jee 17:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course not, it is simply impossible...I can't imagine that nothing will happen...--Jebulon (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Here is the discussion on the FPC procedure, for user problems try COM:ANU. Please... - A.Savin 18:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Agree. The "issue" happened there; and Mattbuck is not active here now. -- JKadavoor Jee 04:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• OK, debate moved to the more relevant page (COM:ANU), as suggested by A.Savin.--Jebulon (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Mattbuck was being deliberately offensive towards a community on Commons. His non-apology above just doubles the offense and makes it clear he does not understand the issues wrt his behaviour. I note also his attack towards Jebulon on the Quality Images review page. Mattbuck needs to acknowledge that this behaviour (both occasions) is unacceptable. Such thoughts regarding other people should be kept to himself as they reflect badly on him and hurt others. A retraction and proper apology are due. Colin (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh please. The QI thing was a joke because Jebulon did take the contrary position on about 6 images - hence they "on to you matey" to seem more jocular. As for the FP stuff I have made my statement on this and will not say anything further. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well a smiley wouldn't go amiss -- other folk reading that exchange would regard this as ill feeling. As for your second comment, I don't think that position is compatible with being an admin, where you are responsible for judging the behaviour of others and applying sanctions against them. Colin (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Are we seriously starting an AN/U thread on 31 October about a passing comment made on 12 October (here)? Frankly I find such a complete waste of time offensive! Now who's going to apologise to me? :( .... More seriously: please, occasionally people say things that aren't nice - most of the time those things are quite easily ignored. This is one of those times. That the person is an admin doesn't change that. Adminship might be an issue for a long-term pattern of inappropriate comments, but that's not been argued here. Rd232 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• • I quite agree that "occasionally people say things that aren't nice". But most reasonable people, when asked nicely, apologise. The fact that Mattbuck is refusing to even acknowledge he deliberately caused offence is the problem. Mattbuck has the option to quite easily resolve this issue. If the community of Admins deserves respect, a simple acknowledgement that Mattbuck was wrong to do that and shouldn't do it again would be a start. The fact that he is an admin is important here as admins are required to have and retain the respect of the community. Colin (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Let me cite Colin again: If mattbuck doesn't accept that he's gone too far with his language then he shouldn't be an admin. That is the issue being discussed here. It doesn't matter how long it has passed since the unfortunate comment was made. The important detail here is that an acting administrator does not recognize his misbehavior and is not humble or responsable enough to apologize. For me this is enough reason for being dismissed as an admin. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes; it is a pity if "an acting administrator does not recognize his misbehavior and is not humble or responsable enough to apologize". I expect he should be more careful about his comments in QIC-CR too. -- JKadavoor Jee 04:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Trying to force an apology is almost never productive: even if you get one, you don't know if it's sincere. So forget an apology. The question then is whether it's worth trying to desysop someone over a single comment - well let me say I don't want to know what sort of single comment would justify a desysop by itself. So unless someone is willing to put together a case that there is a long-term pattern of behaviour sufficient to justify a desysop then just let it go. NB someone could just start a desysop request on the back of this discussion - bureaucrats don't easily close such requests prematurely. But without proper preparation of a serious argument to justify the desysop request, the request is very unlikely to succeed. So I wouldn't recommend that. Rd232 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not after a desysop, others might be. I recognise that it should take more than one mistake to be toppled. I also recognise that forcing an apology isn't productive. What is useful is peer pressure and a bit of self examination. So I'm looking for fellow admins to say that this is not behaviour that we'd expect of an admin and that Mattbuck should not think he can insult a community on Commons, refuse to retract it or apologise, and avoid being censured in some way. Colin (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Well I actually missed that on 14 Oct he said I do not regret the sentiment I expressed, however I will apologise to those who were offended. So he's already apologised, already recognised that it wasn't a good way of expressing his view that the FP process has flaws (in the context of maybe excusing the particular behaviour of two participants, suggesting it was the environment in general and not just them). It hardly needs some kind of Official Admin Stamp of Approval to agree with you, Mattbuck, and others, that it wasn't a good way of expressing his view, does it? PS since people have a tendency to assume things like "you're defending X, you must be his friend", allow me to point out Mattbuck's blocklog. Rd232 (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
        • No, that statement is a textbook non-apology and I don't think he's recognised the things you attribute to him. It would appear that unless an admin is misusing their tools, then nobody here gives a damn. Weird sort of "community" we have here. Colin (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the most mellow and diplomatic user at times, but it should be pretty obvious that calling anyone or even hinting a resemblance to assholes is not the behavior that is expected from any user and in particular not from an admin. And anyone with a clear thought left should see that this statement says more about Mattbuck than about FPC. So I can oly echo the question: what is supposed to come out of this growing thread? You want an admin to say that this kind of language is not accepted? I said it. You want an apology. I think you got as much from mattbuck as you will get. As I read it he apologized for the tone. He is however entitled to his opinion and if he keeps it to himself or expresses it in a polite and reasonable way he should not have to apologize for that (potential asshole speaking here, unless my assholeness has already worn off due to my absence from FPC in recent times). --Dschwen (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What a bundle of miscommunications we have above. Mattbuck's apology alone seems to have been interpreted at least three ways. At least everyone seems to agree that mattbuck's language in his initial comment was inappropriate, although there are also two very different interpretations about what he meant. Without wanting to needlessly repeat insulting language, I think it could still be useful to clarify this. Did he mean "Everyone who comments at FP is an a******", or did he mean "FP is a toxic environment, and leads everyone to act like a******s there"? (The "FP makes a******s" part leads me to think it was the latter.) Mattbuck, can you please confirm what you meant? --Avenue (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm agree with much of what Dschwen said (though I dispute he has apologised for anything, even tone). If Mattbuck wants to think dark thoughts about the FP community I agree that's up to him and we're not the thought police here. I'm kinda satisfied we've had our chance to air our displeasure at Mattbuck's statement and that at least one other admin has affirmed it wasn't acceptable. It is important I think for any functional community to stand up for some degree of acceptable behaviour and make it clear when something isnt't acceptable. Otherwise this just becomes some kind of wasteland where anything goes and decent people leave. Let's move on. Colin (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think we can now close this thread, as there is at least one admin (and not some admin: congrats, Daniel!) who shares our concern. What disturbed me more was not the rudeness and unfairness of the comment but the incapacity of recognizing it. Pride is not the best companion for an admin! But of course, all this tells more about the user than about FPC. And will be remembered for the best and the worst. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, all is good, nothing happens, as expected by me. Let's close this thread with this immortal sentence, engraved here for eternity : ...generally, FP Adminship makes assholes of everyone who goes there.... I do not regret the sentiment I expressed, however I will apologize to those where offended. No more, but no less..--Jebulon (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Kudos! JKadavoor Jee 12:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A beer for us all

• Prost, cheers, santé, saúde, salud! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Amen!--Jebulon (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Hmmm; it seems mattbuck has no plan to refrain from insulting other reviewers. -- JKadavoor Jee 06:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see the insult from Mattbuck there: the other reviewer was was being crude and those suggestive comments were out of order. Colin (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Not disturbing; but lacks an "admin class". Note the response of Kreuzschnabel too: "I can surely live without reviewing images here." So this is not probably for the first time. JKadavoor Jee 09:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Comment :( --PierreSelim (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Abusive descriptions of Daria Plyushko

User:Kiapawa is adding abusive words to file descriptions: File:Steven_Langman,_José_Maria_Aznar,_Daria_Plyushko_and_Robert_Agostinelli,_Lisbon,_2012.jpg, File:Robert_Agostinelli_and_Daria_Plyushko_at_lincoln_center,_oct_2012.jpg Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

• Clear attack pages, I marked the second one for speedy deletion. The first one needs to be revdeled.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Revisions deleted and user blocked. INeverCry 17:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

At least her block log is empty at the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 Comment The reporter of these attacks seems to have been confused at who added them to the files. User:Kiapawa added the attacks, while User:Daria Plyushko had to revert those and their repetitions from her talkpage. I've spoken to User:Hindustanilanguage about this, and blocked the attacker Kiapawa. I've deleted every concerned revision that repeated the text of these attacks. I've also tagged all of User:Daria Plyushko's uploads as needing permission, as she's in all the pics, and so obviously isn't the person who took them. INeverCry 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there was some confusion over the two files, but its not uncommon for people to indulge in self degrading descriptions on Commons. One uploader had a file File:Amir_bihar_sharif_(temporarly_looser).jpg along with his photos of visiting a number of places of tourist interest. Similarly, a lady uploaded a pic of herself with the description b****. Infrogmation deleted the file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC).

Regardless of who makes the personal attacks or disparaging comments, whether it's the uploader themselves or another user, you should provide diffs showing the actions rather than repeating the text of personal attacks on a talkpage or here. Also, there's no way of knowing whether or not an uploader is the person in most images, even if they say they are, so we usually don't know if someone is making comments about themselves or another person. INeverCry 07:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Orrling

Hi, there seems to be a 'communication' problem with User:Orrling, please refer to Category talk:India as of November 5, 2012, 21:09 and before respetively User talk:Orrling as of November 3, 2012, where you'll find the facts. From my side: imho i tried to find a consense of different points regarding categorization but imho it failed, what i regret. Thank you for your mediation, Roland 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, imho the problem will remain unsolved, please see p.e. as of 15:33, 7. Nov. 2012‎ and ff. Honestly i did not want to beliefe in but i respect that no Wikimedian wished to mediate within the past 3 days. Once again please excuse my bad written English and final regards, Roland 18:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You haven't clearly explained the issues here, and now I've made the effort to follow the links provided, I still don't understand what the issues are - beyond the basic idea that you're not happy with Orrling undoing something you did with India categories. You could try asking User:Foroa about the category issues. Rd232 (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Agent001

Part of his recent contribution is insulting other users; the rest is advise to fake the permissions. The user has just been blocked for incivility but continued. Today he insulted me. He was banned from Russian Wikipedia a couple of years ago for trolling and incivility.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet the user was really incivil, his question is very important. He wanted to know — how can we guarantee a real license or real permission. An author can choose himself any name, and provide any scan or fake scan, and noone cares to check this in real life with notary officer. He made an eloquent example of an old photo whose author cannot be found out, and for such an image any uploader may claim his authorship or heirship, supporting this with a fake license contract. Is there any answer?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we have to accept these under good faith, as long as the uploader has no history of other problems. For example, it's also possible that someone got some (recent) landscape photos from a friend and claimed it as their own work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a question of experience by the recent-upload patrolers, admins and OTRS volunteers. Details should not be discussed too deeply in public, as this information might be used by intentional bad-faith uploaders to game the system. --Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

At last this means, Commons cannot guarantee anything. So the only reason of OTRS is to remove any legal issues from Commons to some unknown anonymous people who sent their messages to OTRS?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Mteenn123456789

Don't really want to get personally involved, but some uploads, such as File:Th-5.jpeg, seem problematic... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. The image did seem to be of underaged persons. In any event, it was a copyvio pic taken from the internet, as were all of the rest, except for one. I've deleted the images and warned the user for copyvios. INeverCry 16:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

BorisAirwolf (talk · contribs)

Spanish-speaking administrator help needed. Reuploaded images after deletion request. Most likely images originate from institution web site. Justification is they are needed for article on Wikipedia. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No uploads since 7 Nov, but a Spanish speaker would still be helpful. Note Spanish Wikipedia does not have local uploads. Rd232 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

202.0.124.3

Please block the above IP address. It's screwing around with road signs in the exact same pattern as Jermboy27, it's no doubt another sock. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked, the duck test is too easy with Jermboy27. Bidgee (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Googlesmarioman

Another sock of Jermboy it looks like. File:Suriname - Crosswalk Ahead.svg has no source and it's a jumble of two completely different countries' signs, a common practice by Jermboy. The user also tried to remove the DR notice from the file. Please delete and block. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations of Hnguyen0005

So far I deleted three copyvios from Hnguyen0005 (talk · contribs). He uploaded much more images on the same day - are they copyvios as well? Trijnstel_talk 14:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

They all seem like copyvios to me. Unless the user is buddies with the king of Bhutan, perhaps. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 17:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged all of them as copyvios and warned the user. INeverCry 18:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

User has been been blocked for continued copyright violations. Less than two hours after getting a final warning, they were at it again. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yieldtheguy2 (talk · contribs)

This screen name has been used for socks of Jermboy in the past. Block and delete the three unsourced uploads please. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Bhaskaranaidu

I noticed six notifications on his user talk page and as he uploaded much more images, are those copyvios as well? Should we block him? Trijnstel_talk 17:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they're not flagrant copyvios (as in, he took all the photos himself). At this point, we should assume good faith and teach him about COM:FOP, but we definitely should not block over this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Iman0613 (talk · contribs)

User has repeatedly uploaded potentially copyrighted renditions of the flags of Hong Kong without sources, and they have been repeatedly deleted. Please warn or block. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Block Tm (talk · contribs) for continuous edit warring

After previous blocks for edit warring, it is evident that Tm (talk · contribs) has not changed his ways to contribute to commons. See his actions and lack of discussions about File:Entre o verde e o Azul - Elevador do Lavra.jpg. Badzil (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Alejandro Arias

Alejandro Arias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked once because of copyvios. Yet, he's doing it again. --Ralgis^talk 20:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The last thing he did was back in October. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple copyvio by TishoYanchev‎‎

Can somebody please take a look at the uploads made by TishoYanchev‎‎ (talk · contribs), who doesn't seem to get the concept of copyright violation. --Bob Re-born (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Sponge123

There's a dispute between User:Sponge123 (a redlink, but an existing user, see User talk:Sponge123) and myself over File:United Nations Members.svg. They have continually made the change to grey out Taiwan, which I've opposed as the UN recognises it as part of China. Anyway, that's content, the problem is that there seems to be no getting through to this user. They keep repeating over and over again their desire to show the "truth", and have twice stated that they intend to war their version in till they succeed, without actually addressing anything I've mentioned in the changing image summaries and on their talkpage. It doesn't seem that discussion can achieve anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be more of an editing dispute than a user problem. I think you should bring up the issue at Commons:Village pump. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

How does this relate to "the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons", which is what the Village pump is for? A user swearing to stick to their truth is a user problem. I considered other pages, but this seemed like the best one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the suggestion to bring this to the Village Pump is in the interest of getting input from others on how Taiwan should be displayed. Rather than changing it back and forth, I would suggest leaving it as it is for the moment and placing {{Fact disputed}} on it, until a discussion can be had and a consensus reached. INeverCry 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, INeverCry said it precisely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have left it as is since I brought it here. Posted on the village pump. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an editorial dispute, either both of you find a consensus and we stick to that consensus, either I suggest to split the file in two version one with UN border another with the other version. If using the second solution we should have a clear description and filenames to describe which version of the file it is. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This file is used in quite a few articles. If we split it, this might cause new disagreements as to which version should be used in the various articles. INeverCry 17:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not our problem. Per Commons:OVERWRITE#Controversial_or_contested_changes, it's up to projects to choose which of several contested versions to use. Rd232 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Ahonc

Our colleague marked six of my files as unsourced (see the list here). When I asked him why he marked my files, which are properly licensed and clearly indicated as own work, he asked me to either upload high-resolution files (all files in question have a resolution of 800x600 pixels), or send high-resolution versions to OTRS. I have several thousands uploads here on Commons, and I believe most of them are 800x600. When I asked the colleague why he thinks I should do this, he replied that everybody can steal low-resolution files from the internet and upload here. I therefore ask somebody to explain basic policies of this project to the colleague, who, I believe, is an administrator, and make sure he does not continue marking properly sourced files as unsourced. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

he replied that everybody can steal low-resolution files from the internet and upload here - and what is wrong in my explanation?--Anatoliy (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well for starters, if you disbelieve an {{Own work}} claim, you can't just tag "no source", you need to use DR. Secondly, if you're tagging six files from a user you ought to notice that the user has many more uploads than that, and act accordingly. Worst case, you might have to nominate many more files in a mass DR; but if the person is still active, you should really try talking to them first. Thirdly, 800x600 is not a high resolution, but it's not so low that it screams "came off the web". Rd232 (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I thought on top of this a reasoning should come for a DR. One can not just open a DR just saying "I do not believe this user, period".--Ymblanter (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, why are most of your uploads only 800 x 600? We don't particularly enjoy these, as you should be very well aware. odder (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Those are all old uploads, all my uploads from the last year are full size, and I am slowly uploading the big versions of the files as well. It is just that I do not want to be forced to reupload couple of thousand files overnight just because someone failed to assume good faith and tagged files as unsourced. And for my 2003-2004 files I only have small versions, I would need to post-process them again, which is not my first priority right now.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is really a problem with these files, but please do not remove the EXIF data. It is useful. Yann (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

They were all post-processed in old versions of PhotoShop and then "saved for web". My experience that if the size of the target is different from the original, the EXIF data is removed automatically. I did not remove the EXIF on purpose. The big reuploaded versions come with EXIF.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

When I edit something in Photoshop, EXIF data usually remain, unless I have created a new file, copied the original version therein, and saved the new version. Because I often crop the original image to improve the composition or to avoid disturbing elements etc., I also need to create it as new file. So, in order to keep EXIF, I usually move the already edited version back to the original file and save it thereafter (eventually under a new name, if I want that the original version does not get overwritten). Other image software may handle it a different way of course. - A.Savin 11:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What I did with the Mordovia files (not with the Murom files, because these were old and taken in jpeg format) was I took the Olympus RAW (.orf), opened it by PhotoShop version 6 or 7 (still the old one), postprocessed it (crop/contrast) and opened the option "Safe for web", then chosen the resolution of 800x600 and saved it as .jpg. I did this with over a thousand files (for instance I believe I uploaded about 90% of images of Beijing metro stations on Commons), and they all give the effect that the EXIF disappears. May be indeed if I copy the file to the old name (or to the name I get if I save the file as .jpg), they would be restored, but in the case of uploaded files I think it would be just easier to reupload the high resolution version. Thanks for the hint.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Safe for web", at least in older versions of Photoshop, automatically removed EXIF data.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, at least this is my experience.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Rd232. "No source" is a fully inappropriate procedure in this case. - A.Savin 11:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

+1, I agree with Rd232 and A.Savin, DR are appropriate in this case. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Orrling and User:Foroa

User:Orrling purely unilaterally decided to replace Category:Flags of the Palestinian National Authority with Category:National flag of Palestine, without consulting with anybody about anything, and apparently without bothering to consider any of the sensitive issues involved. He somehow managed to get User:Foroa to delete the old category before he even bothered to get around to creating the new category, and since then he's been doing plenty of edit warring to enforce his unilateral diktat, but can't be bothered to deign to condescend to vouchsafe the slightest reply to the message I left on his user talk page. AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Foroa regularly deletes category redirects. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not a good excuse here. Even leaving aside the obvious political sensitivities involved, and the substantive question of whether in fact the redirect should be removed or not if the new category were created (in my opinion, probably not), the very fact of a category which has existed 16:33, 10 August 2006‎ being redirected to a nonexistent (redlinked) category should have raised an obvious red flag, if there had been ordinary care and paying attention to necessary details. Otherwise, if Foroa doesn't bother to check into anomalies Orrling creates, then Foroa is giving Orrling a blank check on his admin powers. AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There is related discussion here too: Commons:Requests for comment/Palestine and Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I warned Orrling and Foroa for an edit war on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Since Orrling immediately removing the warning, I also blocked him for one day. I think neither of them should edit this page until they reach an agreement. Yann (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not required to keep anything on one's talk page. See: en:WP:TALK. Also, Template:Dont remove warnings is against Wikipedia policy, and was never approved as policy on the Commons. Users can remove anything from their talk pages, and they can do it without archiving it. Once the warning is noted then the warning no longer serves a purpose as concerns the user's interests. So I believe you should remove the block if it is for that reason only.

If you blocked Orrling for her edits at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, then there is some justification according to this in the "warnings" section of that talk page: "If you challenge a request added here, please simply remove it and kindly inform the requester of your reason for doing so. Invite the requester to open a formal request using {{move|new name}} or COM:CFD to discuss the requested name change. Consider notifying the requester even if the request is unsigned—determine who the requester is by looking at the page history."

Did anyone point that paragraph out to Orrling before blocking her? If not, then the block should be removed. Otherwise it is just more arbitrary harassment by admins of various editors. This causes many editors to stop editing on Wikipedia and elsewhere. See en:User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors, and en:User:Timeshifter/Unchecked admin misconduct. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have issued a single-page block for both of them at Special:AbuseFilter/102. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@Timeshifter. You are right. User:Roland zh stopped recently because of the harassment by Orrling. A significant part of Orrlings category move requests requests are changed or rejected. --Foroa (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about users quitting due to arbitrary harassment by admins. Orrling is not an admin. You are an admin. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how Foroa has arbitrary harassed Orrling. Also I don't believe that Orrling is female. Bidgee (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that Foroa harassed Orrling in this situation. Sorry if I gave that impression. And yes, she is female. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I think the problem is with User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Maybe it should be a subpage instead of a talk page. It is common knowledge that it is rarely correct to remove the entries of others on a talk page. See: en:WP:TALK. But User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands specifically allows instant removal of the entries of others. See the "warnings" section. This is what the "warnings" section says to do: "If you challenge a request added here, please simply remove it and kindly inform the requester of your reason for doing so." This is even more problematic on the Commons where many editors are not native speakers of English, and so they may not be able to figure out all the complex rules in the warnings section. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There is more than just that category above. Orrling has followed this user on other edits, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_Spain_%28Civil%29.svg&curid=585547&diff=83475569&oldid=83460992 (where Foroa used cat-alot to add categories and Orrling goes behind and removes said category). While I agree these additions are not "red ensigns" in the sense of flag categorization (think of the British Red Ensign as an example of what this category is used for) but this is something that also should be looked at to see if there is a pattern of following a user. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Both users make many edits. I see both of their edits frequently in my watchlist. I don't necessarily think it is a situation of intentional stalking and harassment. I have had my problems with Foroa in the past too. But I have since come to realize that he is such a prolific editor that disagreements are bound to occur. Most of our problems came down to miscommunications and misunderstandings. In other cases we both just needed to slow down and talk. I think that is the main problem between Foroa and Orrling. They need to talk out some of their disagreements more.

And from further discussion with Orrling, I see that it is a communication problem in one case. I don't know if Foroa tried to inform Orrling or not in his edit summaries when removing Orrling's move commands from User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. That would not be the best place to do so though. There needs to be a talk page for that talk page. :) Then someone could say, "see talk page", in the edit summary. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is that there are formal category move procedures (and CFD), which are just too cumbersome for really uncontested and housekeeping moves, such as spelling, punctuation and capitalisation errors, alignment with parent category names, yyy in/on/from xxx, etc. For those, the delinker has been created as an efficient low overhead outstanding job list (such as the file renames), not a discussion page. Problem is that the interpretation of "housekeeping" is stretched more and more, and a significant part of the requests are containing spelling errors or contain moves that need a wider discussion. So, it is normal that those are corrected or simply rejected as they need a more formal discussion. --Foroa (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but there needs to be a separate talk page. I think the solution is to rename User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands to this:

User:CommonsDelinker/command requests

That would automatically create this talk page for it:

User talk:CommonsDelinker/command requests

Then you could put "see talk page" in your edit summaries when removing, correcting, or rejecting move command requests. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution, Timeshifter. As Foroa correctly states, requests are appropriately removed where there is an error or there needs to be further discussion, and your proposal would hopefully help increase the likelihood that the appropriate explanations are made and those discussions follow. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That page requires an admin to change the name. Some users managing the bot are listed here: User talk:CommonsDelinker. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Deonis 2012

This user has consistently engaged in POV pushing and edit-warring with multiple editors on Syria-related pages. Many have tried to warn him multiple times, but he doesn't seem to listen. Check out the file history for File:Battle of Aleppo map.svg and File:Syrian Civil War.svg for evidence. I think a temporary block may be necessary here. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User warned. Yann (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Eriang87

Still not sure of the best way to deal with this kind of thing, when a user has uploaded a bunch of copyvios and it's probably the case that everything they uploaded was just found on Google Images, if only I could find them, but someone pointed me here when I asked a while ago. Eriang87 is just uploading everything as "CC Attribution, this is my own work" - I've found a couple of images which were clearly lifted from the web, but there are a lot of company logos in there, for companies in countries whose threshold of originality is unclear. --McGeddon (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This user is continuing to upload copyvio images despite a "If you do not stop uploading files that are not free, your account will be blocked." warning from another user. --McGeddon (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Moataz1997

Hello,

Most of his uploads are probably copyvios. The rest is probably out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Yeehawmario

Another jermboy sock uploading nonsense signs. Please block. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Multiple copyright violation by this user Rafael Targino Giminiano (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user.

• Source to images: Memória Globo - © 2012. Todos direitos reservados a Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A.. Este material não pode ser publicado, transmitido por broadcast, reescrito ou redistribuído sem autorização. Fabiano ^msg 02:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've warned the user and done a mass DR of the other 60 or so copyvio logos he uploaded (!!!): Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rafael Targino Giminiano. INeverCry 04:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Guadamojete

Guadamojete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been warned, but still uploads copyvios. --Ralgis^talk 02:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 month. INeverCry 04:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Tateimages

Tateimages (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is apparently a corporate user who is going around removing PD-Art licenses and adding Tate copyright notices. Somebody needs to talk to him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussing this issue further on my talk page. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

report to legal

Just for the record: for this I've notified wmf-legal about 83.78.120.41 (talk · contribs) and asked to report him to his country's authorities. --Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Benjaminvetri

Can someone nuke the uploads from the past week? I've tagged a few, but have to step out now, but the recent uploads are webgrabs for sure, will check the earlier ones later when I get back, unless someone else beats me to it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Baelde and Category:Pythagorean tiling

Background: I do a lot of editing on en.wikipedia, especially on mathematical articles, and have made many images uploaded here (see my user page). As much smaller parts of my editing, I've spent a little time on commons in Quality Image selection and in categorization. In my opinion, Category:Tessellations is a bit of an unstructured mess, with hundreds of images depicting many different types of tessellations. I have been slowly working on pulling images out of it into more specific subcategories, and have also spent quite a bit of effort searching other parts of the commons for images that happen to fit the subcategories. Examples of categories I've populated in this way include Category:Kagome structures and Category:Rhombille tiling. This effort also has the side benefit that the subcategories can also have secondary parent categories that are relevant to them but not to the main Tessellation category, describing the specific shapes and symmetries appearing in the tessellations that correspond to the subcategories, and making it possible to remove those parent categories from the images in the subcategory. Most recently, I have been trying to do the same thing with another subcategory, Category:Pythagorean tiling, containing images that feature a certain tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes. I chose the name of the last category after the corresponding Wikipedia article, en:Pythagorean tiling, which in turn takes its name from its first reference and appeared in DYK (other names such as "two-square tiling" would have been possible, but you have to pick one).

More background: User:Baelde and various related anonymous IP editors (I assume the same person) have been involved in some disputes on Wikipedia regarding images and content that he or she would like to include in en:Pythagorean theorem and that other editors consider to violate WIkipedia's policies against original research. Baelde has reacted to this dispute on Wikipedia by editing the Wikipedia Pythagorean tiling article so that his or her images fill most of the visible material on the first screen and the text is relegated to a tiny column in the middle; and also by trying to get the Pythagorean tiling article deleted and/or merged into the Pythagorean theorem article; neither of these is relevant here except to set the scene for the present dispute.

Here on commons, I attempted to add Baelde's images to the Pythagorean tiling category. The result was that he or she has repeatedly reverted my changes and most recently almost completely depopulated the Pythagorean tiling category, putting most of the other images that I'd found for it back into the overpopulated Tessellations category. Attempts to resolve this issue on his or her User talk page, and on the talk page for the category, have been completely useless. I still have learned almost nothing in the way of an explanation or justification of Baelde's positions (other than a vague claim that subcategories make it harder for users to find images and a vague sense that he or she is offended by the use of the word "Pythagorean" to refer to anything that is not immediately related to the theorem) and I have been unable to find any principles we might agree on as a foundation to try to build a consensus. He or she has shown no sign of willingness to compromise. Anything I say is met with a sea of rhetorical questions, and when I attempt to answer these questions honestly I get no sense of engagement; instead, I later see my answers badly twisted into the justifications Baelde uses for his or her edit summaries, to the point where I am wary of continuing to interact directly with him for fear of making things even worse (and also because on my own side I've become increasingly uncivil as I've lost my patience with Baelde and I see no interaction as a better alternative to that). But not interacting just means he or she wins by default, prevents any more cleanup of Category:Tessellations, and prevents most of the images that should be in Category:Pythagorean tiling from being there.

Help, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

His explanation appears to be at File talk:A Pythagorean tiling View 1.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This "explanation" is, essentially, that the Pythagorean theorem has a special case (isosceles right triangles) that is not covered by proofs of the theorem based on the two-square tiling, therefore that images depicting the two-square tiling should not be placed into a category devoted to the two-square tiling. Do you actually think this makes any sense? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Still no real response, a week later? I can't keep just reverting on my own, so without assistance from others here the result will be that Baelde continues to prevent commons from having a category that collects images of the two-square tiling. Certainly doing nothing and letting the mess continue to be a mess is easier than making an effort. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should put up Category:Pythagorean tiling at Commons:Categories for discussion. This way, once a consensus is formed, it can be enforced on the category and any attempts to subvert the consensus can be reverted as disruption. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Though "Categories for discussion" is something of a backwater... AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, thanks. I would have thought that CfD was mostly for when one wants a category renamed or deleted, but that does seem like the right place to ask for a consensus on the categorization side of the issue. And if we can get a consensus there, the user conduct issues that I see will be clearer. Ok, I'll try it, and for now you can mark this as resolved here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

User:AnuLally

It looks like the whole contribution of this user consists of copyright violations. Should we try to talk to them before they get indeffed?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I've blocked the user for 1 week. Hopefully they'll learn from this short block. INeverCry 18:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

User:MaybeMaybeMaybe

Judging from their talk page, it appears that User:MaybeMaybeMaybe's thousands of Flickr uploads have been an unnecessary drain on other editor's time. It is surprising to learn that they are not an inexperienced user. MaybeMaybeMaybe has been blocked on the English language Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts. It may be worthwhile checking for earlier Flickr uploads from the other accounts. I don't know how this could be done easily, since the use of the bot obscures the originator of the request, but at least one of their other accounts has a TUSC account. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Check whatever is needed but unless I am very much mistaken my first use of flickr2commons was in November this year. I am new to using it. I have used flickruploadbot in the past but it is a one at a time system so is unlikely to bring people much to get excited about.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Foroa

Foroa has blocked Orrling for 3 days. I still don't know why after looking around for over an hour. Foroa gave this incomprehensible "last warning":

I can assure you that this is the last time that I restore a contested move by you such as this one]. There are procedures for it and I will not spend half of my time restoring from your personal preferences. --Foroa (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It is incomprehensible because in that diff Orrling was self-reverting. I thought self-reversion was a good thing. As far as I can tell the issue concerns the spelling of a city in Israel. See: Category talk:Rosh HaAyin. The correct English spelling as far as I can tell is Rosh Ha'Ayin. See these English-language articles from 2 well-known publications that cover Israel:

• 1.5 billion barrels of oil discovered near Rosh Ha'Ayin. August 17, 2010. Ynet.
• Israeli company finds oil beneath Rosh Ha'ayin. By Lior Zano, Dec.24, 2009. Haaretz.

Somewhere in all the chaos of edit summaries Foroa referred to English Wikipedia spelling. Using English Wikipedia as a reliable source for spelling is a common mistake that even most noobs know to be wary of. Foroa should know better. Before she was blocked Orrling initiated discussion about this spelling change on several talk pages: Category talk:Rosh Ha'Ayin Forest. Category talk:Rosh HaAyin. And more, I believe. Foroa did not enter into any of those discussions.

The bottom line is that Orrling was right, and Foroa was wrong. Foroa should just get over it, and unblock Orrling. Or someone else should. At Category talk:Rosh HaAyin there was no disagreement with Orrling before she was blocked. The block occurred at 17:34. See Orrling's block log. There was no disagreement with the substantive issue of spelling.

As far as I can tell it looks like Foroa blocked Orrling because this uppity Israeli woman told him what's up on his talk page here: User talk:Foroa#Category:Rosh HaAyin or Rosh Ha'Ayin. Honestly, I can not figure out why he blocked her. Foroa did not even bother to reply to Orrling on his talk page before he blocked her.

All of Orrling's previous blocks have been overturned as being incorrect. See her talk page. One was overturned and a single-page block was used instead against Foroa and Orrling. So I don't think a 3-day block is justified and it certainly should not be initiated by Foroa who is an involved party. It looks like intentional harassment by an admin. This is to be avoided, and Foroa should be blocked or his admin tools removed. Orrling is a prolific editor. Admin misconduct drives away editors. See en:User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. See en:User:Timeshifter/Unchecked admin misconduct. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case, regardless of the merits of whether Orrling should be blocked, Foroa should not be the one doing it as an involved admin. He should have reported Orrling on this page and let others take care of it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you look also here the city web site. they spell Rosh HaAyin. Hanay (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). Blocks should not be used to determine spelling. Everybody needs to take a breath, and use talk pages a lot more. Especially Foroa who should know better by now after many similar problems in the past.

As for spelling Hebrew names in English Liadmalone writes at Category talk:Rosh HaAyin: "I wouldn't count on Rosh Ha'Ayin's municipality to write the name correctly. Just look at the poorly spelled signs along Israel's roads. The English transcription of Hebrew names must be guarded very carefully. That's one of the ways to preserve the correct Hebrew pronunciation."

I think part of the problem is the lack of a talk page for this: User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. We discussed this previously. No one disagreed with me when I proposed changing its name to User:CommonsDelinker/command requests. That way there would be a talk page. A talk page is a lot better than edit summaries. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: The English spelling -- Neither one is really correct or incorrect; it just depends on which transcription conventions you choose to use. The apostrophe is used to reflect the Hebrew written ע, which some Israelis feel should be pronounced (in the older language it was a pharyngeal consonant), but which is not in fact pronounced by the great majority of Israelis in most contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied your comment to here: Category talk:Rosh HaAyin. In English many things are not pronounced anymore, but we still keep the spelling. I thought major media organizations such as Ynet and Haaretz tended to be regarded as authoritative as concerns spelling. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It is irrelevant which name is right or wrong, I just warned Orrling that he should follow a move procedure before moving and I did set the category and its subcategories in a coherent state. I decided to block him because he started yet another edit war with another user that tried to set those categories back in a coherent state as one can see in Special:Contributions/Orrling. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#user:Orrling. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You blocked Orrling before that discussion was started at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#user:Orrling. Your warning was incoherent. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

After further examination I see that Orrling was making her last changes of Rosh HaAyin to Rosh Ha'Ayin after Ori wrote "no objection" in Hebrew at Category talk:Rosh HaAyin. Both Orrling and Ori speak Hebrew. As far as I can tell Ori was the only one disagreeing with Orrling's changes concerning categories with Rosh HaAyin in the name. Here is the Dec. 3, 2012 timeline:

• 14:27. "Move" template added to category: Category:Rosh HaAyin.
• 14:44. Orrling leaves message on Foroa's talk page: User talk:Foroa#Category:Rosh HaAyin or Rosh Ha'Ayin. Foroa did not reply until after he blocked Orrling.
• 16:50. Ori writes "No objection" at Category talk:Rosh HaAyin.
• 17:17. Orrling replies to Ori at Category talk:Rosh HaAyin.
• 17:26 to 17:34. Orrling changes Rosh HaAyin to Rosh Ha'Ayin for a series of files. See Special:Contributions/Orrling.
• 17:34. Foroa blocks Orrling for 3 days. See block log.
• 20:18. Matanya piles on and blocks Orrling indefinitely with this edit summary: "Cross wiki vandalism: Edit warring after warnings. troling." Orrling is definitely not a vandal on the Commons. So that is defamation and slander. Neither is she being accused of trolling on the Commons. Matanya was warned previously by multiple admins not to block Orrling on the Commons for problems on Hebrew Wikipedia. The previous block of Orrling by Matanya was found to be unjustified according to admins at this COM:AN thread here.

So it looks like Orrling was blocked after doing some category changes after following all the rules on the Commons.

Foroa and Matanya should both have their admin tools removed for at least a month for these spiteful blocks. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This may come as a surprise. But I see now that it is not only Foroa and Matanya that are rushing around. Orrling needs to read and understand meta:The Wrong Version. Please see User talk:Orrling#Rosh HaAyin and Rosh Ha'ayin and Special:Contributions/Orrling. I think Orrling now deserves a block. I suggest a week. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop acting silly please, How do you think I can have the time to do all the tasks that you're telling me when I've just re-entered my account after 3 days, this is like rejecting all of my reasonings that I do and did share with you, the last thing I can think of is you thinking in black-and-white which might mean for you that once i take the hour to dedicate myself to stuff that is on the plate I'm "not listening to you". You tell me to defend my Rosh Ha'Ayin case, to read a special page (which I already put on my to-read's); to appear on the Admins' noticeboard. to explain things to the right persons. And I say: Fine, but no so fast, nothing needs to be done in a crazy way. Things are being taken care of round here. On Monday I could not let happen a situation where two old subcats of "Rosh HaAyin", suggesting varying modes of writing - Rosh Ha'Ayin Forest and Rosh-Ha-Ayin industrial area, were replaced with the hegemonic "Rosh HaAyin"-script in an underhanded way explicitly striving to maintain an incorrectly Englicized Hebrew script (a "standardized error") while this has patently come against the idea of the discussion that I'm proud to have set started that very day. Say that some persons disagree about the apostrophed category title (not that this was the case) - Should they ban the existing occurrance of "Rosh Ha'Ayin Forest" - knowing that other editors support it? Instead of reaching for a slow procedure on the com:AN I was acting as a responsible, careful and broad-thinking editor (which you know I am) and reverted these two moves. I was blocked with a fraud blocknotice which didn't bother me and while I was out, the two subcats were again manipulated. What was the rush? Should they not see the discussion? I think they saw it, so to keep the discussion going (pure-motivated) restoring these 2 cats occasionally is required because this is cetainly not the right time to determine - away from the discussion - that "HaAyin" is better than "Ha'Ayin", and this exactly was my message. Now that this explanation is physically at the Admins' sphere as you wanted it to be, you can maybe let go of the idea that I'm 'rushing around'. Orrlingtalk 05:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)