Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 48

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

This image: File:Norsk_Massasjeforening.png

The image is my product, my property and within my right to do anything I please with. There is no way I can violate any copyright on this image since it is all mine.

The above mentioned user refuses to let go of his issues, and continues to tag the image and undo my edits.

Please make this stop, and instruct the user to behave.

Best regards, Kjetil Prestesæter (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You, first of all, are a normal user, and should not be removing speedy deletion tags. Only administrators can remove speedy deletion tags. DLindsley (My talk page) 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, do not claim that no one can touch your files. Wikimedia Commons reserves the right to do anything with your files. DLindsley (My talk page) 20:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, he is right that this file is not eligible for speedy deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I know that it doesn't qualify as a speedy now, but he should not have been removing speedy deletion tags, which is why I reported him here. DLindsley (My talk page) 20:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You, DLindsley, just can't admit that your nomination for deletion was a total mess, and that you should stay away from edits you have no reason or support for. You have not at any point responded to my explanations or reasoning. You should be blocked from further edits if you don't stop your destructive behaviour. Kjetil Prestesæter (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I do admit that the nomination was a mess, but you should not have been removing speedy deletion tags, which caused you to be warned in the first place. DLindsley (My talk page) 20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Both of you, please read com:MELLOW and take a break. This is all a misunderstanding and the both of you are angry. In those cases it is wise to walk away from the discussion and that you try to talk this over at a late date when stuff is cooled down. @Kjetil Prestesæter, if you disagree with a speedy nomination please convert the nomination to a regular nomination in the future. @DLindsley, please mind your toung. Natuur12 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. We'll at least try to take a break. I do also see that a DR has been placed on the upload he mentioned in the report. I will advise you if he reverts the DR. DLindsley (My talk page) 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
He did not revert the DR, but he just removed a warning from his talk page. I've sent him the {{Dont remove warnings}} warning. DLindsley (My talk page) 21:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Just let it go. He is clearly angry and there is no need to frustrate him even more with a warning template. It really doesn't matter. Natuur12 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. Leaving him alone could be a consideration, but I almost feel that he deserves a block for what he just did. DLindsley (My talk page) 21:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
DLindsley is now harassing me personally by editing my personal talk page. His nomination for speedy deletion failed, and now he just can't let it go. Some people abuse power for personal needs. This is clearly starting to look like such a case. There must be a point where his personal vendetta is stopped by the administration. Isn't there? Kjetil Prestesæter (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Vindictive deletion requests

Is there any consistent Commons policy on how to deal with an editor who's launching a slew of deletions requests out of revenge because of a dispute about other things on English Wikipedia? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This would fall under creating a hostile environment within Blocking policy. The evidence would have to be highly convincing that this is more than a temporary dispute or a two-way/multi-way argument. If you are asking for specific action, you need to spell out what you are looking for (presumably a block) and provide sufficient hard evidence. --Fæ (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! One such frivolous nomination was made when the enWP dispute (totally irrelevant to Commons images) escalated on 23 October, three more yesterday. The actions are all aimed at Southerly Clubs donations. So far, not really a "slew" yet and I think the problem can be contained. Otherwise if it swells here like the enWP problem, as I fear it might, I'll take your good advice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
PS The editor has otherwise been inactive on Commons since March of this year. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User blanked talk page after warning

see User talk:Kjetil Prestesæter, please inform about archiving--Motopark (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User Motopark reverted edits back to a former state made by another user who is now blocked for abusive behaviour. That was completely unnessecary. If you wanted to write something on my talk page, you could have done so without interfering with a closed case. Kjetil Prestesæter (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 Comment There is no rule that users must archive their talk pages, and I'd also like to mention in the above closed discussion that there is no rule either that only admins can remove speedy deletion tags from files. This entire thing looks like a mess instigated by DLindsley. Fry1989 eh? 00:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, it is perfectly permissible to delete warnings, after all if they delete it then they can't say they didn't see it and therefore it is deemed to have been delivered. I delete mine all the time, and will continue to do so. But it seems in this matter it seems to be a "Yay sayeth the mighty DLindsley, whose word must be adored and revered for all time" sort of situation. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Löschdiskussion Yasemin Shooman

Ein User hat sich in einer LD unfassbar abfällig über eine Mitarbeiterin des Jüdischen Museums Berlin (Yasemin Shooman (s. WP-Artikel) geäußert. Sein Verhalten stellt nicht nur eine Beleidigung von Frau Shooman dar, es schadet auch der Wikipedia im Ansehen des Jüdischen Museums. Sein Verhalten sollte deutliche Konsequenzen haben. Den Beitrag bitte ich administrativ zu entfernen und zu verstecken. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Roemerberggespraeche-april-2014-yasemin-shooman-ffm-778.jpg

--Fiona B. (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Zuvor: [1] + [2], ohne Kommentar! --dontworry (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Die Beleidigung gegenüber der abgebildeten Person habe ich administrativ entfernt. Raymond 09:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

About my pictures and the behaviour of an admin

Hello, I've been using this account for many years now for many different though related people, mostly Frédéric Ducarme, Philippe Bourjon and Elisabeth Morcel (all French photographers, including one professional researcher). We have sent OTRS mails for each one of these persons months ago, and exchanged e-mails with OTRS people who said all was ok. Bots were supposed to fix the pictures (>1500), but it seems that it is not done yet - I have no problem with it, I can wait.

But user:Biopics does not seem so patient : as he perfectly knows that the mails have been received and are currently being processed, he keeps posting me image supression threats, whereas we discussed this case many times with him, and other admins ruled in my favor and asked him to stop bullying me. But apparently this did not stop him, and he has been harrassing me for months now, repeatedly and insistently, and keeps his talk page locked, saying that he is inactive ! This time it has gone too far for me, and I now have to complain for real about him (I warned him many times already), and ask for a suspension of his account for repeated harrassment. As he is supposed to be "inactive", this would probably not affect him much ! Thanks for helping solving this issue and best regards, FredD (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I left a message at his talk page and I will keep an eye on it. Jcb (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Jcb; please sign your message.[3] Thanks. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't mean to sign without user name. Jcb (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, Bp is a bit aggressive in nature; but he is very clever too. Here, File:Dendropoma maxima Maldives.JPG has a different author than mentioned above and the authorship of File:Pseudoceros confusus.jpg is not clear. There is no excuse for not adding a OTRS pending, at least. Jee 03:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Since Biopics blanked his talk pages here and in EN with a "retired" sign; I see not much scope for any further mediation. Thanks INeverCry for your friendly reply to my comments that is acceptable to me. I don't know whether Bp will back when he is comfortable; but see no meaning to continue a discussion now. Jee 12:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Eszny1367

This user was previously blocked for some repetitive faulty DRs relating to logos from South Korea. They have repeated this behaviour renominating many files. Based upon the time of these DRs, the singular reasoning, the same subject matter, and that they were all manually made, I believe we should treat Eszny1367 as the sockmaster of the users listed above. Fry1989 eh? 04:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done All indef blocked. Maybe we need some cleanup? — revimsg 04:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

1Veertje

Hello, Admin 1Veertje is granting the license review flag to user with only a few edits. "To be able to upload Flickr images" is not a valid reason. User need to file a request on Commons:License review/requests to receive this flag. I asked the user to revert his action, but he is ignoring me and an other admin (user is editing but not replying to the complain on the talkpage). See User talk:1Veertje#License_review_flag. 1Veertje's action is completely out of process and ignoring other admins on here takpage is not okay. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the flag from Timelezz and Magioladitis, Natuur12 removed the flag from Mrs Kartoshka --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@1Veertje: Why not following the usual procedure? I think that trusted users should get the flag, but I don't see any reason why they don't ask as others. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I've asked several users several times, but requesting was really too daunting and intimidating. All they do with this is use it to upload Flickr images through the UploadWizard, a process that is otherwise needlesly complex. --Vera (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, uploading flickr images via UW is really powerful that even skips CAT:FRN process, and it skips (untrusted by community) user's adding of LicenseReview adds. — revimsg 13:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@1Veertje: It is possible to use the flickr2commons, which has even more features. Please read COM:LR. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I am quite shocked by 1Veertje's reaction at her talk page. The LR-flag is used to confirm the status of a license. If somebody's drags you to court you after they changed the license you have trusted, experience users with no reason to lie backing up your story, If you are granting this flag to users with less than 100 global edits, it devalues a license review greatly and it might cause trouble in the real world. If anyone, even editors with less edits, can license review, what's the value of a review? The answer is simple, almost nothing. There is a good reason why this flag is for trusted users only. Also, you can fake the upload-wizard tag so it is unwise to grant the right to a user who hasn't proven himself to be trusted. Natuur12 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I am also shocked to be honest. @1Veertje: please read COM:LR, please. Reading and following commons rules may avoid a lot of drama. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I see the user is editing but not commenting here... Very bad behavior. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Without intent to dramatize, but why was User:Jan-Bart upgraded to confirmed editor with the rationale "I've reviewed his edits and I feel he can be trusted"[7], when this user has Zero edits (neither live nor deleted ones) on Commons? --Túrelio (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
In real life, this is Jan-Bart de Vreede, the chairman of the Board of Trustees, so I would agree that he can be trusted (no idea how Vera has reviewed his edits on Commons though).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, after what he said during the peak of the superprotect/mediaviewer controversy about the communities and volunteers, my trust in him .... However, that's not relevant here. --Túrelio (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter, yeah I'm seeing the discussion here. I just don't have anything to ad to my previous statements. --Vera (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And for those that are "shocked", seriously, it's one of the five pillars that if a rule prevent you from improving the project, you ought to ignore that rule.--Vera (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "improving" being the key word here. Ignoring COM:LR does not actually improve the project however. -FASTILY 22:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Vera, then do you acknowledge the fact that the rights changes you made were inappropriate and agree to refrain from doing so in the future? -FASTILY 21:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I might be a bit more hesitant but I don't think what I did was wrong. It empowered users to contribute to the project and nothing bad has resulted from it. --Vera (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Please read COM:LR, why you don't read it? I asked you above... Your action was out of process. Administrators should understand and follow Commons' policies, and respect community consensus. If you abuse your sysop tools again i will start a de-sysop request. This is my last comment on this incident. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Please explain to me how it is not wrong to grant this flag to a user with less than 100 global edits. If the value of LR devalues it can realy harm the project and it's contributors. Please think of what can happen if somebody goes to court over a DR that was closed as kept because there was a license review template and they find that we grant those LR rights to random people. Natuur12 (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Vera: You said "I gave these rights because they enable users to upload flickr images trough the UploadWizard. Giving them this opportunity is way more productive to the project that nitpicking about protocol." So you misunderstood the main purpose of LR right. The extra right to allow Flickr uploads through UW is just an add-on; it is not the use of LR right as many people explained above.
I remember discussions to allow ordinary users the "Flickr upload" facility in UW; but it was rejected due to numerous reasons. You can try again for that; but please don't bypass it through granting people LR right; which will affect the entire LR system. Jee 03:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness

This user has consistently POV-pushed and refused to ever discuss his edits ever since coming on Commons. Despite having under 1000 contributions, he has three blocks to his name[8] (five on English Wikipedia[9]) and basically the only messages on his talk page are asking him to stop POV-pushing, edit warring, and being otherwise disruptive. He received a "last warning" that went ignored ages ago.

Despite constant requests to discuss things, he continues to falsely claim there is consensus where none exists[10][11] and to claim that no one is allowed to disgree with him. He doesn't discuss his reverts, and usually never even bothers with an edit summary.

His response to my most recent absolutely-last warning was to label Greyshark a vandal for the crime of not going along with his usual revert-without-discussion[12]. Naturally, he also readded the wording that I warned him not to add.[13]

This user is an unrepentant and irredeemable megalomaniac. He is doing more harm than good on this project. I ask that a neutral block him this user indefinitely. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 01:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually was a fervent semi-fanatical Syrian government supporter, more than a rampant personal egotist, as far as I could tell... AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Oops, expected this discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Supreme Deliciousness, maybe it was the right decision ... a×pdeHello! 12:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Imho it was the right decision to indef. the user. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Next sockpuppet of Григорий225

Apple Mac OS X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). More Moscow Metro (from here), more screenshots. YLSS (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've placed the {{Sockpuppet}} template on his user page. We'll see if he is a confirmed sockpuppet. DLindsley (My talk page) 16:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You do realise that you are supposed to do that after it's proven, not before? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
He was a suspected sockpuppet, but is now a confirmed one. You can add the {{Sockpuppet}} template if you, at first, suspect someone of being a sockpuppet. When that's confirmed, you can then add |confirmed to the {{Sockpuppet}} template to let other users know that it is confirmed that they are a sockpuppet, which is what I did, if you look at the sockpuppet's user page's edit history. DLindsley (My talk page) 18:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
So handing out lectures now? That'll be based on the large amount of experience you have here presumably? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
✓ Blocked and uploads deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User Alessio lasalandra uploading copyrighted files with bogus OTRS permissions

Alessio lasalandra (talk · contribs) persists in uploading copyrighted files, claims he owns them, and adds on bogus OTRS permissions to the file to avoid scrutiny. I don't think he understands, or if he does understand cares, about copyright and looks to be trying to scam the system. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Dealt with. User has been warned before for adding a fake OTRS tag. We cannot accept this. Jcb (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

YLSS and File:NNMetro.svg

This user repeatedly has removed the deer from the logo that was added by the original uploader, claiming it is "unsuitable". I asked for a source for their claim and the website they provided is inaccessible but it does include the logo in my browser's tab bar which includes the deer, contrary to YLSS's claim Any other sources I have been able to find include the deer, and AlexTref871 says they took the deer from File:Coat of Arms of Nizhniy Novgorod.svg which means copyright is not a concern. Please revert and protect the file. Fry1989 eh? 18:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This file derives from my previous discussion with AlexTref (and also here). There was a fair-use .png file at ru.wp showing a logo of the Nizhny Novgorod Metro. AlexTref871 embarked upon making an svg version of it; I warned him that the resulting image won't be suitable for Commons, because the stag on the logo — which can be seen at [14] (totally accessible, BTW) – is different the one on the flag of the city and from the one on the flag of the District, so in all probability it is copyrighted. (See also Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Flag of Nizhny Novgorod.svg). However, AlexTref failed to create an SVG version, instead using a different stag. ("Олень другой. Но это лишь потому, что я не хочу полностью копировать логотип." — "The stag is different. But that is just because I don't want to copy the logo completely.") But that is totally incorrect – just plain wrong. Using a logo without a stag, of course, is also not very good, but it's a common practice for small icons to be used in tables, diagrams etc. So if one is really willing to help, please create an SVG version from [15], and upload it as fair-use to ru.wp, en.wp, and all other Wikipedias you'll find necessary.
@Fry1989: Before bringing this to AN, you could have consulted the relevant talk pages and related files. As you did this, it's just another example of your notorious stubbornness and bickerness.
-- YLSS (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
So upload a new file. Duh! You don't need to overwrite the old one (and in doing so start an edit war). Being accurate isn't a requirement for Commons. It's up to the article writer to choose the one they think is right. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't argue with that; but accurateness is a requirement for Wikipedias (in contrast to Commons), and if AlexTref wanted to use that file across a dozen of Wikipedias as the primary image for en:Nizhny Novgorod Metro and similar — then it should be accurate! Note that the original file was without a stag, and that it was AlexTref who introduced that file to all those articles (thanks for that, but still), and after that uploaded an incorrect version on top of it — just because he "didn't want to copy it completely". So of course, it would be most appropriate if (all the) versions with a stag are separated to a different filename, one not used in Wikipedias. YLSS (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Found another version, in higher res, of the stag as it should be: [16]. YLSS (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
What other wikis do or don't do isn't up to us at Commons. We provide the media (both correct/accurate and wrong/inaccurate) and the article writers decide what to use, it's not up to us to tell them what to use. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I am currently speaking as an editor of all those Wikipedias (I am one, just like I'm an editor at Commons; and so is AlexTref, since he adds them to those articles). YLSS (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
So use what we have or provide your own, preferably without damaging what is already here. This is why the overwrite guidelines were written. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. But please note who is overwriting and damaging here: not me, but AlexTref! His own file, yes, but still. Overwriting a file that is a more-or-less correct and in high use, with one that is inherently incorrect. So if any admin savvy in history splitting is reading this, please split AlexTref's version with the stag to (for example) File:Nizhny Novgorod Metro logo with Nizhny Novgorod Oblast stag.svg, delete all the reversals, and leave at the present filename only the original AlexTref's versions without the stag. (Yes, I implicitly ask not to keep my versions.) YLSS (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
He may not own the file, but it's his name on the license, therefore if anyone has a right to choose what image is attributed to his name then it's the initial uploader, not someone who comes along later and thinks he's wrong. Like I said, if you want any semblance of control over this image then make your edits and re-upload it with your name on the license. The overwrite guidelines were ostensibly written to protect the license that goes with the file as much as the image and/or project. If a license holder believes he's made a mistake then he should have the right to make minimal changes to the image associated with his license (so long as it remains pretty much the same image, as this, IMHO, does). You, however, do not (and should not) have that right as you aren't the license holder.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of including or excluding the stag are; if it is added, then the license {{PD-textlogo}} no longer applies, and the source of the stag should also be properly attributed (if it is even allowable on Commons). Useddenim (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

PD-textlogo still applies, alongside a derivative work license for the stag which is taken from another Commons file and therefore is already copyright-free. There is no copyright issue here, the issue is YLSS removing an element from this image against the wishes of it's original uploader without a clear reason for doing so. Fry1989 eh? 00:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

People can now stop being childish and spitting their dummies out. Instead of continuing this edit war I've done what should have been done in the first place, ie upload a second version and link it to the first. Incidentally, the first file was fucked anyway as it had the original logo PNG embedded inside it, I sorted it. So now can we move along and spend our time a bit more usefully please? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

DR

FYI: Leyo started Commons:Deletion requests/File:NNMetro.svg. YLSS (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A DR that is invalid in it's reasoning and obviously rushed without doing any personal research about where the stag came from which I was able to deduce in minutes. An admin should speadily close the DR in question. Fry1989 eh? 17:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin seriously speedy close this nonsense DR already? The original nominating reason is invalid and YLSS's comments have devolved into self-argument. Fry1989 eh? 21:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Closed I've analyzed discussion, the code and versions and IMO the matter is clear. Alan (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Apologies. I started typing a response, got a phonecall, finished the phonecall, then finished my response, hit enter and suddenly discovered you'd closed it. So yes I have added to the discussion after it's closed, but it doesn't change anything with regard to the discussion or the outcome but it does answer a question I was asked. So no harm, no foul, but I thought I should explain why it happened. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry. Alan (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to change my photo in my page

I need another photo in my page. Can somebody help me to change it ? Thanks <email> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.226.137 (talk • contribs)

Hi Eugene,
what photo and what page are you talking of? --Túrelio (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC: incomplete deletion requests

Am I wrong or am I right? User_talk:Palosirkka#Incomplete_deletion_requests. Palosirkka (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you are wrong. As Killiondude said, you shouldn't just leave a mess for other people to clean up. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User Craftpunk7

All uploads by this user are likely copyvio and most certainly not "own work". -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User Lasalandra4 uploading files with bogus Flickr review tags

Lasalandra4 (talk · contribs) is uploading blatant copyright violation and adding bogus Flickr review tags to the uploads. This user is a sock puppet of Alessio lasalandra (talk · contribs) who was recently blocked for doing the same with bogus OTRS tags - here Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Indef. blocked and tagged --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User Goosh

Another case of asserted "own work" for questionable pictures:

User uploaded multiple pictures of living people indoors which may require permission, I'm not sure.

A couple images by this user are okay, and one (1) has OTRS confirmation, so may need further investigation.

But some do indeed look like copyvio from other websites, with cropped borders around them that look like screenshots, etc.

Would appreciate additional eyes on this one.

I'd love for all the images truly to be free-use, but would rather be certain.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A user with a propensity for being the source with other people's work

Could an admin with more experience than me with regard to licensing and sourcing please check out the contribs for Medium69 (talk · contribs) whose uploads seem to consist of copyvios and listing himself as the source for images uploaded from other wikis. He does list the author as the author, but {{Own}} as the source. He also appears to take various SVGs, add a translation then list the file as his own work. It's late here and I'm going to bed otherwise I'd look deeper. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Serial copyvios

Any chance an admin could look at BeatlesOriginals (talk · contribs). Everything they upload is a copyvio and they don't appear to pay any attention to a talkpage full of copyvio warnings. Thanks. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Also Tonybbbmonkey (talk · contribs) who's doing the same. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
All uploads of the first user got deleted. Some uploads of the second user may qualify as PD-textlogo. --Leyo 14:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

How do I edit my username?

My photos are already in wikimedia commons under my flikr username, homeredwardprice, but either through my own typing error or some automatic transformation, the username I just created for my wikimedia account is Homeredwardprice. These two different case-sensitive names are not going to link together. I need to uncapitalize my username. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by homeredwardprice (talk • contribs)

You can't do that - all wikipages and usernames start with a capital letter - it's part of the software. However a link to User:Homeredwardprice is the same as a link to User:homeredwardprice, precisely because all pages start with a capital letter.
Stylistically, you can edit the way your signature appears to people in the user preferences (user profile section, third block down), for instance I have mine set to -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> (which renders it as you can see at the end of this paragraph). On that note, please remember to always sign your posts on discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~) so that people know who said what! -mattbuck (Talk) 23:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want your user page and user talk page to display in lower case, as homeredwardprice, instead of as Homeredwardprice, you can place {{Lowercase title}} at the top of each page. Apteva (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Disputed territorial maps (Crimea)

  • There is a disagreement between me and Fry1989 regarding some files showing maps of Ukraine and Russia. As, I am sure most of you know, the Crimean peninsula was annexed by Russia in March 2014. Fry1989 puts a template “inaccurate map” with the description “This map violates NPOV rules because it contains national and political boundaries that are disputed and not currently recognised under international law. For that reason it should not be used on Wikipedia projects where NPOV applies” on all flag map showing Ukraine without Crimea or Russia with Crimea and refuses to remove it. I, on the other part, think that such templates should be removed, because Commons do allow images showing different points of view and the images in question show an important aspects of the problem – the de-facto borders (one would need a Russian visa to go to Crimea, Russian laws apply there etc). Previous discussions (here and here) did not result in a consensus being reached. I ask administrators to put a final resolution to the dispute, and that this resolution would be clearly marked as such. Elmor (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

alight there.

As I said on my talk page and here too, these maps clearly display a territorial situation that is under international dispute. For that reason, I have added a template that states the file's disputed situation and that it therefore makes these maps unsuitable for Wikipedia articles where NPOV rules apply. The templates that I added simply say:
  • "This map violates NPOV rules because it contains national and political boundaries that are disputed and not currently recognised under international law. For that reason it should not be used on Wikipedia projects where NPOV applies."
I tried to make it as neutral as possible and I'm open to alteration if need be. I consider the template completely harmless, it stops nobody who wants to truly use these maps from doing so, and is simply a helpful reminder of the maps' current status. However, Elmor claims that I'm just trying to "bully users away from these maps" with no basis for such a claim. There appears to be support for these templates to apply, and I invite those users who previously voiced their support to do so again now. I refuse to remove these templates and I will only observe their removal if there is consensus. Fry1989 eh? 02:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Fry1989 one simple question for you. Are you also apply this to maps which include Kosovo as a sovereign state? Because your state would apply to that situation as much as this one. russavia (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I would consider it, but that situation is somewhat different. However I do not believe my failure to add the template to all files with a currently disputed situation invalidates it being on these four. Fry1989 eh? 20:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Idea: I think this language would be appropriate:
  • "This map may violate NPOV rules because it contains national and political boundaries that are disputed and not currently recognized under international law. For that reason use on Wikipedia projects where NPOV applies is cautioned."
Better to leave it to the individual projects to make definitive NPOV judgements, since we're not the experts on that, and they're arguing and reaching consensus on such things already, so no need to rehash here.--Elvey (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Your wording for the template seems to be more appropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to such a change in the text. Fry1989 eh? 20:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I pointed out last time, Commons does not have an NPOV policy as such (Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view). Personal hoaxing and hatemongering images which are not useful for Commons' purposes should be nuked, but otherwise if a real dispute exists in the real world, then Commons allows images expressing both points of view to be uploaded, and leaves it up to the individual language Wikipedias etc. to decide which images are useful for them. AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons doesn't just exist as some sort of filing cabinet for Wikipedia though, images are made freely available to anybody who wishes to use them, that can be school kids writing a report, businessmen writing presentations and so on. It seems eminently sensible to warn our users and reusers that, where relevant, the boundaries of the map they're looking at are disputed, not internationally recognised or agreed upon, so that they may be better informed and can avoid using an map that may be incorrect for their specific needs. The template should be neutrally worded and purely factual, and obviously applied to all maps with disputed features, boundaries etc. Nick (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the majority of maps which show national boundaries and include Western Sahara, Kosovo, Crimea, Israel, and/or Kashmir within their area (i.e. many thousands of images) are likely to have the potential to offend somebody... AnonMoos (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And most of those are obvious to re-users. I have added this template where I believe it is not so obvious and requires extra warning. File:Flag map of Armenia, new.svg is a good example of where the uploader deliberately deleted some exclaves from another country but kept Armenian exclaves as well, a clear violation of NPOV and extremely nationalistic but not obvious to most people just looking at the map. Fry1989 eh? 20:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that calling the map "inaccurate" is a loaded term and should be avoided (except where inaccuracies are not related to a dispute), "Disputed" is far better imho. As for the text I think we should be phrasing it rather differently. I suggest the following:

"Notice: This map depicts disputed <$type|> boundaries from the perspective of <$party,|only> one party to the dispute. The boundaries shown here may not be recognised by other parties and/or the international community. <$explanation|> Caution should be exercised when using and describing this map, particularly in places (such as wikipedias) with neutral point of view policies. Other maps of this area are available <at $category|on Wikimedia Commons>"

This as a template would take four parameters, "type" (the specified type of boundaries, e.g. "national", "political", "national and political", etc), "party" (e.g. "Russia", "Ukraine", etc), "Explanation" (a short explanation of what is disputed, e.g. "Reason: Shows Crimea as part of Russia", "Reason: Shows Crimea as part of Ukraine", "Reason: Omits Azerbaijani exclaves within Armenia", etc) and "category" (e.g. "Category:Maps of Crimea"), with generic wording if not specified. Whatever version is used the jargon term "NPOV" should be avoided. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"This map shows a disputed boundary from the perspective of Party A/B" is not as neutral as I was attempting to provide. I was hoping for a universal text that could be applied to any map with such a situation. However if everyone agrees to something else I won't oppose it. Fry1989 eh? 21:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
How about just "The maps shows disputed boundaries which may not be accepted by all parties and/or the international community"? All the parameters are meant to be optional, so it's just saying "this map represents only one side of a dispute"; optionally saying which side of the dispute it represents, what the dispute is, and where other maps (which may or may not also be disputed) can be found. I'm not really sure what's non-neutral about that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This template meant to extinguish fires not to make new ones. Spreading the template widely can only make fire in a place where there is no fire. we don't consider ourselves qualify to determine which map is correct and what fact is correct (it's for wikipedia), there for discussion in the files talk page is necessary. Generally, i think adding this template is not a regular task for commons users. I think that the more important issue for commons users is to check if the file name and their description contains the necessary info. File name for example: "Map of Russia with Crimea.jpg" already disclosed that Crimea is not necessarily part of Russia. Geagea (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The original or my suggestion? If the latter, then I disagree. It does not make any judgement about whether a map is correct, it just notes that it depicts something that is disputed, and optionally who's perspective it is from, what the dispute is, and where other maps (disputed or otherwise) can be found. I don;t think that would light any fires. On the other hand, I would reserve the description of "inaccurate" for maps showing things like physical features in the wrong place, South Sudan co-existing with Czechoslovakia, Switzerland as part of Italy, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe Geagea means they support Elmor's claim that this template is an attempt to bully users away from using them and that the files should be left blank so anybody can use them without having a clue about the maps' statuses. Fry1989 eh? 23:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User Legendphotography

  1. File:Tom_Baker_with_hat.jpg
  2. File:Tom_baker.jpg
  3. File:Paul_Darrow.jpg
  4. File:Tom_Baker.jpg

Do we need to get Commons:OTRS permission confirmation for these images?

And what to do about the user which seems to be a violation of m:Role account?

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest OTRS permission, just to make sure it's not someone hoping to sneak in someone else's photographs without at least a basic check. Role accounts are trickier, but it's not normally a problem for an account that uploads material, as there's not the same attribution issues you get with contributing original text content. There are a number of upload only role accounts dotted around the various projects, but I don't know (and certainly can't find anything) to say we should be dealing with them in any given way. Nick (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay I sent an email to the photographer named at the website http://www.legend-photography.com and I'll tag the images as needing permission. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: The copyright holder got back to me and I forwarded the appropriate email to Commons:OTRS, now it's pending confirmation. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
All ✓ Done now, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fuckyouisil (talk · contribs)

Definitely inappropriate name. I'm not sure what is right procedure in such cases. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked undef. Seeing the edits, obviously nothing productive is expected. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ipos

Ipos (talk · contribs) continues to upload large numbers of image files from znaci.net (re: Yugoslavia in WWII) which lack simple requirements such as author or date of publication. As they have been added to en WP articles I have requested their deletion, because unfortunately, znaci does not adequately explain why its content is PD. Ipos is effectively uploading large numbers of non-PD files to Commons, and appears to be unfazed by the fact that as soon as they are used in en WP articles, they get nominated for deletion and subsequently get deleted. It needs some form of limitation to be placed on Ipos' behaviour. User:INeverCry has experience of this issue. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems these images are in the public domain. However, I don't know which one of {{PD-Serbia}}, {{PD-Slovenia}}, or {{PD-Bosnia and Herzegovina}} applies. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
They MAY be in the public domain, but there is insufficient information on the website to support that conclusion. All it says is that they are. Anyone could put that on a website, and znaci doesn't say who it is, or on what authority they upload documents and photographs. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, let's try to be practical. For example, File:Prva lovska eskadrilja na letališču Vis.jpg: do you have any reason to doubt that it is from 1944? As it is half-toned, it was obviously published. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I will try to help here. Znaci.net is not a source. it is internet library. The real source of this image is Perhauc, Rafael (1968) Letalci prekomorci, ČZP "Soča," Peacemaker67 has certain point here. It is necessary to provide full information about the source and appropriate PD tag, not link to internet libarary. Since this publisher is from Slovenia, PD-Yugoslavia and PD-Slovenia should have been used. Since PD-Slovenia says that photographs published before 1 January 1970 are in PD, there is no issue with this image.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course, precise information should be added. But deleting these files won't help... Thanks a lot for your input. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Alessio lasalandra sockpuppets Sara green and Mara28-96

Alessio lasalandra was recently blocked indefinitely for uploading copyright violations, forging uploads and evading a previous block. The user continues to edit at the Italian Wikipedia. In the article on Laura Marano, edits by Alessio lasalandra are interspersed with very similar edits by Mara28-96, who is also active here on Commons, uploading obvious copyright violations and editing uploads by Sara green to remove problem tags and add {{Self}} licensing tags on Sara green's behalf, while Sara green tries to forge license review tags and removes problem tags from Mara28-96's uploads. Please block the sockpuppets and nuke their uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Both undef. All files nuked. Yann (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yann: I have tagged them if that helps too. DLindsley (My talk page) 16:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User Fred the Oyster

1 2014-11-09 02:19 copyvio repeat
2 2014-11-09 02:01 Please learn the rules before making changes
3 2014-11-08 13:36 Fuck chemistry, and fuck their diagram backlog
4 2014-11-08 13:34 File:Allantoin chemical structure.svg
5 2014-11-07 21:37 File:Metathesis of olefines.svg
6 2014-11-07 02:05 File:Metathesis of olefines.svg
7 2014-11-04 00:14 YLSS and File:NNMetro.svg
8 2014-10-28 19:06 Undo revision 138056612 by Elvey put your comments back in and leave mine alone
9 2014-10-28 09:09 Files uploaded by Rickdoble
10 2014-10-26 11:20 User:Fae/Fry1989 revert analysis
11 2014-10-26 10:53 Fastily's close within less than a day
12 2014-09-25 20:10 New images of (former) British municipalities
13 2014-09-16 10:45 get, set, go...
14 2014-09-14 15:49 Template VVA
Hopefully folks can see that a pure search like this of contributions is of itself neutral. I am not proposing that individually each the items above is harassment, but evidence of a long term sustained pattern of likely abuse/trolling to create a hostile environment for its target should be of concern to any administrator in line with COM:BP. If more are needed, I can run a longer search for a wider set of patterns. I do this by pulling historical potential matching pages through the API, which takes a couple of hours to do a period of months but only takes a few minutes to set up. --Fæ (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Addendum Now that @Fastily: has changed @A.Savin: 's block of FtO's to one day,[17], stating that indef blocks on Commons now require a consensus or an RFC (one must deduce that this is a criticism of A.Savin's understanding of COM:BP), it seems appropriate to establish a wider consensus. I am mentioning some of the people directly affected in the above list of evidence and encourage them to comment in this thread with their views of whether Fred the Oyster is persistently creating a hostile environment for other contributors to this project—@INeverCry, Yikrazuul, DMacks, and YLSS: @Elvey, Maxxl2, Mti, and Dqfn13: in order than Fastily's new requirement for a consensus is addressed.
It must be noted that Fastily's action was taken with no on-wiki discussion with the original blocking administrator and in the context of no unblock request from Fred the Oyster, on the contrary he has stated No, I won't be asking for an unblock[...] It won't be because I've had to prostrate myself to an arrogant clique of individuals who feel superior because they have a handful of extra tools available to them. And no I won't promise to behave, or not use profanity. - which I read as a literal "fuck off" to the rest of the Wikimedia Commons community; a guarantee that this is a user who will continue their disruptive behaviour.
This is uncomfortably close on the heels of the discussion two weeks ago about Fastily's hasty close of a discussion of Fry1989's actions[18], the conclusion by Billinghurst included: I believe that administrators should note that there can be concern when discussions are closed within a day, whether there is a perception of an association or not, though especially if there is that perception. --Fæ (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

It does seem hasty, and maybe unefectual, as an indefinite block creates an instant martyr and precludes any possibility opportunity of any fruitful analysis, discussion, remission, or apology (and I say this as one who was blocked three times, all by the same admin, for way more innocent expressions of exasperation). On the other hand, it is true that I failed to ever see Fred’s name popping up in anything other than conflictual topics — incl. in those which were not conflictual untill he showed up. I’d much rejoice, however, if this block were shortened to something like one week, or even lifted if he promises to express his dismay in a more congenial and unbigoted manner. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, user has been previously indefblocked several times but it was years ago, so I do not think, that next block should be so long. I think that several days or one week block will be enough. But if he will repeat harrasment, next block should be longer.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally spoken, such a behavior/rude language is by far over a tolerable threshold. At some point blocks are needed as a preventive means. If after the end of a block the behavior persists, the next block need to be longer, etc. By taking measures and not tolerating everything, there may be a chance of a change in behavior, for some users at least.
Most discussions here on Commons are constructive and a factual language is used. We need to ensure that rude/disruptive behavior won't pay off (any longer). --Leyo 21:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
As I see in user contributions, he is useful with copyvio finding and experienced graphist. So what is better for us: copyvio finding&good bgraphics vs bad communictaion with users?--Anatoliy (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
A behavior as documented above has the potential to chase away multiple good users from Commons. A community needs rules that are enforced.
Sadly, Fred the Oyster is not willing to change his behavior (for now at least). --Leyo 22:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
His points made in that statement are actually quite valid, but I'm sure they are above most users here who just see colourful words and nothing else. Fred has never gone after another user in a vindictive way, and his choice of terms is always in response to either idiocy, incompetence, or deliberate negativity. Block him, we loose one of our better contributers. Fry1989 eh? 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Real world comparison: If a donate e.g. a big amount of money to social projects, I can behave how I feel like? No, that's not how it works, neither offline nor online. The rules (netiquette) apply to everyone.
Considering your good, hard work and your partly unacceptable behavior, your opinion is not a surprise. --Leyo 00:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, Fry have never, to my knowledge, resorted to wilful insult as Fred have (incl. homophobic hate speech); it feels odd to intervene here, too, as the 1st time I noticed Fred’s recurrent offensive stance whas when he was lashing against vexillogogists’ (i.e., mine and Fry’s among so many others’) «stupidity» and how he doesn’t have time for it… -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Leyo, I wasn't talking about Fred's statement of how valuable his contributions are, though I do agree with it. We all contribute our time and effort to Wikimedia for free where in many cases we could be paid for these efforts elsewhere. There were other more direct as well as subtle points made there which you clearly were not able to see. Tuvalkin, I would like to see what you are referring to when you say that Fred used homophobic hate speech, as I have never seen him do so, and we are friends despite me making no secret on Commons that I am homosexual myself. Fry1989 eh? 01:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Fry, in this edit, Fred accuses Fae of using the “gay card” to discredit his critics and notes that his chosen nick means "fairy" (not unlike the case of an Italian-American using "Esox" as his nickname back in the 1940ies); there may be more instances. Please note that using homophobic hate speech doesn’t mean that the person using it is a homophobe s/himself, as it may be used simply as a rhetorical device to harass and silence the other party; either way, there’s no excuse for it. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That is Fred's observation of Fae's style of argument. I would have to see the references to decide whether or not I agree but I wouldn't outright call "using the gay card" homophobic hate speech. Fry1989 eh? 20:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I ask that people avoid repeating Fred the Oyster's disruptive personal comments. I find this particular form of trolling highly inappropriate, and keeping it going just runs the risk of making this project appear unsettlingly hostile to anyone who is open about being LGBT. If anyone wishes to make specific allegations, then they are free to create a thread or a RFC/U about me and provide evidence that I have done something against our policies, until then, deliberately repeating this rubbish is a hostile tangent unless it adds positively to the understanding of whether there has been an appropriate or inappropriate block length. --Fæ (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Anatoliy, we had an earlier well-known case where the community finally came to the painful decision that sometimes bad behaviour can no longer be balanced by good expertise and good contributions. However, I am not sure whether we are at this stage already. --Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I intended to report his harassment made against me, but I see that it is not worth it. .--medium69 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Look : WebHamster : Compte global and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster&oldid=356361984#Blocked --medium69 (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That means nothing. Russavia is blocked for sockpuppetry on Wikipedia and is a trusted admin here on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 00:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
If you intended to report, then either do it, or dont even bother to mention it. And the smiley is out of place — if someone is being blocked, moreover someone whose work is so obviously valuable and yet someone who cannot be civil, that’s not a reason to smile, especially, as it seems here, not a reason to gloat. (Not to mention that Fred seems to have been spot in this case, while apparently meanaging to be not obnoxious.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

First, I would like to stress that my intention was not an indef block (we have here user problems). So, let's say, if Freds changes his behaviour after 3 weeks of a block I will gladly welcome this. What I see, however, is the lacking willinges to think about his own actions, and that he does not need so as his admin-bro Fastily is solving block issues.

Sorry, but commons is a collaborative space. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fastily's block reduction of Fred the Oyster to 1 day

I just noticed that early this morning Fastily has changed Fred the Oyster's block to just 1 day, using the rationale "no clear consensus at ANU or RFC has taken place to indefinietly ban user. Reducing block to reasonable length." While I have no strong opinion about the block-length in this case, I think it's bad style to execute such a change single-handedly and even without notifying the participants of this discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It is sure that one day, it's not over priced especially considering the number of previous blocking it to be had on the English version of the facts of harassment and insults. In addition, without even telling anyone who was involved here! --medium69 (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I (seriously) knew Fastily would be the one to reduce the block. 1 day is certainly too short. --Leyo 09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You're a telepath now? Your comment just reeks of bad faith. Fry1989 eh? 20:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
User Fastily blocked User:Shyoon1 for less then this expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page. I notify this together with other bad admin actions here. I already mentioned that Fasitly encourage that kind of behavior here the trash talking was successful as no admin said that this behavior is bad. So we got now harder trash talking. I think 1 Day is a joke. At least 3 month block. And I also think that this Proposal have to be raised again as the unblock was inappropriate. Geagea (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My summary of @Fastily: 's action here is that:

  1. There has been no attempt at prior discussion with the original blocking administrator, encouraging them to review the block if necessary. Instead we have one administrator overrulling another.
  2. Fastily has introduced an effective policy change for indef blocks by fellow administrators to require a prior official consensus, rather than this remaining within the judgement of administrators.
  3. Fred the Oyster is blatantly unapologetic for their disruptive behaviour and has stated on their talk page[19] that they will continue the same long term pattern of disruptive behaviour that has a history on Commons and other projects of trolling and disruption that spans years; along with using their talk page to make a number of offensive attacks against other editors even whilst blocked. It should be noted that Fred the Oyster is open about their previous off-wiki activities, were anyone prepared to research these, you would find a long series of highly offensive personal attacks against Wikimedians that spans several years.
  4. Fastily has failed to engage with Fred the Oyster to either encourage a proper unblock request, or to gain a commitment from Fred the Oyster to change their behaviour in any way.

Given the facts of these circumstances, I do not believe that Fastily's use of tools has been appropriate, takes account of the views of the wider community expressed in this discussion (which they have chosen to ignore), or demonstrates collegiality with fellow administrators. --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What should I say about it? Fastily wheelwarred here, behaved (once again) in an uncollegial, elitist way, by having lifted the ban of a long-term abuse account, without even trying to discuss with me or with other participants. There were also numerous issues concerning Fastily with inappropriate RfD closures in the past, which actually already qualify as standalone reason for a revocation of their sysop flag. I have neither time nor desire (RL has priority at current time) to search for all the links+archives. If anyone else wants to start a request for desysop, I'd be glad to support. --A.Savin 10:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fastily: Could you respond properly to these concerns, hopefully recognizing that there has been an issue with your use of sysop rights in this case? I am hoping that you will reverse your action and leave future actions for Fred the Oyster to other admins, in the same way as the community now expects you to do for Fry1989. --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Fae, you never think Fastily's use of admin tools are appropriate, that is no secret. You also suggesting there is community consensus for Fastily to recuse themself from dealing with me is really disingenuous. Fry1989 eh? 20:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect, I find the vast majority of Fastily's use of tools for this project entirely appropriate. My viewpoint in this instance has been stated and supported with evidence, your tangential unprovable allegations about what is in my head have not. Your comments are unhelpful, least of all for Fastily. --Fæ (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I have never once seen you praise Fastily for their edits, and to suggest that there was some official (or even semi-official) consensus for Fastily to recuse themselves from using their administration tools in regards to ANY user is dishonest when it was nothing but a rag-tag team of malcontents lead by yourself and agitated by some unprovoked dislike of me not based in current reality. Fry1989 eh? 21:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

 Info Again, Fastily has reduced Fred's block in an uncollegial way. @A. Savin: Please go ahead with the request for desysop. With those admins as good friend I could diss everyone here keeping in mind that "my" admin will rescue me. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

People make mistakes and that's okay. That's what makes us human but there is no excuse for Fastily wheel warring and not placing a note at the user problems thread and a note at A. Savin's talk page. The ideal situation would be that Fastily discussed his action before he changed the bock, an less ideal but more acceptable situation would be if Fastily informed all the involved parties and used a clear motivation to motivate his action but this did not happen either, instead he acted in a really uncollegial way and this is not the first time he has done so. There even wasn't a clear consensus to lift the block.
Wheel warring really endangers the project, especially when it comes to changing block setting. Admins should work together well and should able to work together even if they don’t like each other but this is exactly the kind of action that makes this impossible. I'm sorry but this is not how you treat your colleague's.
The very least thing Fastiy should do is apologising to A. Savin and addressing the points mentioned in this conversation. And I would really appreciate it if Fastily just undoes his action so an uninvolved admin can deal with it so that decent unblock conditions can be set. If he refuses to do so he should really step down as an admin. I see too many controversial, poorly motivated and uncollegial action executed by Fastily lately. This is yet another severe incident and I really hope that he is finally willing to show some goodwill and self-reflection. Natuur12 (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to add that I concur with Natuur12. There is a need for Fastily to seriously address a number of points which have been raised here, and which were, to some extent, raised elsewhere over the last few weeks. Nick (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No consensus to reduce the block to one day, i changed the block, three months now (as suggested above). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I originally reduced his block to ~48 hours, simply because a unilateral indefinite ban without unblock conditions for incivility is both unfair and punitive in nature. Yes, Fred is no saint, and while I do not agree with his recent conduct, that does not mean he is any more or less entitled to the fair and collegial treatment the rest of us enjoy. Fred is an experienced and valued contributor, and if he is to be indefinitely banned, then let us have a formal discussion to enact a community ban. Nonetheless, it’s sad to see that most of you would rather bicker and incite drama than work together to resolve your differences. I note Steinsplitter has increased Fred’s block to 3 months. I can’t say I agree 100% with that, but I don’t oppose it either. Also, I would like to apologize for not initially leaving a note in this discussion. That was an oversight of mine, and I wish to apologize for any offense (unintentional) this may have caused. Regards, FASTILY 21:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Fastily: Why do you call people you disagree with a lynch mob? Sorry, but it seems that you still don't understand the actual point. This kind of ad hominem are unacceptable and I still notice a huge lack of self reflection mainly because you avoid most of the points. Natuur12 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Fastily: +1 Geagea (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Fastily: could you please respond? Natuur12 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As a point of clarification, nobody has been "indefinitely banned" (here at least, though a prior topic ban does exist for Fred the Oyster, see below). I would expect all administrators to appreciate the difference between banning and an indef block, if you are unsure please take some time out to review and properly understand Blocking policy. --Fæ (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster's block extended to three months

O.k., after Fastilys statement and in order to be able to close this thread ASAP, I would like ask all participants to voice support (or not) for the 3-month-block of Fred the Oyster, executed by Steinsplitter. IMO, a block of this length gives a clear signal that the community does not tolerate such behaviour, despite his valuable contributions, but at the same time expresses hope that a change for the better might still be possible.

  • I  Support the original indef block by A.Savin. Recall, that indef does not means infinitely. Actually, indef is a very good choice in many cases as it refers to 'until further disruption can be avoided'. An indef block is not punitive in its nature, unlike a 3 months block. If Fred the Oyster can convince the community that he is prepared to change his behavior, such that it does not become disruptive, the block can be lifted. If there is no sign that disruption will end if the block is lifted, the block stays. Three months, is, on the other hand, punitive and reactive. After three months, there will be no check if this changes behaviour, nor if there is a chance for Fred to start contributing constructively again after a shorter time period as it is just a stupid fixed period. With an indef block there is no punishment, as it will be all up to Fred himself. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also  Support the original indef block, provided it will not be cancelled before three months. I don't agree with the idea that a three month's block is to be considered a punishment. In the present situation maybe a long rest is necessary for the user to cool down and make a proper introspection concerning his past behavior. On a side note, the really upseting thing in this process is the behavior of the admins, who are supposed to be the best of us. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support the original indef block by A.Savin.--medium69 (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose An indef block is inappropriate and ignorant of the animosity between Leyo and Fred, as well as the agitation here by Fae. Fry1989 eh? 22:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If Fred apologize for his rude speech against others that mentioned above and leave clear statement in his talk page that he won't do it again then I agree to 3 month block. till then I support indef. As far as I see Fred thinks that he is so valuable to the project that the trash talk is minor issue. Geagea (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support indefinitely or at least for three months. If temporarily, it should be made very clear that personal attacks won't be tolerated in 2015 either. I'm afraid that a lot of Fred the Oyster's attitude towards the community has to change …    FDMS  4    01:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 Comment Considering the actual question of the vote was about a 3-month block, and it was deliberately bolded by Túrelio, I would say that these votes calling for an indef are invalid. If Fred is to be indeffed, that requires proper procedure and a simple AN like this doesn't cut it. Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
May I remind you that you didn't comment on the 3-month block question either?    FDMS  4    01:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter because I obviously oppose it and secondly because I was refferring to everyone here calling for an indef when that was not the question, and obviously you people still didn't get the hint. It is YOU (and the others) who are calling for something that was not the question at hand. Fry1989 eh? 01:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 Comment An indefinite block though can be permanent if the situations that led to your indefinite block aren't resolved. This would kinda mean that you were being blocked for infinity, which rarely happens on Wikimedia wikis, like here on Commons for example. But yeah, an indefinite block usually is not "permanent". It usually is a block length "until you can get your situation resolved". That usually does not happen with indefinite blocks on Wikimedia wikis, because, for example, I haven't seen anyone that's gotten their situations over with here on Commons, based on looking at the reviewed requests for unblock. DLindsley (My talk page) 02:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Túrelio not only requested for comment on a 3-month block, they deliberately bolded it which means it was important to them to see a review on whether a 3-month block has consensus. No matter your excuse, calling for an indef block is invalid. Fry1989 eh? 03:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Fry, I am not trying to call for an indefinite block. I was just giving a detailed description of what an indefinite block could be if:
  1. You didn't handle your situations, and:
  2. You actually tried to sort out your situations.
DLindsley (My talk page) 21:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You may not have, but you are making excuses for those who are calling for an indefinite block in spite of Túrelio's clearly deliberate attempt to seek something different. Fry1989 eh? 22:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose block – Per my rationale last time. Fred speaks frankly and boldly, and we should appreciate that. In 2012, certain members of the Commons community attempted to censor Fred in the name of "civility". The same thing is happening again. The cycle of tyranny needs to be broken. We should unblock Fred and accept him for who he is: a frank and passionate contributor. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from attacks such as “cycle of tyranny”. --Leyo 07:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support A block of a sufficient length is needed in order to allow sufficient time and distance for Fred the Oyster make a proper introspection concerning his past behavior. I would be happy to have his valuable contributions — not his previous behavior — back in 2015. --Leyo 07:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Indef per Alvesgaspar. A few months with fewer personal attacks, blatantly offensive trolling and repetitive tag-teaming on admin noticeboards[20][21] would be productive for the Commons community. I notice that on Commons:Editing restrictions, Fred the Oyster was topic banned from all Administrator Noticeboards in 2012 and the ban remains in effect. There has never been an appeal against this ban. Had it been enforced by an administrator, the current block and community discussions/admin-admin contretemps would have been avoided. --Fæ (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support whatever time period Steinsplitter has set. Experienced, respected, and uninvolved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support any block, preferably indef, because this account is burnt anyway. --A.Savin 13:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I  Support indef for three reasons. First, he thinks "I talked bullocks" when I'm actually informing him that the 2018 Winter Paralympic logo has to have the same features as the Olympic logo which he refused to edit the background from white to clear. He thinks that "There are two different versions on the official website." However, there is only one version. Take the Vancouver and Sochi ones for example, background's clear. Second, if he gets unblock after 3 months and his behavior and attitude has not changed, he'll go all "Afghanistan", in other words insulting each other in a very humongous and abusive way. Third, he uses profanity in a bad way and bullies others. The account must be block indef unless he apologize and make a statement. 174.91.69.244 22:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Seriously? You want a valuable user to be blocked indefinitely because they wouldn't change an image's background from white to transparent? I'd also love to know who this IP is. Fry1989 eh? 22:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm a Mississaugan and Canadian user that wants to remain anonymous. I'm really disappointed about Fred being mean and abusive to users and other IPs. I think it time for us to teach him a lesion that insulting other is a violation of the rules. 174.91.69.244 22:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
"Hurt feelings = three (3) months in prison". A civilization with laws based "civility" would be completely devoid of freedom of speech, which is why there aren't any laws forcing people to be polite. People should be more open to having their own feelings hurt. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think a block is deserved, but three months may be a little long. That said, I don't oppose it. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mattbuck. There was lots of incivility. Michaeldsuarez makes some good points as well. There was no w:hate speech. As far as I know, there is no policy that bars mere vulgarity. Civility and vulgarity are not incompatible. Are we such sex-hostile prudes that words like fuck, blow and orgasm are verboten? I fucking hope not! --Elvey (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Shame on Yikrazuul, for accusing FtO of w:hate speech without any evidence. A false accusation of hate speech, especially at AN/U, strikes me as a more serious offense than use of run-of-the-mill insults. (I don't know if A.Savin took Yikrazuul at his word that FtO was using 'hate speech', but based on the 1-word response, it sure seems like it.) I looked at the 4 diffs that Yikrazuul provided as evidence of hate speech and found 0 instances of hate speech. Ditto for the link in the follow-up discussion above questioning whether there was any hate speech. If there had been diffs showing hate speech or evidence that FtO is homophobic or hates a particular group, I'd be singing a very different tune.
    • Fastily's wheel warring also strikes me as a more serious offense than use of run-of-the-mill insults. And note: I have been on the receiving end of FtOs insults, and so was asked to comment (which strikes me as blatant canvassing! WT?)
    • So blocking FtO, but not disciplining Fastily or Yikrazuul seems highly inappropriate to me. They should all be blocked pending indication of remorse. Fastily's apology merely for not notifying here is insufficient. --Elvey (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      You are correct on the issue of using swear words, the community's convention on Commons is that accounts are not blocked just for using a swear word. However the block in this case is for harassment, not for the words used alone. The section of Blocking policy that has been applied is that of "harassment" which explains that "Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked."
      So, an "academic" use of fuck, bollocks or even nigger and faggot, should not be an issue so long as you take good care that you are not using these words in a way that appears to be a personal attack or intended to otherwise distress other contributors to this project by creating a hostile environment and a non-collegiate space. For example, I have uploaded many 19th century cartoons, some of which include racial stereotypes and language which are offensive in modern times, as well as modern photographs that contain more edgy material such as nude men through to faecal matter (human shit); we are free to discuss the material and the language used, though if someone objects to the images being posted on their user page then I think that should be respected. Note that non-vulgar words like "cow", "idiot", "monkey", etc. might be seen as harassment, especially if you ignore another contributors request for you to leave them alone or to stop using certain language they find offensive. Anyone checking through the links provided in this thread can see that Fred the Oyster persistently uses swear words to cause offence and upset others (some call this trolling, though in my view the longer term pattern and personally directed nature both on-wiki and off-wiki makes this cyberbullying).
      It is true that people may be misusing "hate speech", perhaps using this to mean "hateful speech" or using "hateful words". I suggest the term is only used for quite blatant cases where there is no doubt about motivation or a simple misunderstanding. The above examples of nigger and faggot would literally be hate speech in the UK if used in a personal attack, and all contributors should be extremely careful with their use of language that might be judged as racist or homophobic as they may be committing a crime in their country of origin, as well as the United States, regardless of whether the behavior is against Commons/Wikimedia policies or not (based on past experience, true hate speech would quickly result in accounts being blocked). --Fæ (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      Yes, we agree that use of run-of-the-mill insults alone should not result in blocks. But what about Fastily's wheel warring??? I already said, "There was lots of incivility." Nothing I said indicates I think FtO didn't participate in creation of a hostile environment. I'm not aware of FtO's off-wiki behavior; what are you talking about? (Please reply off-wiki if you prefer not to reply here about that.)--Elvey (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      "Fred the Oyster persistently uses swear words to cause offence and upset others (some call this trolling, though in my view the longer term pattern and personally directed nature both on-wiki and off-wiki makes this cyberbullying)." meta:Attempts_to_psychoanalyze_fellow_users. Unless you can read minds, you shouldn't believe you know what Fred is trying to intentionally "cause". If I were to psychoanalyze Fred, I would say that he's driven by passion, not a desire to harass or bully, and although psychoanalyzing others isn't best practice, "assuming good faith" means assuming positive motives rather than negative ones. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      Word. I would like to see an admin provide more positive guidance to FtO; unblocking him without doing so is a terrible abuse of the mop. You are wrong, however, as Michael points out; I, for example, do NOT think FtO persistently uses swear words to cause offense and upset others. I think FtO is hypersensitive, and well-phrased guidance could help him become less sensitive and better at responding calmly. In all the cases I looked at from the list given, FtO was clearly triggered by questionable (or worse comments) of another party, BUT his style of response is sure to lead to a cycle of escalation, unless the other party is particularly good at keeping calm and deescalating... Fæ: AGF means not assuming that what seems to be trolling is trolling if there's a better explanation. --Elvey (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: Please refrain from twisting non-native English speakers' words. “Hate speech” might not be the right term to be used in this case, but would you have understood the correct term in Danish, Dutch, French, German, Hebrew, Portuguese, Russian or Ukrainian? (languages spoken by users participating in this discussion)? --Leyo 19:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Leyo, please, stop beating your wife; I didn't twist anyone's words. If someone didn't realize they were grossly misusing a very incendiary term then they should, once they realize that they've done so, quickly strike the misused term. @Yikrazuul: That means you. @A.Savin: Are you aware it was misused? --Elvey (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You may well be multilingual. Why not? Speaking for myself, I surely make lots of smaller and larger mistakes (grammar, choice of terms), even though I try my best to write in an understandable manner. If I am misunderstood by native English speakers, then it appears to be entirely due to my own shortcomings. I might correctly phrase my statements in my native language. Then, I could not be blamed for things I actually didn't mean. But would this be better? I therefore ask you to refrain from harping on about terms used my non-native English speakers. --Leyo 22:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It is funny that User Elvey tries to proof here and btw a dose of fudge. Of course with "hate speech" I meant "hateful speech" or "hateful words" in the sense of Fred's rude and impudent behaviour towards others. Even a blind chicken could see that. However, if I read user Elvey's words (So blocking FtO, but not disciplining Fastily or Yikrazuul seems highly inappropriate to me) I wonder if user Elvey would agree that I will call him a ***** ******** according to his logic. Which is not logic at all because it is not the use of single words like "fuck" or "orgasm" (witch btw was not issued and written by Fred). So no Elvey, I give a fuck on your whitewashing attempts. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

69.80.102.91

69.80.102.91 (talk · contribs). I think he wants to get in a dispute with me somehow, but I am not taking it. Please see his contributions. DLindsley (My talk page) 02:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Allowing Dlindsey to continue patrolling is an accident waiting to happen. He/she doesn't understand any of the basics with regard to copyrights and deletion rationales. He/she comes off a block and straight away carries on doing exactly what they were blocked for. He/she seems to think an apology is a get out of jail free card, yet doesn't mean that he has to stop the activity he/she is apologising for. Yes, I was wrong to refer to him as being "dumber than a box of rocks", which he/she/it seems to think is swearing, but I can't get past how accurate the description is. So according to his/her behaviour I've just apologised and can now continue to berate him/her/it. Thank for this chance to voice my side of the story. --69.80.102.91 02:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You had better not start a dispute though, or either one of us will we blocked. DLindsley (My talk page) 02:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done IP blocked. INeverCry 02:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. :) DLindsley (My talk page) 02:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Yes, the user under this IP address has harassment behaviour, but mainly was caused the disruptive editions of DLindsley (once again, nominating for deletion a PD-Textlogo and creating a non-sense template). Is better that the IP must assume good faith, but Lindsley appears to don't understand the Commons policies. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I've commented below. The IP's behavior is only going to make things worse. I'd rather see DLindsley editing constructively than DLindsley blocked. We'll see how it goes. INeverCry 04:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets' "own work" self-portraits from middle distance

Raised this here since it's as much a sockpuppetry issue as a content deletion one. Wikipedia has had a self-promoting student creating articles about himself with block-evading sockpuppets for months, sometimes illustrated with photos uploaded to Commons:

Three of the uploaders (User:Anjalisinha95, User:Siena26 and User:Swatiariyaa) are the same sockpuppet names Biswas used on Wikipedia. It seems Biswas is claiming all of these photos as his "own work" and CC-licencing them, but they're a mix of candid and publicity shots (one with a watermark) which clearly can't have been taken by Biswas, since he is in them. --McGeddon (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads deleted, socks blocked. INeverCry 23:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Recategorize several photos

I made an error and I tagged all the photos I uploaded with simply the category Bicycle. Can you kindly move all those photos to the Category:Urban bicycles? Is there a way I can do it? Thank you.Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done "Urban bicycles" is not a very good category, and it was subcategorized to "models of bikes" so I added your series to Category:Bicycles in The Hague. The way to change categories is to open the files and change the category between [[Category:_________]] to what you want. Experienced users can be activated for "cat-a-lot" which is a lot faster and automated. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need more help. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
A further possibility for automated re-cat is "custom replace" in VisualFileChange, advantage: you don't have to select your files in a category which contains hundreds of other files, but go through your (recent) uploads instead. --A.Savin 19:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Natalie Portman Thor 2 cropped.png

Please review Triggerhippie4's repeated reverts on File:Natalie Portman Thor 2 cropped.png. I've requested that they address the issue on the discussion page but they continue to revert to a lower resolution inferior image. Bede735 (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've temporarily upload protected it to stop the edit-warring and facilitate discussion. INeverCry 01:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The quality of your upload is not good, why have you tried to increase the resolution beyond that of the original image ? Nick (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same images? Did you look at the user's first two overexposed uploads (10/16, 11/12)? And do you believe the 164 KB is a better quality image? Bede735 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't alter the indentation, I'm conversing with you, not INeverCry. I've looked at the original image on Flickr, the original image on Commons and your increased resolution. File size != quality, increasing the size of the image (both in terms of resolution and file size) does not result in a higher quality image, at the full resolution, your upload is blurred and shows significant artifacts from the scaling process. I'm not sure why you've tried to increase the resolution, but you need to read up on how image enlargement works and realise that increasing enlargement results in decreasing image quality. I'm not sure how you've managed to adjust the image ratio but that too is wrong and shouldn't be done. Nick (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
As my summary indicated, my version was an "Alternate crop with original color balance" from the original Flickr image. I replaced the user's strange white-faced overexposed version. The idea that my "resized" version is inferior somehow to the current "resized" version is interesting. No need to respond. Bede735 (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to explain this any more clearly, you've taken an image that was 300px wide by 400px high at 164KB and replaced it with an image that is 1,152px wide by 1,438 px high at 1.23MB. The original file is only 800px wide by 8,400px high, so clearly you've stretched the image to create a 1,152px wide image from an original that's 800px wide. That has resulted in a dramatic loss of quality when the image is viewed at full size, this being reflected in the file size also, which has increased due to the way you've enlarged the image. If you don't understand what happens when you enlarge images in this way, please find out, but in the interim, please don't enlarge original files from Commons, making poor quality files with large file sizes. Nick (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Nick here in relation to this issue. Upscaling images is not a good thing due to the lack of quality. If people want to use a higher resolution/quality image, there will be plenty in Category:Natalie Portman which they can use. russavia (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Russavia and Nick here. Please do not overwrite this file that is widely used. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:DLindsley and his/her several mistakes

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

Because of the recent incidents and because of users last edits, i blocked User:DLindsley for one week. Its a preventive block, the user has now a full week for reading and understanding the commons rules and policys. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This user tries to do patrolling job, but lacks the basic knowledge of copyright and the Theshold of originality (that given several problems) (and also don't have the Autopatrolled flag). This user has been blocked twice (in less than 15 days), and after his/her second block, the user still commiting mistakes like this, this, and dozens of reverted editions migrating Interwiki links to Wikidata like this. We already warned to the user but still misunderstanding the Policies regardless the recent blocks. Unfortunately, this user is too newbie to do patroll jobs and his/her edition aren't much helpful. Any action to take? The admins and the experienced users should not waste our time with these disruptive editions. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have also observed their little drive against "profanity" on Commons, especially in response to discovering the WTF? template and trying to create a counter-template after their deletion nomination of it failed. For now it has been a mild disruption, but it is quickly growing old. Fry1989 eh? 03:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe this comment is also absolutely inappropriate and irrelevant to the DR itself. Fry1989 eh? 03:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Considering all the Wikidata-related reverts, he's lucky he didn't join the IP. @DLindsley: No more reverts of interwiki removal/transfer to Wikidata please. I would suggest you take the advice and help offered by others here at Commons, both admins and plain old editors. You'll be able to edit more constructively and avoid blocks and drama. As for swearing, if you'd rather people don't swear on your talk page, you have every right to put up a message asking people not to, but warning templates like the one you created are going a bit overboard. As long as it's not part of a personal attack, swearing now and then is generally ok. INeverCry 04:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I concur with the expressed concerns; I come across this user also in the context of a puzzling DR — I assumed s/he was going for a (bogus) personality rights angle, while Russavia saw it as a(n equally bogus) matter of scope. User:DLindsley never offered an explanation, nor withdraw the nomination — doesn’t come across as earnest or reliable. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

DLindsley must block. he was edit waring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.26.62 (talk • contribs)

He hasn't edited in a couple hours. A block now would be punitive. He'll have a chance to edit constructively. If he continues any disruptive behavior, he'll be blocked again for a longer period. INeverCry 05:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, blocking DLindsley again, for now, is a drastic measure, I agree. The user assumes good faith, but in his way. Any experienced user and admins commited mistakes in our newbie times, but DLindsleystill doing the things bad. But never is too late to learn, I expect this. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Amitie 10g: I have messaged you saying that I am autistic. DLindsley (My talk page) 20:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, that may be relevant for this case. As other admins suggested, please ask us for any doubts and don't forget to learn the Policies. I still assuming you're assuming good faith. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
So what. There are plenty of autistics on Commons. Yet strangely you don't see them making the amount of screw-ups you've managed to achieve in such a short space of time both here and over on en.wiki. So please stop using autism as an excuse, it doesn't fly. You are perfectly capable of reading and learning the relevant processes related to upload patrolling and copyright, but for some reason you choose not to and as such keep making the same mistakes over and over again. --31.6.38.22 00:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It isn't an excuse, but it is a factor and we should be kind about assisting DLindsley in finding their way as long as they are willing to learn. Fry1989 eh? 15:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
You should be kind to me. This might also be about being nice to someone who is autistic. I felt that Amitie 10g wasn't nice to me at all. Amitie 10g: Please be nice to me in the future. DLindsley Need something? 16:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I work with and teach young autistics all day, and I have yet had to have a reason to be "nice" to them simply because they are autistic. A lot of them, like you, believe that just because they are autistic they should be treated differently. That is not how I've been trained or how we educate them. You live in a normal world, and whether or not you see it differently is irrelevant in this respect, you have to deal with the normal world in a normal way. You can't expect the world to adapt to you simply because you are different. Being an autistic is not a reason to not stick to the rules, or even to learn the rules. There is no reason for you to be cut any slack or to be treated any differently on Commons simply because you are autistic. As mentioned above there are many autistics (including the previously unmentionable one) on Commons who don't expect their autism to affect how they are treated. Why should you be any different? --31.6.38.22 17:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The site is too overcontrolling with it's policies. DLindsley Need something? 17:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
So go somewhere else where the policies aren't so controlling. No-one is forcing you to stay. You're being a bit hypocritical though considering it was only a few days ago that you wanted to control what language people could or couldn't use. --31.6.38.22 18:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
31.6.38.22 (since we do not know your name), being overly forgiving is patronising and insulting and does not help, but being an asshole about it doesn't help either. There's no reason we can't give a little extra patience as long as DLindsley is willing to learn. It really is no different from anyone else who doesn't understand the rules but wants to learn. If DLindsley is incapable of getting on with Commons then that will become apparent in good time, but give them a chance to prove themself. At the same time, DLindsley you have to understand that you can't use autism as a crutch every time you stumble or it will quickly grow old. Jut try your best, ask when you need help or are unsure first, and you have a good chance here. Fry1989 eh? 18:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
More hypocrisy. Lecture me on good behaviour while simultateously calling me an asshole. Not pandering to an obvious adolescent is not being an "asshole". It's called being pragmatic. You pander to them, you enable them. As for giving him time, over 600+ edits should be plenty of time to at least stop making the same mistakes. He's autistic, he's not retarded. His intelligence is not in doubt, at least not by me. However his reluctance to do things the way they are supposed to be done most definitely is in doubt. The day after his last block ended he waded straight in and did the same things all over again. That is not autistic behaviour, that is not as a result of a lack of intelligence. That is pure truculence. As his comment above demonstrates, he doesn't like the rules, and for one reason or another believes they don't apply to him. That sort of behaviour will not end well, either for the project, or for him. Like I said, I deal with autistic behaviour all day, 5 days a week. I knoiw what happens when this sort of behaviour is both tolerated and allowed to continue. In addition one also needs to look at the overview. Why is the kid here? He hasn't uploaded one single original image. He came direct from a block on en.wiki (then making a fool of himself on Wikinews) straight here and continued the behaviour that got him blocked elesewhere. So I ask you, how long is that behaviour to be tolerated when nothing seems to get through to him? And please explain why his being autistic should give him more latitude? If indeed his autism is to blame for this then he isn't going to change at all. Autism is not a disease, or a condition that gets better. It's a description of his permanent wiring. His only options are to learn how to do it properly (even if it's unnatural to him), or not. To do the former he needs to be willing, something he hasn't demonstrated yet. Either way, pandering to him is not in his best interest, nor is it in the best interest of Commons. Autistics naturally think in black and white terms. So speak to him in a language he understands, ie shape up, or ship out. Nice and simple black and white options. Wishy-washy 'gray' terms make things even more difficult for a true autistic. I've never met an autistic yet that hasn't preferred straight-talk. Political correctness is not a dialect autistics really understand, so using it around them does them no favours. PS my IP address is no more anonymous than your pseudonym. Neither gives any info on who we really are. --31.6.38.22 18:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Not getting it

Elroygoh is not getting the copyright issues they're creating, or choosing to ignore them, maybe a timeout is needed. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 02:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Missionridgedentist

see talk page history, spam text--Motopark (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done This acct blocked for spamming along with User:Serenitynurseaide. INeverCry 03:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Adil oid (talk · contribs)

Continues to uploads songs and video clips. Didn't react on previous deletion requests. Farsi or Arabic speaking administrator involvement is necessary. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. The template used has a translation in Arabic. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you spotted it but the user name is an anagram of something rude. --31.6.38.67 15:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Fan de laura marano sock puppet of Alessio lasalandra

Fan de laura marano (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Alessio lasalandra (talk · contribs) - same focus. Links to images using old name on other wikis. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Country of Liberia is missing from the list

Dears,

I have downloaded several images of food from Liberia for Wiki Loves Africa, but to my frustration this country does not appear on the list (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Africa_2014), there is only Libya for L. Is there any real reason for that, or Liberia is simply forgotten?

best regards, Anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoshananarivo (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 November 2014‎ (UTC)

A category for Liberia was created the next day. See Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2014 in Liberia. Green Giant (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Godefroy - imposing (and revert-warring) a knowingly contested image.

Hello,

I need alert you to no more than the contested image (although examining this contributor's contributions in other namespaces might be useful too) - this montage was the origin of two year-apart battles that were so loud and heated that they even made the national newspaper. The contributor is full aware of this and conversations on the Paris article talk page, yet persists in their reverting even after two warnings and invitations to leave comment on the concerned talk page (and their refusal to mention anything there is a sure sign of bad faith). I really don't want this to get to the main namespace again. Sorry for all the noise. THEPROMENADER 23:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And the fact that it is again the same image imposed as that of 'skyscrapercity.com' forum canvassed (and vote-rigging sockpuppetry) for the 'mission' of imposing that photo (and none other) makes it clear that it is once again someone at the least quite aware of the former mission and motives. THEPROMENADER 00:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. I've reverted to the last version before the edit war and protected for a week. ThePromenader, please remember to notify the user if you are reporting them here. Green Giant (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oy, you beat me to it. There doesn't seem to be a template here like on 'main' wikipedia - I should have looked before, sorry. But thanks. THEPROMENADER 00:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@ThePromenader, we do not need a template for that, because at Wikimedia Commons you first talk to the user at his user talk page. If that does not pay off, you can report it here, while you post a link to the discussion here below the prior discussion at the user talk page. Jcb (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll remember that. I left messages (pinging the contributor) on the image talk-page instead. Again sorry. THEPROMENADER 00:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Please note that, as it is now, the description is missing two sources, because the image is the version of User:Blofeld Dr. whereas the description of the sources refers only to the image version of User:Godefroy. The description page being fully protected, a sysop is needed to fix it. P.S. As I am posting this note, I see that the system gives an automatic block threat to anyone who is editing this discussion page (AN/U). That seems quite silly. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the description per your request. Green Giant (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There was no edit war at File:Paris montage2.jpg until this guy ThePromenader arrived and reverted my work 3 times (!) without even discussing things with me beforehand. I spent one hour working on this: trying to change and adjust the one image of the Eiffel Tower, since an editor at the Paris talk page (en.wikipedia) said it wasn't appropriate to a photomontage (standalone picture), and replace it with another view of the Eiffel Tower with La Défense behind, which allowed at the same time to remove the small aerial view of La Défense that is too small to be visible in the photomontage. This makes the photomontage both less cumbersome in height, and less cluttered. And then that one guy arrives, reverts me 3 times, and manages to have my work reverted yet another time, and the file locked! Thanks very much. You're rewarding aggressive behavior here. Anyway, I have notified the admin Zolo, and we'll see what he thinks of it when he finds my message. Godefroy (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there was a version that was stable and undisputed on Commons for over a year and that is what I restored until the dispute is cleared up. This is not a reward for anyone's behaviour. As soon as there was a dispute, both of you should have gone to either the file talkpage or your user talkpages but you shouldn't have got yourselves drawn into a revert war. Please take this debate to the talkpage now and engage constructively with each other. Green Giant (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no "dispute". There is one guy, ThePromenader, who reverted an hour worth of work without even trying to discuss things with me, and then who on top of it opened a complaint against me here without even letting me know. And voila, no sooner has he done those quite aggressive things, an admin who knows him personally as per their talk pages is taking sides and granting ThePromenader's wishes. Is that how editors are usually treated here?? Godefroy (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I edited the same article as ThePromenader more than eight years ago. From that time until today, we have not had another conversation nor have we ever met. I fail to see how you interpret that as "knowing personally", especially when his/her message on my talkpage mentioned that it has been years since we last communicated. Whether it took you an hour or a day to change the image is frankly irrelevant because your preferred version is still visible in the file history and could easily be restored. What matters is that when ThePromenader reverted your version, you could have just discussed the matter on the file talkpage. Instead, you both engaged in three reverts each. If you can reach an agreement between yourselves, the file can be unlocked instantly. However, as it stands your reversions affect 15 other Wikipedias apart from the English one, so the file needs to go back to the stable version by Dr Blofeld unless you can demonstrate there is consensus for your version on at least some of those projects. Green Giant (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And I forgot to apologise for the edit-warring, but if that change had been noticed by Paris contributors (presently quite active on the article), it would have started the whole consensus vs. canvass circus again.
User:Godefroy's behaviour is in extrememly bad faith because they knew a) where this montage was used b) of the two-year discussion and conflict and attempts to subvert consensus there and c) even 12h later, they have not left a word on the Paris talk page about this: the whole point of this 'exercise' was changing the montage without averting other contributors. Otherwise, why not just upload a new image with another name and propose that? And the wikilawyering and disingenuous complaints to 'select' admins show a long wikiexperience that isn't at all reflected in their short contribution history. And is this you as well, User:Godefroy? THEPROMENADER 08:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, User:Godefroy's account is a sock puppet of Signsolid and has been blocked indefinitely. Coldcreation (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Кориоланыч

I've asked this user to stop uploading copyright violations, but to no avail. User:Krd left a warning but the actions continue. Maybe someone else will have better luck? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Empressmusicinc

I don't use Commons much, so I'm sorry if this is the wrong place. I'm trying to report a promotional user name. Specifically that of User:Empressmusicinc. That is all. Thanks, Dismas (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of trust by Trijnstel

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Everybody seems to have cooled down, and let us leave drama for the Dutch Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is with much regret that I bring this here. Following on from User_talk:Trijnstel#Serious_issue_which_needs_your_immediate_attention, I have asked Trijnstel to provide reasoning for supplying files which were deleted for reasons of privacy to editors who weren't otherwise able to see them.

As a Check User here on Commons, Trijnstel is entrusted by this community to hold the tools and to comply with the privacy policy, and to keep information which is private private. By supplying the photographs that were deleted by myself, and were clearly deleted for privacy reasons, to another editor is a gross breach of the trust that this community has placed in her. Upon learning of the gross abuse of the trust placed in her, I organised for the images to be oversighted; she still has access to them as a Steward, and I would expect there to be consequences there too.

Over the last 48 hours, Trijnstel has avoided answering the questions asked of her, although she has edited on Commons and on nl.wp, and she has been very active on IRC. Avoiding questions being asked will not make the issue go away, but because of the severity of the abuse of trust and the lack of response on what is a very serious issue, it is my intent to start a joint de-admin/de-CU discussion, as Trijnstel simply can not be trusted any longer to hold these tools which require the highest possible respect for others privacy. I, sincerely, do not see any other possibility in this situation. russavia (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering how all trusted users on Commons should keep the Photographs of identifiable people in the highest regard, this does require a clear answer from Trijnstel, preferably avoiding the finger-pointing of background politics and whatever "norms" are on other projects or on OTRS. --Fæ (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Fae, et al, sorry I should clarify that the request for their removal was not made via OTRS; but rather via private discussion with the person on IRC. So whilst this isn't an OTRS issue, it may have OTRS implications I guess. russavia (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not think it serves our project to reopen this drama. We have dealt with the willfull offenders and I think that should be sufficient. Jcb (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia, Please stop framing people and please stop this vendetta/witch hunt. You are really pushing this way too far. And for what? Another game? And much regret? Please... And they where deleted for com:IDENT and not because they were a clear privacy violation. I believe that the "portretrecht" is misinterpreted but a courtesy deletion was fine of course though don't blow this out of proportions. The real privacy violation is done by you, Russavia, by publishing a private email conversation plus somebody's private email and you created a massive Streisand effect. Plus MoiraMoira, the alleged victim doesn't even have any problems with it like she said here. She does has problems with your privacy violation though. So how about you dropping the stick and start behaving yourself properly. In the end it is you who broke Commons and you still continue to do so. The URAA, Pricasso, Polandball, the sock puppetry at en-wiki and a lot of other soaps. No, the only one who should resign as an admin is you, Russavia. You have harmed this project and other Wikimedia projects and it's contributors for far too long. I won't tolerate this any longer Rus, I like the good work you do but it is overshadowed with dark clouds of drama. Natuur12 (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Asking a trusted user to provide basic accountability for their decision to take action is not a witch-hunt or a vendetta. As a courtesy Russavia raised this on Trijnstel's user talk page and waited two days for any reply before raising the matter here for consideration. In contrast, your comments, as a sysop, are full of tangential purple prose and direct threats. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia: Thanks for the clarification. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jcb: Trijnstel wields some critical trusted rights on Commons, being asked to account for their actions where they appear confusing or worrying ought to be the norm and expected governance policy, not considered personal, insulting or marginalized as drama. If, to use your word, Trijnstel used their powers "unwillfully", when presumably they could have chosen to take no action, I think that requires some evidence that the rest of us Commons volunteers can understand and does not dig up tangential stuff about "willful offenders" which should have no bearing here. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No need to put more oil in the fire. I can't see a abuse of trust by Trijnstel. This AN/U case is imho laughable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
That's fine as an opinion. I am exceedingly uncomfortable at the idea that Trijnstel does not have to account for their actions when asked. If there is no case to answer, then what is the problem with Trijnstel explaining exactly that for themselves rather than relying on silence until this goes away by itself? --Fæ (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose any administrative action against User:Trijnstel. There does not seem to have been any reason not to trust JurgenNL at the time when the information was provided, as evidenced by the community's decision to grant the user the "viewdeleted" user right a couple of months later. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We have nothing to do here since MoiraMoira already expressed her opinion. I don't like people publishing private mails. We don't have a policy about it; but it is a very unethical practice. Jee 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Commons most certainly does have a policy about it. An email is a literary work which normally attracts the same copyright protection as any other. Unless russavia obtained Trijnstel's explicit permission to: a) translate the email into English and b) publish both the original and the English translation on her Commons talk page under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFD licences or equivalents, then his posting of those texts on that page is a blatant copyright infringement, and contravenes Commons copyright policy. And if that is the case they should be deleted forthwith. Moreover the posting of those texts was completely unnecessary for russavia to achieve his stated purpose. In the first place, Trijnstel has Commons email contact enabled, so russavia could easily have raised his concerns via that medium. In the second, Trijnstel as the author (I presume) of the allegedly offending email can be reasonably supposed to be already aware of its contents, so even if Trijnstel had not been otherwise contactable there still would have been no need to post the entire text of the body of her email on her Commons talk page. Thus, unless Trijnstel did explicitly give russavia permission to post that email, I can see no justification whatever for his doing so.
The posting of screenshots of the email to imgur, which russavia acknowledges doing in his post to Trijnstel's talk page is even worse—again, unless she has given her fully informed consent for that to be done. "Fully informed consent" here means that before agreeing to the upload of those screenshots she was told she was thereby agreeing to grant
"... imgur a non-exclusive, royalty- free, perpetual, irrevocable worldwide license (with sublicense and assignment rights) to use, to display online and in any present or future media, to create derivative works of, to allow downloads of, and/or distribute"
those screenshots. I obviously can't speak for Trijnstel, but if I had been in her shoes I would never have given permission for that email to be posted on either Commons or imgur, and I would now be baying vociferously for russavia's blood (or at least for his admin bits).
David Wilson (talk · cont)
David Wilson: Noted, and forwarded to Philippe for an official opinion. Jee 06:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
One other thing I neglected to mention are the links russavia posted to the screenshots on imgur. Unless Trijnstel gave permission for those screenshots to be published then not only the screenshots themselves, but also any links to them are copyright infringements, and so those on her Commons talk page should also therefore be deleted.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
David J Wilson let's not allow this discussion to get off course on the real issue, which is the abuse of trust by Trijnstel by accessing and distributing photos which were clearly deleted for reasons of privacy. In any case, according to meta:Wikilegal/Copyright_Status_of_Wikipedia_Page_Histories use of copyrighted materials is allowed on our projects as fair use. Even if we don't accept fair use files, day in day out we use "fair use" on Commons to comment on issues, etc. Exposing abuse by an advanced permission holder on this project fits in with "fair use". Anyway, I hope that once Trjnstel is finished with her cross-wiki Check User duties she will see fit to explain her actions. russavia (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I categorically disagree that the way you have dealt with those emails could in any way be construed as fair use, and I regard your claim that it could be so construed as utterly absurd. If I had thought that there was the remotest possibility of its being the case I would never have raised the issue in the first place.
Also, the document you linked to is almost totally irrelevant to the issue. All it does is argue, not very convincingly in my opinion, that the inclusion of material which did constitute an infringement of copyright when it appeared on the current version of a page could be regarded as being fair use once it has been archived to the page history and no longer appears on the current version.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Russavia and JurgenNL. Russavia, you suggest that this case is of significant importance, so I would think it to be wise to get a full picture of the situation before reaching any wide-ranging conclusions. Personally, I would have some initial questions to you and JurgenNL to get a better idea of the situation. I'm not sure if he's reading along, but perhaps he is.
    1) Did you, JurgenNL, consent to Russavia publishing these screenshots online?
    2) If the answer to 1) is "yes," why did you, JurgenNL, consider it appropriate to share private email correspondence with a third party?
    3) Did you, Russavia, contact JurgenNL in order to obtain these screenshots from him or did JurgenNL contact you, perhaps even suggesting to use them to publicly criticize Trijnstel's conduct?
    4) Did you, Russavia, know Trijnstel's real name prior to receiving these screenshots from JurgenNL?
    5) If the answer to 4) is "yes," did you, JurgenNL, know about that at the time you provided Russavia access to the screenshots?
    6) Why did you, Russavia, not seek oversight assistance in first place if you were of the opinion at the time that their availability on Commons is a severe violation of privacy rights? Didn't you have to assume, at the time of performing the deletion, that interested third parties might still view the file, particularly in light of the fact that the depicted person is a long-time editor and, of course, many to whom the image might be of interest will hold advanced permissions?
    7) Did you, Russavia, check back with MoiraMoira prior to you posting this message on Trijnstel's talk page whether she agrees with that? After all, while you do not name the files, your message encourages interested third parties to dig deeper and perhaps identify the affected material, effectively worsening the alleged breach of privacy.
    I apologize for the amount of the questions, but I feel they are important to get a comprehensive idea of the situation. As you rightly say, "keep[ing] information which is private private" is an important principle in our projects. Note that they are a complement to potential questions to Trijnstel, not a substitute. Thanks in advance, — Pajz (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear colleagues. The reason why I didn't respond earlier is because I am very busy in real life. I will make a statement soon since you're entitled to a proper explanation. Please give me some time since this is not the kind of explanation you can write quickly. I will make this explanation as complete as possible but this as well will take some time. I will try to post an explanation tomorrow but it may take longer though please know that this has my top priority. Trijnsteltalk 23:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement of Trijnstel

Dear everyone. I promised to post a extended statement on this page and of course I stick to promises. I deal with these matters seriatim.

The complaint

  • Let me first answer the main point: namely the - imho rather harsh - statement of Russavia (and therefore also JurgenNL) that I would've abused the admin tools, and therefore apparently can't be trusted with any other advanced tools anymore. Well, I can be short, that's untrue. Yes, I've send a few photos to JurgenNL two months before he would be appointed as an admin on Commons, but:
    • 1) First of all these group photos (yes, more than one person was on it) weren't deleted years ago because of privacy violation. And apologies for being vague on this point, but I can't be more clear - they were deleted to protect the privacy of one user as another could come after that person (and it was unrelated to JurgenNL). The reason in the deletion log ("COM:IDENT request") points at that, though I doubt Russavia was informed about the real reason; which wasn't important for him anyway. In a certain way they were only deleted as a courtesy request which Russavia performed.
    • 2) Though more importantly, the photos were taken years ago and the deleted versions were up until recently also accessible on the Dutch Wikipedia, on which JurgenNL was an admin from March 2013 until October 2014 - which means he could've easily seen the images himself as well. The photos on the Dutch Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons weren't oversighted until a few days ago, when Russavia suddenly requested oversight - though not per request of the user herself.
  • I've spoken with the user who requested the deletion already a few months ago. They understood and explained it wasn't a big deal. She repeated her statement here as well.
  • As far as I can ascertain I have only dealt with a colleague in a trusting way sharing information available that enabled him to feel part of a group of admins. The real mistake I certainly made and regret is that I trusted JurgenNL. I however was certainly not the only one who trusted JurgenNL back then as he was an admin on this project for nine months and for a longer time on the Dutch Wikipedia. It however is only human to assume a colleague behaves decently when he has been entrusted with advanced rights.

Russavia and JurgenNL

  • I can only guess why Russavia and JurgenNL come up with this incident right now, though I have some thoughts about it:
    • JurgenNL, firstly, was obviously not happy with the request for comment against him and TBloemink. That was the reason why both of them lost their advanced permissions everywhere. Someone suggested that the above-mentioned incident was the reason why I kept my silence during the RfC, but that's not true. I already warned - and spoke to - JurgenNL and TBloemink a lot, this combined with the fact that I know and happily worked with them for years and they know a lot about me too, I decided to keep my mouth shut. There were already enough people responding and I didn't want to influence the RfC. I didn't want them to keep me accountable for any action that might be taken against them, and besides, I wanted to protect my own privacy as well since they know a lot about me too. Since JurgenNL already threatened with using this during his RfC, I can only conclude this to be an act of revenge for him losing his buttons. I didn't mention it during the RfC as 1) I didn't consider it relevant for the RfC, 2) I didn't expect it to be important as the victim explained they were okay with it and 3) privacy related matters should imho - if possible - be handled discretely.
    • Russavia is a whole different story. I too have known him for years, and I supported him until not long ago as well. I even voted for keep during the de-bureaucratship of Russavia in August 2013. While he often contributes in a positive way, he's also a controversial user who can cause a lot of disruption - regardless of his own thoughts about his behaviour and even though he's still an admin on this project. He, for example, deliberately uses sockpuppets to evade a ban elsewhere, pretends to be locked up in North Korea and creates or edits pages just to annoy others. The Pricasso case has caused a lot of attention too (see here and here for example; I was one of those who closed the second DR). I don't believe in coincidence though, and the fact that Russavia posted the first note with his complaints on Friday 28 November (just for the weekend in which I'm always very busy in real life) only a day after I nominated his article Polandball on the Dutch Wikipedia for deletion is imho not a coincidence anymore. The article, which was deleted the same day by another admin btw, was created in the user namespace of Russavia and moved to the main namespace on 5 AM, when everyone in Europe is asleep. All this history between me and him, combined with the fact that he bugged me for a year by begging for information from the CU log (as he feared "abuse" by a former CU), can also only be seen as revenge by him.

Last but not least, when the privacy of someone is involved, or possible abuse of it, then why is it necessary to post a compelling note on my user talk page on Commons, to send an email to Wikimedia-l (to which I'm not subscribed btw), to frequently discuss the issue in a public IRC channel and even to inform staff member Philippe on Meta all at the same time? Also Russavia found it apparently necessary to officially inform the Commons community within a day after posting his message on my user talk. He could've tried to contact me privately about it (via email for example) and then I could explain it myself. The way he has done it now reminds me a lot about the Streisand effect and possibly only causes people to look up the photos, or the log, which is of course the opposite you would want to achieve when it's about the privacy. But Russavia clearly doesn't care about privacy, as he posted the complete content of the email correspondence between me and JurgenNL, of which I didn't give permission to do so. Not for uploading it on imgur or on Commons and also not for translating it into English. In fact: I wasn't even contacted about all this before Russavia posted his note on my user talk. His actions regarding this matter seem to be intended to cause turmoil and disruption rather than dealing with it in an appropriate manner respecting the privacy of the parties involved.

All in all is it not me who abused the rules and the policies, but clearly Russavia and JurgenNL themselves. And then I'm not even mentioning the language they're using both here and elsewhere (I was called "one of their clique" here) and even though I promised to come up with a statement they were still demanding me to come up with it rather sooner than later (though I said I wanted to work on a careful response). And even though JurgenNL keeps his mouth shut as well - while he provided Russavia the email correspondence - it's yet another example that he hasn't changed a bit. Finally - I agree with the person who was dragged into this by JurgenNL and Russavia that these links to private mails should be removed and oversighted. Jurgen has again violated privacy (this time mine) and wilfully misused Russavia for his actions. Russavia chose to do this himself however. I trust that proper measures can be taken towards these two persons here and leave this up to the community to deal with.

I hope this statement covers every concern. This will be my only statement on this matter.

With regards, Trijnsteltalk 18:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making a statement, even though you do not intend to answer any follow-up questions. I am disappointed that two-thirds of your response is an attack on others rather than focusing on your own actions and your rationale for making them. --Fæ (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Need for action against Russavia and JurgenNL

The statement by Trijnstel is fully satisfying to me. But I'm much concerned about the way how Russavia and JurgenNL handled this. There is no excuse for publishing the content of a private mail here with only intention to harass the user. If this is acceptable in Commons, how we (ordinary users) can confidently communicate with an admin or higher authority privately. This is indeed a breach of trust and exceeding all the limits. I already asked the opinion of WMF to Philippe (WMF) here. Would like to hear the opinion of my colleagues here too. Jee 03:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Russavia should voluntary resign as an Administrator (under a cloud) and JurgenNL should be blocked indefinitely. JurgenNL had no right in sending the emails from Trijnstel that dates back to November 2013 (which was done clearly in revenge) and Russavia had no business publishing it without explicit permission from Trijnstel (whom could've been contacted privately, via email this user or the email address that is visible on the leaked emails). Bidgee (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose On two basic grounds:
  1. Emails or IRC "private" chats with "trusted" users are not confidential, ever. Similarly emails to OTRS have absolutely no guarantee to stay confidential, regardless of expectations by any involved party (please mentally separate a guarantee of privacy from the convention that volunteers in trusted roles should respect confidentiality, the difference is key here). Frankly anyone who thinks they are is a mug who will be caught out at some point - I should know as I was that mug, in major ways, thinking that I could discuss problems with trusted users and Wikimedia employees and this would stay confidential. This can be a hard lesson to learn, but there are many, many, examples of Arbcom cases and similar that are based on such in-camera chats being used as evidence or published with the justification that this is in the interest of natural justice or whistle-blowing. The latter justification is particularly interesting as Wikimedia projects have various policies and practices which aim to protect whistle-blowers from backlash arguments, which is precisely what is being attempted here.
  2. All organizations which value governance and transparency (which in theory includes all Wikimedia related organizations) have systems of freedom of information requests. This means that you can request full copies of any correspondence or analysis that involve you in some way, and in fact many organizations will allow you to request copies of any correspondence. This is fundamental to public accountability. It is possible to separate private email correspondence from personal correspondence, this is why redaction is often possible before releasing the record, however the emails in question here were not "personal" in that sense, they are about the actions of trusted users performing tasks related to their trusted roles. In terms of privacy, no previously unknown truly private information apart from that needed to explain what actions were taken by trusted users has been exposed here; as far as I can work out. --Fæ (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fae, I see you point. I have to wonder, however, about your view. If I send you an email, this is not confidential? You would feel free to share it with third parties, without letting me know about this? I think, by the way, that the "whistleblower" defense doesn't really convince here; after all, the purpose of that, even if there was a rule to that respect (which at least I cannot infer from Commons:Emailing users which states that "they are sent as written, as a private communication between willing parties who have agreed to send and receive emails") is hardly to allow everyone to publish private information to the largest possible audience (rather than, say, some WMF staff), using the means that brings with it the largest possible intrusion into privacy (not referring to what happend, but publishing entire emails) without (apparently) making any attempt whatsoever to find a different solution. And last, I think we still haven't heard whether Trijnstel's real name was leaked in the course of this passing along of emails (I don't know that, which is why I asked Russavia and JurgenNL about it two days ago, so far without a response). On that note, Russavia and User:JurgenNL, may I gently remind you of my questions of 16:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC) above? Can I, can we expect a response to these? I think it is important to put this alleged misconduct (by Jkadavoor) into proper perspective, and your cooperation would be appreciated, just as you demanded Trijnstel's cooperation in the other issue at hand. Cheers, — Pajz (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe you want to probe my view in relation to your discussion about me on IRC yesterday. This case is not really related however as this may be used as evidence of my views about OTRS, I'll answer both that aspect and the one you raise about Russavia's actions with regard to our understanding of respect. It's complex to unpack, and I'm just bashing out an informal quick response here rather than putting together a guideline or essay, so bear with it.
Email confidentiality—Emails to me personally, which are either obviously personal or marked as personal are treated by me in confidence as a courtesy. This has nothing to do with the law, which I know as I have read up on UK law in this regard in relation to my volunteer roles and past professional roles. Emails to me when I have been acting in a paid role or as a trustee were subject to terms or contracts which I was obliged to comply with. I am currently associated with a university and a Wikimedia User Group, emails to me outside of that can be fully expected to stay private unless they contain issues that put people at risk or have information about a crime. Even in these cases I would think twice before passing on or publishing a email rather than paraphrasing or quoting the part of a text at issue. Were there a police investigation, I would pass on everything I had for fear of harming a case otherwise.
Emails to people who are acting to represent a charity are always considered on the record, even when marked "confidential and private" or similar. There is a debate about whether unpaid volunteers who take up trusted roles are encompassed by the same law, however fraud, data privacy etc. equally apply in this scenario. This is the reason why when I was a Trustee of WMUK (an unpaid elected volunteer role), we took out liability insurance that covered any volunteer on our projects including OTRS volunteers; otherwise they would be fully personally liable which seems plain unfair. Consequently emails to the WMF, Chapter, User Group etc. may be subject to a freedom of information request (or similar) or be caught up in a subpoena or other legal action which the organization would have no choice but to comply with. There is nothing to stop the resulting records from being published in court or elsewhere (such as in the press under a public interest rationale). Extending this view, any email (or IRC discussion) to an employee of any Wikimedia organization would be subject to their contracted terms, again this may leave the employee or other employees with access to the text or recording of discussions with no choice but to comply with their contract. This may include copying in management, their legal representatives or the board if the contents of the discussion contain any possible threat or risk for the organization as well as reporting the discussion to the police or other authorities in the event of assertions of fraud, other crimes, terrorism, threats of suicide, a young person at risk; essentially if in doubt, tell the authorities.
Saying all this, emails can be confidential and respected outside of issues of threats, risks, criminality. A correspondent should be warned about these limits, and there have been various attempts to do this on OTRS email footers as well as website explanations. When acting as an OTRS volunteer, I always kept this in mind and firmly steered away from encouraging discussion with any correspondent on legal matters and for example always qualified discussion of copyright as this being my understanding of project policies rather than legal advice.
Russavia's publication—I agree that the actions of a whistle-blower should be proportionate. Publication of evidence might be needed as the only way forward if (a) the organization's whistle-blowing procedures have been exhausted or failed, (b) reasonable non-procedural alternatives have been attempted.
With regard to (a), it has been suggested that the OC would have been the right process to use. I am unsure as I have not used that process myself so I am unaware if it is timeous, effective, or the best process for raising misconduct for Commons trusted roles. Neither am I directed to the OC when I examine Commons:Administrators as a means to raise misconduct issues, so from the bank of Commons policies, our community here is not obviously directed to the OC for these problems. In fact, far more obviously one is encouraged to raise a complaint on the user's talk page and then escalate to a public desysop vote.
With regard to (b) my understanding is that Russavia has attempted less public means to discuss Trijnstel's actions which were unfruitful and even though Trijnstel can be seen making edits on the projects, made no response to enquiries and seemed uninterested in even giving a holding reply until the case was escalated to this noticeboard (even then it took a while). Certainly when it comes to issues of misconduct and governance I believe that Wikimedia Commons would benefit from its own guidelines for whistle-blowing, along with community agreed standards for how to handle evidence that might be presented, rather than encouraging whistle-blowers to, for example, just publish their evidence anonymously on Wikipediocracy.
For this aspect, I agree that there may be a complaint raised about Russavia's publication of email as being excessive, if it can be demonstrated that an effective alternative was available for Russavia to follow and that Russavia had no overriding issue of public interest to publish what they had available. However I have not seen it spelt out in simple terms exactly what truly private material has been published as a result. Certainly if the email was entirely written while Trijnstel was acting in their trusted role, then the aspects of this being a record of the trusted role in action comes into play, and consequently this being a project of the Wikimedia organization.
I feel this is a long and knotty response as it is, only partially unbundled and using semi-legal jargon which may be misunderstood if read as plain English. If you want to develop any aspect, I suggest that is either limited to discussing a specific aspect of the published evidence, or this is taken elsewhere as a tangent to the governance issues of Trijnstel's case; if you wish to do this please keep in mind I have some real life commitments on my plate. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, I do not believe that Russavia's "only intention [was] to harass the user". Russavia was wrong to publish private emails. I understand they wanted clarity. I agree with asking clarification, but not with the method used. First talk it through, privately, with people involved. Public steps can follow. Moreover it would have been prudent to get a second opinion before going public. Russavia needs to realise they acted poorly. If this is clear, then I think we should accept the facts and move on. Current drama was not necessary. More drama is not necessary. JurgenNL was blocked indefinitely on the Dutch Wikipedia recently, which is currently under review. I will refrain from further comments on the matter. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Philippe (WMF) just closed the discussion on his meta talk page stating "The appropriate venue here (the allegations against Trijnstel) is the Ombudsmen Commission." So Russavia or JurgenNL should have to forward the evidence to OC discretely instead of publishing here. Could a watching admin rev delete that post in Trijnstel's talk page, please? Jee 10:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Jkadavoor, Philippe does not direct Commons, neither has he attempted to give administrators on this project advice. Administrators here take their own actions on their own cognisance rather than acting because one WMF employee made a side comment on another project. I know you often raise Commons matters with WMF employees, keep in mind this may be unhelpful when pursuing change here as it can be seen as actively attempting to by-pass our community processes. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed action, no matter whether it comes from WMF or not. @Jkadavoor, done. Jcb (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jcb. @Fæ: I don't know whether you noticed it or not; but that discussion was not by me. It was by Russavia pursuing to interfere, and Philippe's reply was also to him. He just rejected Russavia's request; didn't respond to my comment there. Further, he didn't suggest any action in Commons; it was me who requested a rev delete here. Jee 15:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, for historical reasons I'm fully aware of what goes on at Philippe's talk pages. Russavia knows that were they to use an off-Commons correspondence with WMF employees as a means to by-pass gaining consensus here, I would be first in the queue to criticise them for doing it and my trust in them would be damaged. Anyone is free to raise anything they like on meta, or to approach any WMF employees as they see fit. The issue is whether you then choose to portray off-Commons discussions as a done deal when you eventually come back to Commons rather than pointing to them as off-wiki views without consensus for action here. --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
1. What I asked Philippe is just the WMF opinion/stand about publishing contents of private mails. 2. Where you see the requirement of consensus to oversight something here? It is only acting admin or OT's personal decision. To make it clear, I had made a COM:OVERSIGHT request at the same moment. Jee 15:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Then it appears you have been forum shopping in order to achieve the outcome you want. If you raised this request with Commons oversight, you should have left it for one of the six Commons oversight members to decide if any action was required. Instead you asked for any admin to make a revdel, without explaining that this was already logged with oversight. Had you explained this, any wise admin would leave the matter to oversight rather than potentially acting against them. Revdel may not require a specific consensus discussion, but this is a consensus building discussion, so presenting Phillippe's view as if this were sufficient justification for admin action, and in addition failing to mention you had already contacted oversight is inappropriate, when the exact same evidence is subject to an active discussion on AN. You put an admin in a position where they have taken action with no chance of knowing the complete background. Even though Jcb may have taken exactly the same action, please take some time to consider how this can appear, especially when criticising the actions of others.
By the way, I could have told you that the WMF has no opinion on how Commons trusted users should handle emails when executing their elected or appointed Commons roles. This is down to our policies. It does not require Philippe to say this in another place. --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you stop preaching about areas where you have little knowledge? My request was genuine; acting admin and reviewing oversighters endorsed it. Such request are intended for speedy actions; so we can use as many venues as possible, including Stewards and Staff if required (please read those pages). There is nothing wrong if a less experienced admin made a mistake; better safe than later.
Regarding your advice: I'm willing to learn from the ignorant. But please don't discourage me to ask for help from Staff or higher authorities than to depend on a non admin who failed in more than five RfAs. Jee 02:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll simply say that I agree with Bidgee and his arguments, together with the statement by Natuur12 above. I have more to say but if Russavia voluntary resign I'll leave my comment as is. -- Geagea (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have seen this suggested e-mail (on IRC, by a link from JurgenNL) one or two months ago already (sept 22, I've been told now), it comes again and again when it is helpful for some certain people. The e-mail itself is very old. To me this whole circus looks like a bribery, I can understand that Trijnstel is not reacting to it. Yes, it was not smart of her to show JurgenNL that info/send that email, she more or less told me 2 months ago when I was first confronted with this old shit. Are we going to see it every time someone has an issue with Trijnstel? Does it mean that I myself should also start collecting compromising information, so I can use it whenever it is helpful? And what I do not understand, is that Russavia needs to bring this out to the public for JurgenNL. JurgenNL should not have accepted this information, and/or should have rang the bell the day he received it, and not the day he could use it for his own cause, one year later. Edoderoo (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There you go. TBloemink talk 13:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't believe that Russavia was trying to protect any privacy here. This is simply an act of revenge angainst Trijnstel. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment When we're all done chewing on each other, how about a nice group hug and get back to work? If we're all here in AGF, then mistakes can be made, apologies offered and accepted and the project goes forward. It's not this project, but another which is dear to my heart, which constantly cautions us to put "principles before personalities." I am a very new admin here (less than one year), but my opinion is to always consider how your yourself would like to be on the receiving end of _______(whatever you are about to do)________, and if it is something which you would not like very much - simply don't do it. Publishing emails is like 4channer behavior - not what is expected from Commons admins. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The action taken by Russavia was unwise, however for reference, I also attempted to speak to Trijnstel about the issue and was also completely ignored, despite them replying to a comment I left elsewhere around the same time. I'm unsure how else the issues here could have been handled when discreet attempts to speak to the user in question were fruitless. I'm also very concerned about the disparity of proposed sanctions here, Russavia released private information, Trijnstel released private information, I expect total parity in terms of sanctions and any loss of permissions. I propose all users involved be reminded about the expectations when given access to non public information; namely that they are expected to treat e-mails in strict confidence and that they do not share material deleted/brought to their attention on privacy grounds with anybody not holding advanced permissions and ideally with nobody other than the oversight team. I would additionally caution Trijnstel (and to a lesser extent Russavia) that they are expected to be fully accountable for their actions and when queried, they should make responding to the community their first priority, a delay of several days whilst actively editing elsewhere shows contempt for the community. I propose we conclude matters there. Finally, whatever nonsense is presently going on at Dutch Wikipedia, it stays on Dutch Wikipedia.
  • I've just had a message from Trijnstel who confirmed they tried to contact me at the time, but I didn't receive the message. We've had a chat and clarified a few things. Nick (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Category:Videos

Hi, There is recurrent vandalism on this category (see [22]). This was recently reported on the French VP. Accounts involved includes Cebola Da Cash Birdman ; Miguel antonio alberto ; Alberto An ; Joaquim Alfredo ; Belchior Lucala ; Alexandre Gael ; Isaias Arlindo Marinho ; Isaias Lumungo Quinilson). A CU is probably in order, as well as further checks about vandalism elsewhere. This category is protected for 3 months, and all accounts above were warned. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

All accounts blocked and tracked in Category:Sockpuppets of Cebola Da Cash Birdman. A check user should look into this. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lmbuga heavy personal attack and heavy vandalism

Extended content

I think that these posts from Lmbuga (talk · contribs) on my User talk page

speak for themselves.
In addition come yet added the following contributions

and also this

I request that the appropriate measures for these personal attacks and vandalism. Thank you --Steindy (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I blocked Lmbuga for one week. Yann (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Yann! And what is with his edits on QI? --Steindy (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I will let others answer. Please also note that he vandalized my talk page on French WP. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm; User:Lmbuga is enjoying the benefit of doubt about his/her language problem, many times. He/she needs to understand that his years of contributions are not an excuse for poor language/behavior. The following two threads are also related, so need to be analysed together. Jee 07:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This block is way too long. The very first block because of personal attacks and vandalism should last some hours to give a chance to calm down. Lmbuga is NOT a typical vandal. -- Smial (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Smial have total right is too long! I would have blocked both for 1 day. --LivioAndronico talk 13:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Lmbuga has been causing problems for a while and thus the punishment of a week may not be so out of the question. This appears to be Steindy's first offense? Still it is an injustice to block one and not the other, as they are both acting in bad faith. -- Ram-Man 13:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Fully support Ram-Man --LivioAndronico talk 13:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Matt since you are an administrator and you've got to do it too, can you get the holy honor to tell us your own opinion? I would be immensely grateful.Thanks. --LivioAndronico talk 13:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Better Livioandronico2013 should stay out of this discussion out because it is highly biased in this matter and should Ram-Man only hone his language when he refers to other users as a troll [23].

The other insults to my person on the French side of user Yann and his vandalism show that the lock is still been far too short. It is worrying that Lmbuga according to him is a teacher. --Steindy (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Are the administrators going to let this continue? Please intervene. I need not hone my language and meant exactly what I said. I said trolling not troll. I'll give the benefit of the doubt on this international project, but trolling refers to a person's actions, while troll refers to a person themselves. I did not make a personal attack, I (accurately) described a person's (ongoing) actions. -- Ram-Man 15:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I checked Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#Consensual_Review_2 once again. There is indeed a conflict between User:Lmbuga and Steindy. There is no excuse for counter attacks; so Steindy MUST refrain from it. I also noticed a lot of "per User:Lmbuga" and "per Ram-Man" votes by LivioAndronico which may insult Steindy who consider them as pointy attacks. So my suggested solution: [User:Lmbuga]] is already blocked for a week. Steindy and LivioAndronico MUST refrain from attacking each other. Better a voluntarily interaction ban for a while. :) Jee 15:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I have somewhere Lmbuga and Livioandronico2013 attacked or assaulted continue? Rather the opposite is the case. I have shown only the behavior of these two users and this will hopefully you can still do. --Steindy (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If no additional bans are instituted, then at least let it be made clear that we can eliminate the inappropriate comments/reviews without being accused of edit waring. I would have just taken care of these before, but without user blocks, I suspect Steindy would either revert my changes or continue to make comments about how I'm "censoring". It's not just personal attacks, which we try to self manage by ignoring them, it's improper QI reviews which slow the process down. -- Ram-Man 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
See the last comments in the third discussion. Those three must refrain from further attacks, reverts, etc.; otherwise will be blocked to stop it. @Ram-Man, feel free to remove existing insults; but it is wise to leave it to an uninvolved. Chances that Steindy thinks you are involved. :) Jee 16:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ram-Man: Where I have a process other user reset and where I made improper QI reviews? Please documents and not baseless accusations! --Steindy (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: , in my many years on these projects, I've never shied away from conflict and been involved in some major ones. And it's fairly common practice on QIC to just leave things as they are, so I suspect I'm the only one who will clean it up, as most people like to stay out of the conflicts so they don't become targets. I'm obviously not going to engage in an edit war if my changes are not honored. -- Ram-Man 16:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Ram-Man: So we are of same breed. Carry on. Will support as much as possible. :) Jee 16:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Jkadavoor, I've completed the cleanup of QIC, so hopefully there are no contrary edits and we can move on from this. -- Ram-Man 18:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Livioandronico2013 several personal attack and heavy vandalism

Extended content

After I had dared one of his pictures on FPC bear a  Oppose see here, because there are several completely overexposed had areas Livioandronico2013 (talk · contribs) meant having to return the favor with a total of ten(!)  Oppose on QI:

From the times of his arrangements sequence is clear that he can not have the photos viewed. He was concerned only about making my nominations poor and to attack me personally.
After an interruption followed on the same day further processing:
On next day he went with his personal vendetta against me, resembling a staccato, further:
After I had warned the user from further personal attacks, he continued his personal attacks shortly thereafter continue.

More will follow tomorrow. I'm just too tired to pick out the more Difflinks and it makes me deeply concerned to show which character some users here. I with my 60+ years did not need my to let me make a user who lacks any decency, done.

Regards --Steindy (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: One only has to look at the page QI all the things that happened and who the troublemakers. --Steindy (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Continued:

Livioandronico2013 but had so still not enough. He continued his personal attacks continued:

In the evening he was supported motivated by Lmbuga and could not get enough of it. Couple makes it just a lot more fun to embark on others.

This was followed by his abuse of COM:AN/U where Livioandronico2013 tried with the worst intentions reassign me something.

Of course, Livioandronico2013 did not forget, in his message to remove about me my opinion because he did not like this. The user thus has a most peculiar opinion as to what rights he has.

But not enough. Livioandronico2013 also continued this morning its continuing campaign of destruction with a true stakkato against my photos...

...and also after a short pause still not enough...

I have no words how to describe the behavior of Livioandronico2013, because you write what you feel, this is actually tantamount to a serious personal attack equal. Therefore, I am abstaining in contrast to Livioandronico2013 such statements. I'm just stunned that energy and stamina that individual users can apply for the destruction of suspected opponents.
Regards --Steindy (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have declined photos that are not QI and continue to do so if they are not QI. Where would the personal attacks and threats? I showed your, where are mine??? Regards.--LivioAndronico talk 01:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Je User:Lmbuga have certainly wrong to do so, but has often instigated by Troll as I could show before. However it is not a speech of experience is a discourse of education in my opinion. Anyway thanks for your comment.नमस्ते. --LivioAndronico talk 09:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think, for this permanent kindergarten on QIC with ad hominem reviews, revenge votes and similar shit, which has now been transferred to ANU, all three (Lmbuga, Steindy, and Livioandronico2013) deserve a block of at least 1 week. Lmbuga already has been, so what about the other two? I'm gonna wait for some feedback by a third party, and if it is OK, I'll implement the blocks. --A.Savin 15:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with A.Savin, this kindergarten on QIC disruptive. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
A.Savin, see my comment above. You can block both of them if they made one more attack (here or in QIC). Jee 15:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No need for more blocks in my opinion. But these two editors must comply with three simple rules which are part of QIC (and of Wikimedia's culture, in general): i) All editors have the same right to participate and express their opinions: ii) all opinions/votes have the same weight; and iii) image reviews should only address the pictures, never the authors or the reviewers. Considering that a block is to be taken as a protective measure, never as a punishment, I also believe that the block imposed on Lmuga is exaggerated. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
A.Savin and why you should never stop me? I declined to poor photo (which moreover too often say that I do not do), and I was stuck and want to stop me? Steindy has quarreled with everyone and you want to stop me? incredible. --LivioAndronico talk 16:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Now Steindy is quarreling with Jebulon:

Nomination Zlatko Junuzović, player of the Austria national football team. --Steindy 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Discussion Please denoise the background, and crop out the hand, then I'll support.--Jebulon 14:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1. With ISO 1600 granularity is visible. This is perfectly normal. 2. Why should I distort my pictures? My photos are originals night the motto "what you see is what you get". It's about photos, not about who can use Photoshop or other programs better. Retouched photos have no encyclopedic value. --Steindy 12:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you want block him too? --LivioAndronico talk 17:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the status of steindy on wiki in German :Blocked indefinitely. Reason: Kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit erkennbar. --LivioAndronico talk 17:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not know the beginning of the story and who is honest here but to block only who seems the most impulsive and who lost its cold blood in the first one is in my opinion a severe punishment. What is the thing that made him cross the line? Maybe he did it alone, I don't feel that he is alone in this history. It is true that he often start clockwork, but if you keep your calm with him normally there 's no problem. Is it that the beginning? Only because Lmbuga made rewiews not in the tastes of Steindy? Me this is what I understood, maybe I'm wrong and maybe I did not understand correctly Steindy. But if I'm right the less I can say is that I'm not happy at all with the turn of things and of the block of the only Lmbuga. -- ChristianFerrer 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Christian Ferrer: , why do you speak out, if you do not know the cause of the conflict? Why you are not willing to read? More than my chronological listing and Difflinks I can not do that. The cause is the way in the first lines of my COM:AN/U. --Steindy (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 Comment Unfortunately, this type of user, cause damage and disease to the community. Such things have helped me develop my own emotional intelligence and observe how far I can get with my patience. I think it is a mixture of inexperience, lack of tact and spoiled. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Christian: It is a heavy problem of pages like QIC, FPC etc. since long time. Many users meanwhile consider it as a platform for self-adulation and cannot tolerate any kind of criticism. Originally, QIC was an idea of teamwork and learning by doing of photography and postprocessing, and it had worked some years. But what we see now here is nothing but ruinous competition for top positions on lists like this one, with non-ethic behaviour and revenge voting. As for me, I'm not sorry at all to see such egocentric people be banned. --A.Savin 18:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
A.Savin Yes, I often think to delete my personal caregories (and counts of my images), it's hard to believe because I have very many categories and many counts of my images however it is the case :). For what I see here it's not Lmbuga who is not happy to see its images not promoted, he is just a hard rewiewer and he is only guilty of to have worse character than me. Of course the insults are not good, but I fully agree with you for not to block only him and that because I do not think he is at the origin of the conflict. -- ChristianFerrer 19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


  • This is another personal attack by Livioandronico2013 (3. Dez. 2014, 19:39:43), because this has nothing to do with commons and Livioandronico2013 does not know the circumstances that led to this lock. It's ridiculous when a rampaging a user with administrator 28,375 articles and 1,649 created new pages holds „Kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit erkennbar“. I am not shamed for it, but wear this with pride lock, as this shows what kind of act administrators in the German Wikipedia. This lock has therefore been recognized by multiple administrators to be faulty, why was recommended to go to arbitration. After I have therefore concluded with the German Wikipedia, I will not do this.
Since I prefer to let others speak numbers on commons: commonswiki 19.229 Edits and User Steindy has 7014 files – Total image usages 10697 – Distinct images used 3033 (43.24% of all images of user).
But you can send in those users who like defiant children behave and others pursue persistently protect as Livioandronico2013. As a result commons will help for sure and thereby commons certainly better. --Steindy (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@A.Savin: , you can block me if it makes you happy. I hope that you can prove that

  1. I have instigated the dispute,
  2. I continued myself and how livio behave in the same way with a series of discrediting Edits,
  3. I (previously also Lmbuga or) have somewhere attacked or insulted personally Livio.

They should also not only compare pears with apples. The same applies for the Tyrolean colleague @Steinsplitter: . Your derogatory term as a kindergarten shows that you have dealt faithfully with the problem and its causes. Read Difflinks is probably not your thing.
You, mister A.Savin, should further think about your threats and insults with which you had bothered me undesirably on 20.09.2014 and on 24.09.2014 by e-mail and I forwarded as announced to my hedge an admin.
A possible barrier anyway I do not care, because this does not punish me, but commons. --Steindy (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This was my last statement in this discussion. I'm going to get out of these discussions, in which I only speaks against a wall. I do not like this evening the evening go bad again. Good night! --Steindy (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • For what I see, I think Lmbuga is the one who suffers provocations and he was so fed up that he cross the line. I stand here because I personnaly attended one of these provocations : a nomination by Steindy where Steindy put a note (this nomination is for Lmbuga...) I don't remenber exactly. But I rewiewed this nomination, declined for good reasons and added a comment your note is stupid. So for me Lmbuga was harassed, he could not keep calm and react properly, it is his only fault. It is my point of view. -- ChristianFerrer 19:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Steindy to present your situation is NOT a personal attack but simply the truth! --LivioAndronico talk 19:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with what wrote by Christian that is a wise person. I say and I emphasize once again Lmbuga was wrong to react like that, I would not have ever done. But I emphasize even more openly that was instigated several times and I do not find at all right that has been stopped and only him so heavily. --LivioAndronico talk 19:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:ARTWORK777

This user has been socking on Wikipedia to create an article called "Bajotz" with context copypasted from elsewhere - it looks like they're now doing a similar thing on Commons, duplicating apparently random images from the internet with variations on the same filename as their "own work". --87.81.167.93 08:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User warned, files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Steindy several personal attack and heavy vandalism

Extended content

He threatened on my talk page to turn here because I declined several photos in QI (as well User:Christian Ferrer,User:Jebulon,User:Mattbuck,User:Kreuzschnabel) not accepting that they have noise, blurry and poorly composed. More he writes this:

In most states that decline his photos, not because absolutely no quality, as others have written,but for:

 Comment Revanche-foul from Livioandronico2013 for my vote here. QI is not a playground for children defiant. Other votes please. --Steindy 00:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Kreuzschnabel write to him :Ich versteh dich mal wieder nicht. Es ist hier doch vollkommen üblich, sich dem Review eines anderen anzuschließen, wenn man dessen Urteil über das Bild teilt. Das heißt doch nicht, daß man keine eigene Meinung hätte! Und grundsätzlich: Was versprichst du dir davon, auf Kontras trotzig zu reagieren? Meinst du, dann ändern diejenigen ihre Meinung über dein Bild ins Positive? Wenn nicht, was soll es dann? Nimm es doch als ehrliche Rückmeldung. Ich für mich sehe es einfach so: Wenn eines meiner Bilder auf Widerspruch stößt, ist es halt nicht gut genug, und fertig.

This way of including continuing threats is totally unacceptable for my taste.--LivioAndronico talk 00:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am in complete agreement. Has left numerous comments like this and this, and has been aggravating reviewers with his note. This is active trolling that is harming the efficiency of reviews. If I still had administrator rights, I would have blocked him myself. See my edit. -- Ram-Man 03:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution Ram-Man,the word Troll is effectively the right word. --LivioAndronico talk 08:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Delition of my edit by Livioandronico2013

It is significant, but typical for Livioandronico2013 that Livioandronico2013 my post from representational message away, because this is his abuse of this very page. I add this post and hereby again:

A good Self-reporting of Livioandronico2013 (talk · contribs) above! So I save at least the message concerning Livioandronico2013 to write.

He „forgot“ the remainder of the discussion. Here she is:

Dear @Mattbuck: ! No, I have just written, I will remind you of this comment. Abuse in the polls of my photos operates Livioandronico2013 and this low level I'm not going to go for sure! --Steindy 14:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC) By the way: Do they know what the depth of field at aperture 2.8? So much for your comment. --Steindy 14:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Go wherever you want Steindy, let's see where you go with your threats --Livioandronico2013 14:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Steindy, I do not deny that some of the players are in focus, but most of the picture is not in focus, and the eye is drawn to the out of focus areas. Bad composition. Mattbuck 15:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear @Mattbuck: ! It is impossible to tell you this, that there are other players in the picture, if the right player shoots at goal and to the left is the goalkeeper. Am I to other players from the photo retouch? But let this Diksussion, it leads to nothing anyway. If'll think about the future, nor to ask here Photos for discussion on basic knowledge of the sport is missing. --Steindy 17:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Steindy: , I may not be the world's greatest authority on football, and nor would I ever wish to be, but that does not render me incapable of telling whether an image is QI or not. I see the action in the middle - this draws the eye - and that action is completely out of focus. I am aware that the out of focus action is a recognised technique, but in such circumstances the main purpose of the photo is in focus. If all the action besides the two on the right were cropped out then it might have a chance, but the "two small points of focus on either side of a vast expanse of blur" technique will never pass QI. Mattbuck 20:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose Per Matt --Livioandronico2013 09:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Above representation of Livioandronico2013 is therefore a deliberate distortion of facts and a continuation of his personal attacks on me, which I documents in my message below. --Steindy (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: One only has to look at the page QI all the things that happened and who the troublemakers. --Steindy (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The emphasis above is set to remember. That is in contrast to Livioandronico2013 (see below) not that I will destroy his nominations in the same way as Lmbuga and Livioandronico2013 – this is not my charakter –, but Mattbuck will recall the lack of depth of field, which is absent in many of his train-photos as well. It is also not my style, to designate other users as troll, as here happened by User:Ram-Man (here) and Livioandronico2013 (here). --Steindy (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Steindy your behavior is by trolls and also what you have added you think that will help? You're digging your own grave.Do you see that nobody defends you? Be realistic at least.--LivioAndronico talk 12:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Your post is an excellent proof of who operates personal attacks here. Unfortunately, they lack any objectivity once more. --Steindy (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Steindy but at least you know what a personal attack? Let me see what I would say to you personally! I repeat no one defends surrender --LivioAndronico talk 16:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The latest changes seem designed to dodge the behavior requirement to prevent being banned, while still being difficult, if not outright hostile. At least one of those images that was "nearly perfect" has some obvious significant issues, and the reasons for promoting are not valid. I ask that an administrator revisit this and see if this qualifies the single offense that is grounds for a ban. Supports of obviously weak photos must go to CR where they bog down the review process. I suspect this is exactly the point (besides the inappropriate thrill of trolling snark). -- Ram-Man 22:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Inacceptable for me. With such edits, Steindy consciously damages the QI project and Commons. Reverted, and blocked the user for 1 week. Come what may. --A.Savin 22:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@A.Savin: I will add a block template for you. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Steindy is well known for such a bad behavior on dewiki (indef blocked there). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This block, if ever, should have been done by another admin, who is not involved in this conflict. Bad taste. -- Smial (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Have you actually read the story? None of my own nominations are concerned. Moreover: I don't nominate anything anymore on QI. --A.Savin 18:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Unable to Login Using Wikipedia Login Name and Password

My wikipedia login will not allow me to login to wikimedia commons. It tells me that my password is not correct. But I am POSITIVE that I am using the same information to successfully login to Wikipedia. I changed my password on wikipedia a day ago because I had forgotten what it was, perhaps this is the problem. I have tried the "FORGOT PASSWORD" option on wikimedia, I enter my email, but I do not receive an email with a new temporary password. Does anyone know what might be the problem. The page recognizes my Username. Thank-YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.95.38 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a SUL account? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for your quick response. No I do not. Do I need one and if so how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.95.38 (talk • contribs)

No, but if you don't have sul, maybe you have a different E-Mail address here on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I was able to log in to Wikimedia Commons just fine. @174.89.95.38: Have you tried clearing your cache? It could be a caching issue. Also, it could be a bad cookie, too. If you think that's the case, because you cleared your cache with no avail, please feel free to tell me and Steinsplitter what browser you're using. DLindsley Need something? 01:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for solving a conflict

User:Steindy was banned yesterday for a week, so far as I can see, even for his discussion page.

The underlying conflict, namely uncertainty because of the assessment, or the non-assessment of nominated QI images, is dealt with the banning of Steindy.

Thus, peace has returned in principle.

Unfortunately, a more open conflict seems to be still not clear, because Livioandronico takes it as an opportunity to spread the lock of Steindy while claiming unoccupied assertions and speculations about the motives of Steindy.

I think this is basically unfair to face up publicly against a disabled person, the more so because it does not take place on a discussion page, but on an image candidacy. it's all about just for the fundamental devaluation of the person.

I have pleased Livioandronico on his talk page, not to stir up the conflict, which has nothing to do with the image candidacy. I said, that this is not the usual behavior of an adult person and deleted his contribution. Livioandronico disagrees and has indicated that it is not up to me to decide that, but an administrator should do it. I can certainly follow his opinion.

I therefore request that an administrator delete this action, for not continouing stiring a conflict during the blocking time of a user - especially, when its on a completely wrong place to do so. Furthermore, no more action is needed. It´s just a question of fairness! --Hubertl (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you!--Hubertl (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Next time Hubertl and mostly Yann least have the decency to inform stakeholders of a discussion and not do things in secret.--LivioAndronico talk 15:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Livioandronico2013: You are not outside of the conflict, so you should also step back, and avoid getting involved. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: If it's interesting to me is stall must be notified, especially by an administrator. However I would not have objected, and then step back to what? I had reason of the thing, I'm not having to step back,don't worry.--LivioAndronico talk 15:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete my image

I like Wikimedia to delete my picture File:Ship-Zeven-Provincien-Infographicmedia.jpg, because it are the wrong ones. I Can remove it and replace it withe the right One.

Thanks, Kay Coenen

✓ Done Next time please use {{speedy}}. Taivo (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Pedroalb3721 (talk · contribs)

Uploads songs of some kinds. No reaction to previous notices. Spanish-speaking administrator may be needed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Last warning sent. Files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshddz104 (talk · contribs) CopyVios

A quick glance at his talk page shows repeated warnings about images he has uploaded but he hasn't listened to them. Thanks EoRdE6 (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Bobyr, Bobyrr, and pictures of Uzbekistan

User:Bobyr is nominating numerous pictures of buildings in Uzbekistan for deletion, citing the reason that he/she has uploaded more recent ones. Note that the new images have actually been uploaded by the alternate account User:Bobyrr. The new pictures are in most cases of lower quality, and are in many cases showing the building on a different angle. Note also that User:Bobyr is spamming across Wikipedia projects, replacing decent pictures by pictures uploaded by him/her. For instance, look at the global usage of File:Registan square2014.JPG: it has generally been placed by this user without explanation, replacing arguably better pictures. Another case is the recurrent changes made by IPs to the w:Registan article, without explanation, replacing all pictures by a poorer quality set uploaded by User:Bobyrr. I have semi-protected the article as a consequence. A user has already addressed the issue on his/her talk page, but replies are only in Russian and seem to miss the point. Olivier (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree that these deletion requests are all invalid, but hopefully explaining the COM:SCOPE of Commons may help the Bobyr(r) understand why they are invalid. I have also posted a message on Bobyr's talk page, alerting them to this discussion. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I talked about these massive delation requests on bobyr's talkpage and I rather agree with ColonialGrid--Faqscl (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • У меня вопрос как Вы определяете качество фото? И лучшее фото? Что касается Регистана - то в 2014 году был осуществлен ремонт площади (http://rus.ozodi.org/content/article/25367953.html). Угол съемки может быть разный, главное показать архитектуру памятника. Участник Bobyr и Bobyrr это обе мои страницы. Одна глобальная в рус. вики другая в commons. (My question is how do you determine the quality of the photo? And the best photo? With regard to the Registan - that in 2014 was carried out the repair area. The camera angle can be different, the main thing to show the architecture of the monument. Member Bobyr and Bobyrr is both my page. One global in Russian. Wiki in other commons.)--Bobyr (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Argueing about a slippery topic such as photographic quality (especially across a considerable language barrier) is probably useless, and discussing which photo better suits a particular article is best done in that article’s talk page. Here in Commons the only thing that needs fixing is speedy closing of those DRs and clearly warn Bobyr/Bobyrr about Commons’ scope: Last year:’s photos are as valuable as this year’s, as are photos of construction phases versus those of finished works; and of course that Commons is supposed to include files which have been replaced in specific articles. If this user’s naïveté turns out to be spammery instead, then a block should be effective. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Языковой барьер не проблема. Значит с качеством моих фото мы разобрались. Теперь скажите вот такие фото могут ли отражать качество фото и саму архитектуру памятника - Bib Khanum Mosque Samarkand.jpg, Samarqand Bibi Khanum Mausoleum.jpg, Bibi Khonym Mosque.jpg? Это серия MASamarkandRegistan1.jpg, Rajasthan Panorama.jpg, Registan - Gusjer.jpg, Registan - Samarkand - 15-10-2005-2.jpg, Registan - Samarkand - 15-10-2005.jpg, Registan Complex (8145371129).jpg, Registan DP.jpg, Registan samarkand steve evans 10 2005.jpg, Registan Samarkand Uzbekistan.JPG, Registan Samarkand.jpg, Registan square Samarkand.jpg, Registan sunset.jpg, RegistanSquare Samarkand.jpg, Samarcand 3770a.jpg, Samarkand-uzbekistan-feve.jpg, Samarkand.jpg, Samarkand4.jpg, Samarqand Registan 2006.jpg, Stans08-241 (3134185551).jpg, Stans08-242 (3134186189).jpg, Stans08-243 (3135008052).jpg, Stans08-249 (3135012278).jpg, The Registan, Samarkand (489184).jpg, Gur Emir 2006 A.jpg, Gur Emir 2006-2.png, Gur Emir 2006.jpg, из почти одинаковых фото – тоже должна остаться? А этот компаст - Benutzer:Ziegler175/Bilder Mittelasien. Во общем раз в 10 лет надо проводить чистку фото. (The language barrier is not a problem. So the quality of my photos we understand. Now here are the photos tell whether reflect the quality of the photo and the very architecture of the monument? This is a series of almost identical pictures - too should stay? And this kompast?. In general, once in 10 years it is necessary to purge the photo. --Bobyr (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We do not editorialise about the use or quality of images, so long as the image has some educational value, and is of usable quality it is considered to be within COM:SCOPE; files that are within scope and properly licensed are kept (except in specific circumstances that do not relate to this situation). Only exact duplicates are deleted, not similar images of the same topic. Your last sentence is nonsensical, by that logic all the historic photos the world has should have been deleted 10 years after being made; that is not true, old images are of use and should be retained. You really need to look over COM:SCOPE and COM:D to find out more about the policies relating to the purpose of Commons, and when and why we delete files. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ладно, пусть остаются, но прошу удалить так называемые дубликаты и фото не отражающие памятник. Вот два моих фото: File:Registan square2013.JPG, File:Registan square.jpg сделаны для сравнения как выглядела площадь в прошлом году и сегодня. (Okay, let them stay, but please remove the so-called duplicates and photos do not reflect the monument. Here are two of my photos made to compare the area looked like in the past, and today.)--Bobyr (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Only images which are exact duplicates should be deleted. Photos that are in scope should be kept; could you please explain what 'reflect the monument' means? And, could you please list the duplicates here? ColonialGrid (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Думаю эти фото надо удалить как дубликат (I think these photos should be removed as a duplicate): Samarqand Bibi Khanum Mausoleum.jpg, Bibi Khonym Mosque.jpg, MASamarkandRegistan1.jpg, MASamarkandRegistan2.jpg, Rajasthan Panorama.jpg, Registan - Gusjer.jpg, Registan - Samarkand - 15-10-2005-2.jpg, Registan - Samarkand - 15-10-2005.jpg, Registan DP.jpg, Registan samarkand steve evans 10 2005.jpg, Registan Samarkand Uzbekistan.JPG, Registan square Samarkand.jpg, Registan sunset.jpg, RegistanSquare Samarkand.jpg, Samarcand 3770a.jpg, Samarkand-uzbekistan-feve.jpg, Samarkand.jpg, Samarkand4.jpg, Samarqand Registan 2006.jpg, Stans08-241 (3134185551).jpg, Stans08-242 (3134186189).jpg, Stans08-243 (3135008052).jpg, Stans08-249 (3135012278).jpg, Gur Emir 2006 A.jpg, Gur Emir 2006-2.png, Gur Emir 2006.jpg. Эти оставить (This leave): Registan Samarkand.jpg,Registan Complex (8145371129).jpg, The Registan, Samarkand (489184).jpg. --Bobyr (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ну, что ж давайте найдем 5 различий на этих фото File:Registan - Gusjer.jpg и File:Registan square.jpg. Подскажу 1 пол (брусчатка и трибуна), 2 лестница, 3 скамейка, 4... и 5... За вами. Well, then let's find the 5 differences in these photos. Prompt 1 old gender (pavement, tribune), 2 stairs, bench 3, 4 and 5 ... ... For you. --Bobyr (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The clouds are different; the colour of the sky is different; the colours are different; the resolution is different; the framing is differnt; one doesn't have another image attached to it; there is a fence visible in one; one is straight. Would you like me to go on? They are clearly different images. They are both properly licensed and have educational value, therefore both are within COM:SCOPE. I will reiterate: only exact duplicate (ie, images that are exactly the same, without any difference) are deleted through the duplicate provision. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understand, your requests are invalid. All the photos you just listed are different. Can you please clearly write which files are direct exact duplicates of others? Those are the only photos that may be deleted. Can you please acknowledge that you understand that files which are similar, but not exact duplicates (and appropriately licensed) will be considered to be in COM:SCOPE and therefore be kept? ColonialGrid (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think at this point we have a language barrier compounding this problem. Can a Russian speaker please try to explain why these nominations are invalid, and get Bobyr to clearly show which files are exact duplicates? I also think enough discussion has passed for all of these delete nominations to be closed as kept, unless any can be shown to be exact duplicates. ColonialGrid (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • All of these photos are of the same subject, but are different photos. I do not know how I can say this any simpler: we keep all images that are different (in even the most minor ways) from other photos. Can a Russian speaker please explain this to Bobyr? I am clearly not able to articulate it properly. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Я и вижу, что тут находятся куча одинаковых фото. Все же надо удалить повторяющиеся, ну или. В фонде останется 5 фото. И надо бы заменить старые вид площади на новый вид. Надеюсь, что в следующем году кто-то сделает новые фото площади. (I see that there are a bunch of identical photo. Still need remove duplicate this or. The fund will be 5 photo. And it would be necessary to replace the old look of the square on a new look. I hope that next year someone will make new photos of the area.)--Bobyr (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Они не одинаковые и не повторяющиеся. Они отличаются освещением, размером, разрешением, деталями и массой других вещей. Поэтому старые фото никто никогда здесь не удаляет, и Ваши запросы никакой перспективы не имеют, их все закроют как безосновательные.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Bobyr/Bobyrr's categorisation

Смотри. Все категории стоят в статьях о храмах. Look Category:Russian Orthodox churches in Uzbekistan. All categories are articles about temples ruwiki:Храм Николая Чудотворца (Каган), Template:Ruwiki:Шаблон:Ташкентская епархия --Bobyr (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I've dealt with this as well as I can. But cleaning up after this user and continually removing usercats from real cats is getting tiresome. It's pretty evenly split between good categorisation, and odd image collection folders, so it's not all bad, but the usercat nonsense and duplication of categories needs to stop. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • To be blunt, Bobyr(r) has demonstated a total lack of understanding of categorization on Commons, and is working against tentatives to solve the problems. Discussion is non-existent, a fact certainly compounded by the language barrier. See for example the history of Category:Square Amir Temur, which is a duplicate of Category:Amir Temur Square. Could a patient Russian speaker explain the basic rules of categorization to this user? Olivier (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • В русском языке правильно писать так Площадь Мустакиллик, Сквер Амира Тимура, Медресе Барак хана, а не на оборот. То получается смешно Улугбека Обсерватория или Регистанская площадь. Поэтому тут ничего плохого нет. А вот посмотрите на эту категорию она уж точно фото дублируются Category:Shah-i-Zinda ( кстати тоже не правильное именование должно быть Ансамбль Шахи Зинда) --Bobyr (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_48&oldid=371842514"