Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 51

User:Alan Liefting removing all categories, again.

It seems that Alan Liefting is still removing all the categories from files. All of these have been left with no categories by them in the last 12 hours (just in their last 50 edits):

• File:Screaming heads.png ([1]);
• File:Robert Willoughby pilot.jpg ([2]);
• File:మన ఆంధ్రత్వము Dec,1962 By Digavalli Venkata Sivara Rao.pdf ([3]);
• File:PikiWiki Israel 41329 Yardenit.JPG ([4]);
• File:Penguimelon.jpg ([5]);
• File:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg ([6]);
• File:Danny-MushroomBrain-hennesy-fantasy-121-Ceres-dwarf-planet-IMG 2004.jpg ([7]).

This has previously been discussed at: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/02#Removal of a category so the file left uncategorized; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 49#user:Alan Liefting (where they were blocked); Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 50#User:Alan Liefting; and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 50#User:Geagea. Alan Liefting, why do you continue to do this against consensus, and will you at any time stop? You are really starting to look like you are not here to build encyclopaedias (or free media repositories as the case may be), but to make a point. ColonialGrid (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a policy that says I cannot do it? Alan Liefting (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No, but a consensus has formed that you shouldn't, and you have been blocked for doing it. You should accept the communities wishes for you to not leave files without any categories; your refusal to do so is what I find concerning. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you consider about five or so editors to be a consensus? Alan Liefting (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

When all are in agreement, and there are no other voices of dissent than yours: yes. You have been requested not to remove all categories, and had a variety of people give reasons why you should not; why do you continue to ignore them, and will you comply with the requests? ColonialGrid (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(to make this issues easy to resolve I want to keep with one point. I can explain my rationale later.) There is no agreement or consensus that says I should not do the actions you describe. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to the fact that all four of the AN/U discussions mentioned above involved User:Geagea. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, clearly removing allcategories is a terrible wikicrime for which there can be no excuse...

Except that there are a couple of cases when it's possible for this to be an improvement: imminent deletion of a file File:Danny-MushroomBrain-hennesy-fantasy-121-Ceres-dwarf-planet-IMG 2004.jpg and uncategorised files "decorated" with grossly wrong categories File:PikiWiki Israel 41329 Yardenit.JPG.

It might have better for Alan to add some categories - especially to the ducks. Removing categories from a file shortly heading for inevitable deletion doesn't have much point to it. However he's not wrong to do these and he's certainly not wrong to the level that warrants AN/UP. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

THank you Andy. I was about to say something along those lines myself. Yes, ideally I should correctly recategorise every image I come across but not of use can easily do that given the sheer number of categories out there. And I am only fluent in English so I cannot correctly categorise images that use other languages for descriptions and files names.

The ducks one made me laugh. Ducks categorised in Religion in Israel? It is another illustration of problems here on Commons. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

ColonialGrid, we are supposed to assume good faith but I completely understand that you have your doubts about whether I am editing in good faith. THere are plenty of scammers, spammers, trolls, mischief makers etc that inhabit Commons.

Anyway, I am here to help build Commons. You seem to think that I am not. Is it because I am removing things? If that is the case then you are misguided. To help build Commons we sometimes have to remove things. Like gross errors in categorisation. Alan Liefting (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is my a bit of a summary of the rationale for removing categories and leaving the images uncategorised:

• File:Screaming heads.png - I could not find a Category:Pope Innocent X or Category:Innocent X and it isotherwise difficult to categorise.
• File:Robert Willoughby pilot.jpg - Did not belong in high level categories such as People and WWII especially considering that it is almost certainly not "own work". Leaving it uncategorised helps to get other eyes on it for evaluation.
• File:మన ఆంధ్రత్వము Dec,1962 By Digavalli Venkata Sivara Rao.pdf - I can hardly identify the language let alone recategorise it. I could run it thru Google translate I guess. Or I could just remove the completely inappropriate category, let the bot mark it as uncategorised, and see if someone else is able to do it.
• File:PikiWiki Israel 41329 Yardenit.JPG - I think I hit the remove category button without adding another one because I could not see what I was doing because of the tears of laughter... PikiWiki are getting more than their fair suck of the sav (uploaded about 29,000 images) so there is no harm in leaving a generic image of two ducks uncategorised.
• File:Penguimelon.jpg - personal art work used on a draft page that certainly does not belong in a high level category such as Art.
• File:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg - I could not find a Category:Pope Innocent X or Category:Innocent X but Andy D did find a category for the artist. It did not belong in Pope, Bacon and Art.
• File:Danny-MushroomBrain-hennesy-fantasy-121-Ceres-dwarf-planet-IMG 2004.jpg - personal artwork up for deletion that does not deserve to be in Category:Art.

I hope this helps. Alan Liefting (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it helps. Just to name a few. File:Screaming heads.png clearly states authorship and title of the work. A simple search in Google would have taken you immediately to en:Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X and to easily realize that it's a copyright violation, as Bacon didn't die less that 70 years ago. The same applies to File:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg. File:Robert Willoughby pilot.jpg was linked to an article in the English Wikipedia and a simple inspection would have made you to get the picture categorized under Category:Flutists from the United Kingdom. I mean, I appreciate your effort to reduce entropy, but removing categories from 50 files is definitely less useful than properly categorizing 5 and opening a proper DR of 5 more. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 10:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't really help, as you're myopically looking only the few files I highlighted. In under one minute used cat-a-lot you removed Category:History from every file there, how much consideration could you possibly have given? A minute later you emptied Category:People, and even that is just two of the many categories you have completely emptied in your last 500 edits. How many files are now without categories because of your actions? This isn't really helpful, and you've been told why, it makes files harder to find and therefore harder to properly categorise. Additionally, edits like this, where you remove {{Check categories}} remove the only maintenance tags we have on the file, why would you do that if you want them to be sorted properly? You laugh about an image of ducks being in religion in Israel, why didn't you properly categorise it? Also, for the record, File:Screaming heads.png was one of 56 files you emptied out of Category:Art in one minute (that you never edited again), how much consideration could you actually have given it? ColonialGrid (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The rationale that I used on the files that you mention can be extended to all of the files that I "decategorise". I am aware of what I am doing here at Commons. I am not being myopic. Surely you realise that I cannot explain in this forum every single edit or batch of edits that I do.

It is unfortunate that HotCat removes {{Check categories}} if a file is left uncategorised. Is that something that can be fixed in the HotCat code? Anyway, a bot comes along and adds a tag if it is uncategorised. Alan Liefting (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned in the o.p., the matter was discussed before several times and reasons why removing all categories is a bad thing were copiously offered to user Alan Liefting. What is now in discussion is what should be done in face of this user’s insisting on removing all categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Alan, if you find that it is necessary to remove all existing categories from a file, and you cannot find another appropriate category, then the very least that you should do is add the following text to the file page:

[[Category:All media needing categories as of 2015]]

There is no excuse to not do that. If you are using Cat-a-lot, then click the link at the bottom right, enter the name of the above category, press carriage return, select the relevant file(s), select the above category so there is an arrow pointing right, and click the move link. Certainly the above category is heaving but there is no excuse to leave a file category-less. Green Giant (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine a scenario when "it is necessary to remove all existing categories from a file, and one cannot find another appropriate category". In most of the cases the "appropriate category" is a subcategory of categories being removed. I believe that if this behavior does not stop Alan should be blocked, as his inability to follow Commons norms and listen numerous discussions when he was asked to stop, leaves many files in much worse state after than before his edit. --Jarekt (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I ever said what you seem to be quoting. What I have said is that no categories is not ideal, but leaving a file uncategorised is ok. The ideal of course is a file with all of the appropriate categories. I do that on my areas of interest and expertise (New Zealand, science, technology, electronics) but on unfamiliar ground I only do what I know (which may be removal but not addition of categoies). -- Alan Liefting (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Green Giant, that is a good suggestion but there is a bot that goes around and does that. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because there is a bot doesn't mean you cannot do this yourself. Green Giant (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

My editing style is to minimise the mess on Commons in a minimum amount of time. (And don't give me that Commons is a work in progress bullshit). Most of us do a cost benefit analysis on our actions in the real world and there is no reason why we cannot do it in the wikiworld. If more editors looked at the big picture and made rational judgements about their edits Commons would be a far better place. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I will have to reiterate the need for policy on this matter. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be ideal if we could all follow consensus rather then needing a policy to state what should be obvious, removing all visible categories is nothing short of vandalism, what you call "editing style" is in fact just justification to be a vandal. If you looked at the whole picture and made rational judgements you would be able to see that all you are doing is creating more work for other editors who then have to repair the damage you have done, If these actions persist you should get banned. Do we really need a explicit policy for every person who finds a new way to vandalise this project? I don't think that should be necessary Oxyman (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I will reiterate: there is no consensus on this matter. A handful of editors out of the 4.5 million users is not a consensus.

It is completely and utterly foolish to expect a large website with a global impact and with tens of thousands of regular editors not to have prescriptive policy.

If what I am doing is vandalism then I obviously do not have a place here. Alan Liefting (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That's possible. You decide, Alan. It seems you are looking for 2 million comments in order to accept that there is "consensus." 5/1 is consensus until there is more participation. 2/1 can be. 1/1, use caution. Learn to work with a community and you might have a place here, otherwise not. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, obviously we cannot expect to get a consensus from millions of editors. What I am struggling with here is that is seems to be a really big deal that a file is left uncategorised when there are clear cases where it is preferred, and in other cases it is not ideal but adequate. Alan Liefting (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with this. It's not a "really big deal," because whether Alan is allowed to edit Commons or not is not a "really big deal." It's just a wiki, and Alan is just one user out of how many? I am not claiming you are "wrong," Alan, about categorization. Rather, you are clearly not listening, and that is interpreted as disruptive, that you will waste the time of many editors, as you have done by triggering this noticeboard filing by ignoring warnings and requests to stop. That someone takes you to a noticeboard is no proof of much, but that you argue against everyone here," is. If you want to work on Commons, you will need to work with the community.

When I see an editor with over 50,000 edits behaving like you, I look around. en.wiki, 134,000 edits. Impressive. Just about to come off of a six month block. For what? [8] and look at the block log. It is very obvious that to you, Alan, categories are a Very Big Deal. You are headed for a block here. Commons doesn't bother with bans, it just indef blocks, rather quickly.

Now is your opportunity to realize what you have been doing and stop it. Take the opportunity, or don't. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There is consensus on this matter the majority of people who expressed an opinion on the matter disagreed with your actions, that is what consensus means in this context. It was never that case that 4.5 million users had to agree, your are trying to redefine the rules to suit your agenda, it should not wash.

Removing the last visible category is vandalism and yes if it persists you should have no place here. Oxyman (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

So is removing the last category from a file that is about to be deleted an act of vandalism? Is removing the last category, especially a high level category, from an obscure file an act of vandalism? Alan Liefting (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Alan, you don't get it. You are taking what everyone is saying to you and finding whatever fault you can with it. In any case, it's vandalism if people say it is, and it is deliberate vandalism once you know how people are responding. Commons has problems, you are correct about that, but you are creating more problems, not addressing the problems we have. You are sure you are right. That's a fatal assumption; if it continues, you will be blocked, and the blocks will escalate. Sometimes Commons goes quickly to indef.

If policies are needed, work on them, gain consensus. Being "right" does not create policies. Developing consensus does. --Abd (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither should happen, yes removing the last visible category is vandalism, especially when done on mass with a tool such as Cat-a-lot Oxyman (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alan Liefting: There is a longstanding history within the Wikimedia projects that a consensus does not mean the majority of thousands of millions of editors. It simply means those who took the time to vote. I have personally fallen victim to the negative aspects of this but at the same time, there is no validity to the argument that thousands of editors need to vote in order to form a consensus here or anywhere else. I also agree with Green Giant above that there are rarely, if ever, occasions where removing all the categories from a File are needed. For example, several of the files you removed the categories from were Art related and you removed the category of Art. Yes it may not be as accurate as it could be, but its better than leaving it with no categories at all and then forcing someone else to add it to a category, possibly the one you removed. I am also not hearing anyone saying they want you to leave the project, what I am hearing is that you shouldn't remove all the categories without at least leaving one or adding a correct one so they don't end up making work for someone else. Reguyla (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alan Liefting: I do appreciate the huge effort you devote to this project. And I'd appreciate it even more if you were able to listen to what we are saying. In plain words, removing a wrong category of 50 files is far less useful than assigning proper categories to 5 files. The examples above are a clear example: File:Screaming heads.png had the proper information in the description section. Just a simple google search would have led you to assign proper categories (incidentally this a copyright violation, but it does not changes the argumentation). File:Robert Willoughby pilot.jpg was used in an article in the English Wikipedia and assigning the same category as in the English Wikipedia was simply trivial. Instead, you've simply removed all the categories. Has the removal of categories meant any gain for Commons? Unfortunately, no gain at all, as nobody is able to find any fundamental difference between bad (or generic categories) and no categories at all. In fact, many images categorized in a high-level category are, because of that, searchable, and thus "diffusable". No categories means nobody will find them unless the title or the description provide anything useful in a google search. Even with the better purpose, you're creating more harm than good and you need to think about that. Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 22:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with GreenGiant. @Alan Liefting: Please add Category:All media needing categories as of 2015 to any files where you remove unspecified categories. Leaving files without ANY categories is definitely destructive. It is definitely wrong that the bots will find all such files. Big parts of files where all categories were removed remain without categories until someone happen to find them. I already stated it in the previous ANU against you, it is my experience numerous times, and I don't like to repeat the same again and again! In case of similar actions in future, expect to be blocked. This is an administrative warning. Thanks for understanding. --A.Savin 22:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That "media needing categories" is one category that no-one ever needs to add, as it's one of the few categories that can be reliably added by 'bot. No editor, not even Alan Liefting, should be compelled to do work that is trivially automated. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, if someone uploads something w/o categories, the bots add {{Uncategorized}}. If someone removes all categories, the bots do not give a shit. Just a current example. --A.Savin 10:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This should be a moot point, users should not vandalise the project by removing valid categories which they have unilaterally decided should not be there Oxyman (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless you do it, of course. Where you depopulated all the member cats of Category:Rocket 150 because " the event has long gone ". Although thanks for helpfully pointing a multi-year editor here to COM:CAT "for an explanation of how categories work". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your personal disagreement with me has nothing to do with the issue being discussed, I removed an irrelevant and badly thought out subcategory from another category, not all visible categories from a file, if you really wanted to discus the matter you could have and can use my talk page, what you actually used my talk page to do is to say is "Fuck you, fuck this project" but all of this should be discussed elsewhere as it is totally irrelevant to the matter in hand Oxyman (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have warned the user for gross incivility.[9]. I previously warned him for harassing a bureaucrat, his response was uncivil,[10] but that is fairly normal, few like being warned. Nevertheless, he appears to be itching for a block. This is the Admin noticeboard, so this is not entirely off topic. His comment here was gratuitously combative, and when this behavior is tolerated, it gets worse.

Meanwhile, let's hope that Alan Leifting takes the hint. If he slows down a bit and listens a bit more quickly, he might accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and stop messing with Mr. In-Between. --Abd (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oxyman, please try and maintain at least some pretence of accuracy. "an irrelevant and badly thought out subcategory " is bollocks. It was one of several, preserved steam locomotives, each of which meets WP:N and as an obvious magnet for photographers warants being here too. Nor did you question any of these cats. Your action was to remove these cats from an event - the 150th anniversary cavalcade. Including each of those cats is, I would claim, a valid use of categorisation and a reasonable way to list the locos involved in such a major event. You disagree, fine. However it's your actions afterwards that really annoy - no attempt at discussion, just plain old edit-warring to re-remove the category again with a smug and patronising message explaining the trivial basics of categorization as if you were talking to someone uploading their very first files: Abd, for instance.

You are not the god-emperor of Commons, or of Commons categorization. Do not talk down to your fellow editors like that, even me, even Alan Liefting. Your view on how categorization should be applied is not gospel. Just because you're an admin, or you've uploaded a bunch of images never makes you right and above all others like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dragonfly2015

Appears to have uploaded the same image 3 times (as I cannot access deleted images, I cannot check this further). Repeat copyvio and appears to have set up a Flickr account to obscure source. --Fæ (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

- the image is the subject of an OTRS ticket, although I'm not completely convinced yet. Green Giant (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

HarryTrung (talk · contribs)

Continue to upload problematic files after multiple deletion requests. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Pradeep583 (copyvios/possible sockpuppetry)

• Pradeep583 (talk · contribs)
• Mahilkk (talk · contribs)

The above-noted users have recently been uploading different versions of the same non-free photos and inserting them into the same articles on the English Wikipedia. I suspect they're operated by the same person. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Technical evidence is Inconclusive. We'll have to go by behavioral evidence. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Renisance2K

Renisance2K (talk · contribs) It is the third time that this user upload here this File:Ann Wolfe.jpg. Best regards --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  13:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Final warning given, next time it will be a block. --Didym (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Japanese user doesn't seem to understand COM:OVERCAT

User:KyotoFlowertourism doesn't seem to understand how the category system works here and insists on putting media not only in its specific category, but also in a whole slew of parent categories. I tried to show them the relevant policy pages but it seems that they don't read English very well.
User KyotoFlowertourism also seems to think that using the commonly found transcription Category:Ogijima is disrespectful to Japanese, and insists on creating Category:Ogishima alongside, with both categories in use at the same time. Perhaps a Japanese administrator can explain all this to them? - Takeaway (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Russavia sock EcuadorPutas

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. No consensus. Nemo 20:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Russavia's latest sock User:EcuadorPutas is a very serious problem for Commons IMO. This is a Confirmed sock of Russavia, checkusered by me and by the WMF and locked by WMF Office. The name means Ecuador Whores for those who don't speak Spanish. This account has done 999 edits including several hundred Flickr uploads with this disgusting name as the uploader. This is an insult to the Commons community, especially our Spanish-speaking editors, and to the Flickr uploaders. Russavia is really doing harm to Commons with this kind of behavior. I've seen a lot of questioning of my and other admin actions concerning Russavia's socks, but I can't see any way that this kind of behavior can be defended. 999 edits with a blatantly inappropriate and disruptive name like "EcuadorPutas" is trolling behavior. I would hope we can suppress that name. Any user with this name would be indefinitely blocked here on Commons. Who knows what's next from Russavia? Due to this incident I'm asking the Commons community to block Russavia's account locally to remove all question of whether or not local admins can deal with his socking. Thanks for your consideration. INeverCry 20:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support. -- Geagea (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose. -- odder (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose blocks can be appealled, due to secret WMF reasons, there is no appeal process. --Fæ (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose the behaviour certainly justifies some level of block, but we (the Commons community) would never block or ban someone without leaving an avenue of appeal open. How will you deal with our need to maintain an ability for Russavia to appeal if you block him ? Have you negotiated an exclusion to the Global Ban which would allow Russavia to appeal against a local ban ? If not, then I'm sorry, but I don't like the idea of imposing an indefinite block on an account that may never be able to appeal it. It's wrong, and these sorts of indefinite bans which cannot be appealed are the very antithesis of who we are, and regardless of any guilt or innocence, must oppose further sanctions at this time. I must also ask INC why he was instructing Russavia yesterday to evade his Global Ban and clean-up a category. "18:37, 21 March 2015 INeverCry (talk | contribs | block) deleted page File:Qantas Empire Airways Douglas DC-3 at the Qantas Founders Museum.jpg (sock uploads of Russavia - how about you clean up the 100k+ uploads in your maintainance cats first? - Using VisualFileChange.) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" Nick (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd also like the WMF to confirm what would happen if the community was to decide to block Russavia for anything other than an indefinite period - practically, of course, it has no effect because of the Global Ban, but would the WMF see it is some form of subverting the Global Ban and take action against the administrator involved ? I wouldn't have even considered asking such a silly question in the past, but then again I wouldn't have expected secret, permanent bans from the WMF in the past, so I'm similarly unsure what the WMF's stance is going to be around blocking and unblocking users subject to a Global Ban. It would be useful to clarify from Philippe (WMF) or Jalexander-WMF any consequences arising from this discussion and for them to clarify, precisely, how much or how little freedom the Commons community has to decide on this issue. Nick (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Nick: In general we will not interfere with local blocking policy or procedures and would not have a strong opinion on the difference between an indefinite or time limited local block ( as you say it is essentially a symbolic act). Also, While we can not and do not attempt to force any user to enforce the Terms of Use we do have a problem with anyone who attempts to prohibit those who, within reason, decide to do so. Jalexander--WMF 21:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Also, while we can not and do not attempt to force any user to enforce the Terms of Use we do have a problem with anyone who attempts to prohibit those who, within reason, decide to do so. I might be misreading this (as english is not my first language), but this look like a threat to me. I do hope that I'm wrong and that @Jalexander-WMF: will clarify this promptly. Pleclown (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Pleclown: It certainly was not meant as a threat in anyway, in fact quite the opposite, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I've had people ask me off-wiki if there was a "requirement" to enforce the terms of use (and if I remember correctly seen it discussed on-wiki). I was trying to clarify that we are not interested in requiring anyone to enforce the Terms of Use against their wishes. I felt that if I was mentioning that it made sense to also mention where we would start getting concerned ( i.e. if someone was being prohibited from reasonably enforcing the ToU). Re-reading what I wrote I agree it came across badly, I think it comes across a bit better without the "Also" so I've struck that though it's still not perfect. Jalexander--WMF 23:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below) Enforcing the TOU is one thing, enforcing a WMF ban allegedly based on the TOU is another. The TOU was written and is agreed to project-by-project, with every edit, one at a time. I just re-read the TOU. What provision is violated? (See the full TOU at m:Terms of use.) I find this one:

In the interests of our users and the Projects, in the extreme circumstance that any individual has had his or her account or access blocked under this provision, he or she is prohibited from creating or using another account on or seeking access to the same Project, unless we provide explicit permission.

This is obviously only talking about single-project blocks. It could be said, then, that to evade a block is a TOU violation, on that project, but the context makes it clear that this is not a global violation, it is only a violation of the TOU as it applies to that project. So the question asked here by our administrator is "Shall I create a TOU violation for Russavia if he edits here, by blocking him?"

There is another provision in the TOU about global bans:

Especially problematic users who have had accounts or access blocked on multiple Project editions may be subject to a ban from all of the Project editions, in accordance with the m:Global Ban Policy.

Problem is, that policy was not followed. There was significant Russavia socking on only one project, en.Wikipedia. The Global Ban Policy requires, not just "blocks," but discussed, formal bans. Rather, in January, a new policy was created, m:WMF Global Ban Policy. It is not referenced in the TOS.

So the WMF is not following the TOU, as it is. We have also been informed that the Board has not considered this matter. So it is unclear for whom Jalexander is writing when he writes "we do have a problem...."

The question is whether or not a community may direct its functionaries, those responsible to the community, to not enforce a WMF-declared global ban with their community-provided tools. It's fairly obvious that a WMF employee might have some kind of problem with this, because it would deprive them of enforcement labor, but is the WMF willing to remove authority from the community? It's a slippery slope, and I'd wonder if WMF legal has been adequately consulted about this. The move is toward increased WMF liability for damage. A TOS will not be read by a court according to WMF interpretation, rather the court, by common law, will interpret a document created by the WMF in favor of the user (that's generally true about "terms" of contracts like this). The WMF has been legally protected by leaving decisions in the hands of the community. Apparently, it has some other purpose now.

Previously, there was steward opinion (at least one steward, who had closed the only RfC global ban on meta) that a community could opt out of a global ban. Before they were formally defined by the Global ban policy, that actually happened on occasion. The sky did not fall. However, no user was ever banned by that policy after it was ratified as global policy (and then referred to in the TOS). So it was never tested. However, there is no doubt: the WMF may decide to lock any account, arbitrarily. (And stewards routinely lock accounts, I studied 5000 global locks, which covered a 3-month period at the end of 2013. Almost all those were for spammers or accounts opened by spammers (some have not edited at all). I saw a handful of errors, quickly corrected, and even fewer truly questionable locks. Maybe five or less.)

We reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice.

I consider this legally necessary. I am not arguing that the WMF is "wrong" to issue a global ban. Obviously, I do not know the causes they saw. However, I do personally doubt that they have been accurate in disclosing the causes of the bans, and, in fact, that is declared policy, they just claim TOU violation, which, as shown above, is questionable. (I have outlined this from the terms of use. There is a separate argument about the original bans, because the only argument examined above would be that "lock evasion" is a TOU violation in itself. What I do not see is how TOU violation, which was very likely on en.wiki, became a global ban, to then be enforced by functionaries here. --Abd (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just to clarify @Jalexander-WMF: , what I believe you're saying, is that no administrator is required to enforce the Terms of Use (by extension, does that include no administrator is required to block the sock of a Globally Banned user) but we may not create a new policy which prohibits any other administrator from enforcing the Terms of Use. I'm curious as to what would happen if the community voted to require all administrators to enforce the Terms of Use and I would also like to know how this all works with English Wikipedia's ArbCom who don't believe the Terms of Use form part of the English Wikipedia policy framework for administrators to follow, but I ask these questions not just wearing my Commons administrator hat. Nick (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct (including the part about not requiring an admin to block the sock of a Globally Banned user). I actually almost put something in there about how the community could vote to require administrators to enforce the Terms of Use if they wanted too (decided against it just because I was trying to keep it short) so I do think that a community could decide to do that (just like they can decide to require admins to block poop vandals or the like).

I would say that I think, traditionally, while a community can certainly get, rightly, angry about an admin steadfastly refusing to enforce a certain rule they usually allow admins (as volunteers) to choose whether to be the specific person to pull the trigger on a specific case (compared to a staff member who may be required to do something by their boss). The Terms of Use is a global document that no individual, or community, can opt-out of if they wish to continue operating on our sites. In some levels it’s more like a constitution then just a straight ‘global policy’ in that it serves as the base for the legal requirement that users follow both community and foundation policies. That said, the specific questions on enWiki at the moment (especially since they generally involve a piece of the policy that, uniquely, has an explicit clause for alternative policies) are different enough that I'm not comfortable opining on them here.Jalexander--WMF 01:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose – I'm Latino, and I'm not offended. Russavia is just trying to be clever in order to evade an unjust lock. Trying to be clever isn't a crime. I believe that the administrators here need to learn to accept humor and cleverness. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support, for what it is worth, though our Commons:Blocking policy makes it quite clear that such block-evading-socks should be blocked by our admins, and makes no distinction on what the original block was for or who applied it. It is quite laughable that an editor who has made thousands of sock edits since his global block would, according to some claims here, find himself unable to use a keyboard in order to appeal any community block. Those supporting don't seem to care if he edits outside of a block, so why should they care if he appeals outside of a block. Shame on those who support the continued edits of this offensive bully, and all your pathetic wikilawyering. -- Colin (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• So the opposers are saying because the disagree with the bureaucratic details of russavia's ban he has a license to to be a project damaging uncivil troll and we should not do anything about it. You seem to be willing to flush the entire project down the can over a petty dispute. This degrades the efforts of hundreds of contributors just because you are being self important and entitled bullies. You should be ashamed of yourselves! --Dschwen (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  A pity you set an example to the community by attacking all those with opinions that differ from yours, rather than expressing a view about the proposal itself. --Fæ (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  Actually, it would be good if the community joined in shouting "Shame!" at you. Sometimes, that's the appropriate response. -- Colin (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  Shouting at other contributors is not acceptable. Creating a hostile non-collegiate environment is a violation of COM:BP. --Fæ (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  I do wish there was a way to keep you two apart. You're both, on your own, incredibly useful, but when you come together all that light turns into useless heat. Nick (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  It is just absurd that we are even having this discussion. Any other user behaving in such a way would obviously be blocked. It is outright embarrassing to see users defending this kind of behavior. --Dschwen (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  It is equally embarrassing to see an experienced contributor like yourself, @Dschwen, resort to shaming your fellow Commons contributors instead of engaging in an argument-based discussion. This degrades the efforts of hundreds of contributors just because you are being a self-important and entitled bully. Shame on you! (See what I did here?) odder (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  It is telling, on a community where many admins would fail the Turing test, that strong criticism of fellow user's attitudes is claimed to be unacceptable while making up pretend wikilaws in order to support a known bully and serial offensive sockpuppet (a behaviour that predates his recent global ban) can only, supposedly, be responded to by argument about policy. Did women win the vote by arguing the current situation was illegal? Did the LGBT community gain some measure of equality by suing? Did calm professional dispassionate writing end apartheit? No, existing laws and practices were overturned by loudly criticizing and shaming those who upheld them. When parts of the established community (visibly, some admins in this discussion) behave shamefully the correct response is to shame them. Russavia won't be wikilawyered into being blocked or returned to full-editing rights. That is completely beyond our control and the ultimate right of any owner of a website to determine who may use their services. Those who think otherwise can fork the project. Otherwise, if you stay as a participant of a WMF project, then you need to move on, as does Russavia. -- Colin (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose He's not blocked here as he did nothing here justifying such a block. So technically he's just evading a ban enforced by the WMF for top secret reasons. WMF started this "war" and they now have to live with these side effects, he wouldn't have to use socks here without this strange ban or previously at en wiki with the Jimmy-welcomed block. Username seems to be offensive if translated in two separate words but not if taken as one word, judging from online translators. And a small reminder at all - please keep civil in your comments, no need for a hated debate.--Denniss (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose If the community doesn't have a say or even a right to an explanation, it doesn't need to know. It is true that a username "EcuadorPutas" when uploading images of women from Ecuador may be interpreted as abusive, and you might block this username, without prejudice to any others, on the basis of being a "bad username"; that is precedent. But the block should be for the username, not the person. [In view of User:Pleclown's excellent point and reference below, this is more complicated to figure out. Is a username bad when it is reappropriated, when some photos uploaded may not be in on the reappropriation? Wnt (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)] The images are still undeniably useful, and if admins have enough time to mass delete them in pique that a banned user uploaded them (which seems to be the case) they should have enough time to re-upload them from Flickr or from our archives so that the photos are not lost. Remember, after all, that accumulating free data that the public can reuse is the actual mission of this site, and everything else in administration serves only to facilitate it. Wnt (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• This username is problematic I think, so perhaps the account could be renamed? I suggest renaming him to MmmmmMiniEggNests (Easter is coming after all), but as for blocking him... is there actually a point? These edits don't appear to be disruptive, and Russavia generally had a good record with image uploading. While I cannot on principle support sockpuppeting, I don't think it's actually worth doing anything about here, especially given the fact the Commons community never banned Russavia to begin with. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment: I have some questions about Russavia.

• First of all, I don't found any current De-adminship against this user. If a current De-adminship has been opened, please tell them.
• Second, Russavia is not currently blocked locally and is still an Administrator in Commons. The community did not decided (for now) his block, or at least, his De-adminship.
• Third, I don't know why Russavia wants to create socks and doing disruptive editions to a project that is still an Admin. Is not hard to ask directly to Russavia why are creating these socks (if actually belongs to him) instead of assuming that he is assuming bad faith; I have serious doubts why this user should assume bad faith, vendetta againts their Community? Remember that the problem is with the WMF, not the Community. If the user effectivelly are doing disruptive editions, (again) why?
• And finally, why WMF blocked him? An unilateral decision from the WMF that passes over the Community concensus is the most disruptive that I seen in this mess, more disruptive than his editions (from him or his possible socks).

Then,  Support of the block of the socks, but strongly  Oppose the block of Russavia's main account without broad concensus (including his De-adminship first). --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Russavia is no longer an admin at Commons, his bit was taken away by Billinghurst on 19 Jan after Russavia retired his adminship on IRC. The resignation just put an early halt to Commons:Administrators/Requests/Russavia (de-adminship 2) which I doubt would have failed. ColonialGrid (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information (the De-adminship closed), but I still  Oppose the block of Russavia by the WMF. If the community decided his block because his disruptive editions (in the present and in the past), nothing to do. But I'll not accept that some users supports the block only because the WMF decided them (WMF != Community). --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose --A.Savin 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - there's no question that Commons:Blocking policy allows any admin to block sockpuppets. We don't need this discussion. Just block him. From Commons:BP

• "Evasion of blocks. An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may and should also be blocked.
• "Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions. Secondary accounts are typically blocked indefinitely. The primary account may or may not be subject to new or extended blocks depending on the circumstances."

Just do it. Smallbones (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

RA isn't blocked, and no block = no block evasion. Simple as it is. --A.Savin 00:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You're just citing the Commons policies, but keep in mind Russavia has been blocked globally in Meta by the WMF between four walls, not in Commons by the Community (a wide range of users). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

•  OpposeThanks for asking, INeverCry. The point of a global ban is to reduce disruption, not increase it. If local wikis debate the socking and contributions of a globally banned user, the point is defeated. The WMF may enforce its own block, especially when it is locally controversial, as with Commons (and if users want to report editing by banned users to the WMF, that's their business). I'm not happy with what Russavia is doing -- such as that user name -- but the WMF has removed our ability to negotiate with him, they have apparently turned off the "email this user" access for globally banned users (the interface pretends email was never set up; this has changed). They are restricting us from dealing with him. We should treat these contributions as if anonymous, and stop proclaiming "Russavia!" every day on the noticeboard. If Russavia makes positive contributions, fine. See an abusive username, block it. See an anonymous user making "Russavia-like" edits, otherwise not disruptive, ignore it. The problem is? --Abd (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• What is the proposal being discussed here? Is it just to forcefully replace an obviously trolling username under which valuable content was added? If so, go ahead. Should be a simple thing.

(And a note to Russavia, if you’re reading this: These last few stunts cleared my opinion about you, and it isn’t good. Having great Commons users for friends and being persecuted by evil people is not enough, and this military grade trolling cannot be justified: When you’re back expect to properly judged by your peers for all this. )

-- Tuválkin ✉ 02:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment It's a moot point whether to block Russavia or not. It takes an impressive amount of wikilawyering to argue that it's not evasion because he's not locally blocked. Currently he cannot edit on Commons, so an attempt to edit on Commons using an alternate account is evasion. FWIW count me as a  Support, but again I don't believe this is the important question here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- for what?, adding images which pass our inclusion policy?..I  Support blocking the username for being abusive but thats it. Whatever reason the WMF had to lock his account, they have chosen not to share it with the community and thus, the community is still undecided on russavia's "persona non-grata" and I personally do not see him as a threat, I infact find people who bother him and harass him as much bigger threats to this community than him..--Stemoc 07:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support for what it's worth, but as I've said before I don't think it's useful to have a big argument about what is after all a symbolic issue. Russavia is already banned and blocked, and the fact that the opposers here didn't get the chance to vote does not change the situation. It's sophistry to argue that Russavia is not blocked on Commons: of course he is. And when he reappears, his new accounts are also subject to immediate blocking on the basis of 'evasion of blocks', 'abusing multiple accounts' and (in this case) 'inappropriate usernames' as set out in COM:BP. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support as per Colin and Michael above. AFAICT blocking the local account would not change anything, but it is silly to argue that Russavia is not blocked. Russavia cannot edit Commons. It may not be a decision of the community, but it stays as a fact. Arguing otherwise would not change anything. If you have an issue with that, take this up with the WMF. And it is a shame to create such a mess here because you doesn't agree with WMF actions. You are simply disrupting Commons to pursue your own agenda. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support. Per Yann. Get out !--Jebulon (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Regarding the name. The movement itself called the march "la Marcha de las Putas" [11]. This is a case of reappropriation, much like the SlutWalks. This is not, and should not be seen as "disgusting" or as an "insult to the Commons community, especially our Spanish-speaking editors, and to the Flickr uploaders". I strongly condemn the wording chosen by INeverCry in their initial statement, and wish that this community could be more welcoming to minorities and oppressed groups. Pleclown (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cool. See how clever Russavia is, everyone. Russavia chose a name that appears offensive at first glance but is actually a reference to activism. We shouldn't punish people for being clever. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    • If Russavia had named the account "AmericanSluts" would you assume that it was related to SlutWalk? I would not. Mr Muffler (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose You're deleted this one 3 times -- and it's in use across multiple projects. Whats wrong with you? --The_Photographer (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment User:Editorofaviation is clearly a sock of Russavia; not even an attempt to hide it. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Russavia is smart, not cowardly. Why hide one's positive contributions? People who are ashamed of their actions hide, and Russavia is only making contributions that he can be proud of, so he doesn't have any reason to hide. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I was away for a few days; just catching up all the drama in between. BTW, my understanding with my poor brain is that : 1. For a user (including IPs) to edit in any WMF projects, he need to first be eligible to make an agreement that he is willing to abide the wmf:TOU. When a user is WMF banned, it is explicitly stated that the user can no longer make an agreement with WMF. 2. Any works that are in scope and are freely licensed or in PD can be hosted in Commons. But the user whose edit by which the content is made available to Commons must abide wmf:TOU.

These two requirements are the essence of any WMF projects. We can see a lot of reasons like "We do not take an editorial role" and "You are responsible for your own actions" which point us why abiding wmf:TOU is very important. Otherwise this project will end up as a crap just like any other website. Correct my poor brain if it is wrong. Jee 13:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to seem argumentative here because certainly if this is Russavia they know what they are doing but I want to clarify that when someone creates an account, there is no TOU validation. Its just a username, a password and a Captcha. It never asks the user to read the terms of use and check a box nor does it even link to it. So although yes, you are right, there is a TOU and Russavia is certainly aware of it, the TOU is hidden from 98% of users and is useless when it comes to validating the user understands what they can and can't do here. Additionally, some people like to argue that this (and Wikipedia and the other sister sites as well) is just a website, but most websites do not sell themselves as the "[insert your favorite project here] anyone can edit". Now, if it was called the free image repository, encyclopedia, etc. as the adline, then fine. But that is not how its billed, so arguing that not everyone can edit, especially when their edits are positive, is a bit disingenuous and even fraudulent. Reguyla (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

ToU is linked at the bottom of every page; so "I didn't see it" is not an excuse. And changing to  Support as nobody challenged my argument so far. Jee 01:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) May I offer a rebuttal, @Reguyla, without arguing? ;) While formal assent to the ToU may not be necessary to register an account, it certainly is to edit. The text immediately above the buttons in every edit window reads, “By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use …“. How the WMF markets the projects is a side issue: anyone who takes the trouble to follow that link—or who has just been around for a little while—should notice that “anyone” carries qualifications, per the limits to AGF &c.

FWIW I generally dislike the deletion of good content just because of who contributed it (except for repeat copyright violators & the like, whose licences can’t be trusted), but I don’t buy the argument that the sanction isn‘t actionable because it was done without community involvement (whether public discussion or local admin action). I’m disappointed that the WMF chose not to air their case either here or on Meta, if nothing else for appearance’s sake (considering both R’s history with Jimbo and the more recent events that have strained project–Foundation relations), but AFAICT they’re within their rights so to choose, and it’s within our admins’ discretion to enforce global policies as well as local.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Commons:Blocking policy provides that the primary account may be blocked in cases where the user is "abusing multiple accounts to… evade blocks or other sanctions". Russavia may not be blocked, but he is evading the sanction of his WMF ban. Who originally applied the sanction is irrelevant; we routinely block sockpuppets/sockmasters of globally locked accounts, for example. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - Whether you're going to continue to whine about the global lock or not, Russavia is clearly violating the blocking policy here. To those enablers out there: if you don't like that the WMF has globally locked him out, you're more than welcome to follow him out of the door; you will not be missed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Question Hi @INeverCry: you're asking the Commons community to block Russavia's account locally. On their user page I can read : Russavia has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites, what will be exactly the difference between the both, is it two different things? If yes what will be exactly the difference for the work of the administrators? And what are the usual reasons for to block an user's account locally, I mean why a vote is needed here? -- Christian Ferrer 18:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ferrer. Look at the request. "I'm asking the Commons community to block Russavia's account locally to remove all question of whether or not local admins can deal with his socking. If Russavia is blocked locally, by normal procedure, then his editing with other accounts is block evasion, and collective and local enforcement would be normal. The real question here is whether or not the constructive (i.e, in themselves acceptable) contributions of a globally banned (i.e., globally locked by WMF action) should be, ipso facto, promptly deleted upon recognition, regardless of content, whether or not a Commons checkuser should take it upon himself to recognize and block the accounts, and whether or not other Commons administrators should do the same. Russavia is globally banned by the WMF, but not for specific stated reasons (that's policy for the WMF), and our community is divided on the legitimacy of that.

My view is that taking on the enforcement of that ban locally is not necessary, it's not required by the WMF (and could not be). In the past, local efforts to enforce global bans with local tools led to disruption and damage, where there was substantial community dissent; I was involved in some of those cases. In this case, Russavia allegedly used an abusive user name, which is, then, controversial, and some have supported blocking that user on that basis. But blocking the user is not the real question: any actual Russavia sock is going to be locked quickly by the WMF. The major issue is the deletion of all those files, and a secondary issue is the propriety of our Checkuser running the tool merely on the basis of a user resembling Russavia. I'm advising INeverCry to just drop it. There is no value to Commons from this. --Abd (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Abd: In first my user name is Christian Ferrer so please use it. And two, thanks very much for the explanation and your point of view but when I ask someyhing to INeverCry, I will be happy to have the answer from INeverCry as it is INeverCry who began this topic. Thanks -- Christian Ferrer 19:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Although I do not approve of the user name, if they are making positive contributions I suggest requiring a name change and keep moving. I understand that the checkuser tool may have identified this account as a sock of Russavia but I am familiar with that tool and I have no respect for its accuracy (no offense intended to the checkuser). The tool is crap and is easy to fool. I am also familiar with Russavia's technical ability to dodge the blocks and I am concerned with the waste of time this is going to be constantly hunting for socks. Its pointless and a waste of time. Additionally, I also have a problem with the top secret nature of the ban so IMO, as long as this community doesn't have a problem with these edits, then let the WMF deal with it. As long as they are contributing positively to this project, nothing more than a name change is required. If the WMF wants to spend their time hunting socks then let them do it. Reguyla (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support lowest drama option and nothing to be gained by doing anything else.Geni (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Geni: The advantage of not following along and implementing the block declared from On High is that we remind the WMF that if they are going to bypass people from this project in their decision making processes, they are going to have to do without their help in enforcement. We're all volunteers, and we will be used however we allow ourselves to be used. If you could use a sparrow as a hammer, every construction site in the world would be surrounded by birds with their heads bashed in. So it's a good thing for a sparrow that the limits of his nature prevent that, and it's a good thing for us if we turn out not to be willing pawns in any we-don't-get-to-know-why political ban of an editor. Wnt (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support ban. Yes, he'll ignore everything. However it's still worth making the vague effort. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Whatever circumstances that lead to this development were, this is definitely wrong way to solve problem and not appropriate user name. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support. If Russavia needs to be formally banned on Commons to start to put an end to this, so be it. This has dragged on for too long, and as long as some are able to hold the view that this is a WMF ban without local consent, it will continue to drag on. The simple fact is that Russavia has been abusing multiple accounts to evade sanctions (as mentioned above); that alone is grounds for a community ban. Including my vote, I count 15 in favour of a ban, 12 opposed; what form of majority is required for this motion to succeed? ColonialGrid (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Community ban will ignored too

There are some here who would like to present the Russavia problem as simply about this being a WMF global ban rather than a community one. The sad fact is that Russavia does not support community bans either. Evidence? Wikipedia, where Russavia is community banned, after being blocked countless times over many years. Russavia has a long (ongoing) record of serial sockpuppetry after being community banned

Take just one example: Airenthusiast, which edited over December/January and which is now blocked (by the community admins) for being a sockpuppet of Russavia, who was banned from Wikipedia by the community. How do those arguing about WMF blocks feel about a user who has no respect for community blocks either. Your argument has just evaporated. Is someone who creates User:WMFcansuckmyballs every likely to return to constructively edit on a project run by WMF? This kind of juvenile sexual taunting has no place on a project for grown-ups. Wonder why there are so few women editing here? You only have to look at Russavia and his chums. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to know what community is. Lately is a used definition when you need to create some sort of drama with Russavia. Sometimes Russavia is community, sometimes Russavia is a separate case. WMF has hidden causes of his lock perfectly logical reasons, however, secret. The secret is not good, when I was a child, my parents taught me that when the lid trash accumulate the toxic gases. You insist on using perfectly logical arguments however, based on a secret premise, which was blocking that user. Russavia probably is a bad person who made a joke that angered WMF and specifically Jimbo. Russavia probably a troll, Russavia probably loves scare small children. I'm sick of both drama and ridicules. Colin, I have observed that you are a person with too much free time, why not use this time to make a Zen garden bonsai ?. The fact is that I give a damn who is Russavia, what matters here is what made WMF, abusive, willful, spoiled and effectively destroying that reprehensible attitude, you call community using their power to violate democratic foundation and free information. --The_Photographer (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really sure what relevance any of that rant is, but I note the "democratic" word being used which is kinda amusing since we aren't one. Read the terms of use. Doesn't mention the word. We are not free to permit Russavia to edit here by taking a majority vote. There are significant limitations on what this community can do, and this is one of them. Deal with it. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Some people prefer to remain obedient and asleep. Kissing the hand of those who abuse them. If you were globally locked, you would accept blindly the decision by WMF ?. Surely yes. BTW, You can not use a personal matter with Russavia to attack the community. Should solve your personal problems with him in private. It is important to do this in relationships, but extreme cases of physical and psychological abuse. --The_Photographer (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Point of fact: this noticeboard is for Wikimedia Commons. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

And? -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You are taking this thread off-topic, in fact off this project entirely.

If you are going to continue to attack those you believe are among Russavia's "chums", please create new threads specifically for them and provide evidence to support whatever administrator action you are requesting. Rants and trollish personal sniping (such as "many admins would fail the Turing test") are disruptive to building a collegiate consensus. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but this section (about ignoring community ban on another WMF project) is entirely on-topic. The "collegiate consensus" line is getting old -- it was funny-ironic the first time, but we've all heard it now. -- Colin (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you two need a formal interaction ban with sanctions for breaching it, or do you think you can both stop with this behaviour, which similarly to a comment of yours from earlier, has no place on a project for grown-ups ? Nick (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nick, tell me is "Point of fact: this noticeboard is for Wikimedia Commons" a constructive addition to the perfectly-on-topic discussion of whether Russavia has any respect for community (and their bans/blocks). Once you've found your answer, you'll know what should be done to improve discussion here. This is simply a derailing technique. As I said, nice try. -- Colin (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I happily ignored Colin for 18 months after he went ballistic after managing to falsely twist an open question of possible systemic anti-LGBT bias into an allegation of homophobia. I have continued to avoid him, only recently responding to his direct allegations and questions. I'll go back to ignoring his trolling and baiting of me. I'm sure if he starts asking me questions or making more allegations that others can handle it, I strongly doubt he will ever attempt to take me to AN/U and it's not hard to see Colin has a chip on his shoulder that has little to do with the case in hand. --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturally, I dispute the "he went...homophobia" sentence, for reasons that are perfectly obvious to anyone who can recall the events. -- Colin (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Above, an administrator asked a question about blocking Russavia, which, if supported by the community after discussion, as indef, would be a community ban. The answer was, so far, about 11:6 against a ban. So Colin's question is hypothetical. Russavia has high ego strength. Such people do not take well to being banned if they perceive it as unfair, and if they believe that the community supports them. Russavia would likely believe that the real Wikipedia community supports him. So he would sock. He also believes that about Commons. This is my analysis, so far: this is an admin noticeboard. Opinion here will tend toward general admin opinion, not community opinion; they are not the same (that's normal). I have not researched how Russavia was banned on en.wiki, but admins tend toward "rule enforcement." However, in context, the question asked by Colin is hypothetical and is obviously disruptive. I'll repeat what I wrote above: it is disruptive to keep raising Russavia topics here. If there is a community decision to be made, it should be in a specific RfC, and given that he was an administrator, he deserves an open and clear process, not just a single request on AN/U. I would expect a wider process to turn into a train wreck, but from the sample here, a ban of Russavia is very unlikely. So I am not suggesting such be opened.

My recommendation is that Commons admins and others stop mentioning Russavia, unless there is some specific reason that furthers the Commons purpose. His lock-evading edits should be treated those of any anonymous editor, because they are effectively that. That is, we cannot communicate with the editor, because the editor will be locked by WMF action. If an anonymous account has an offensive username, it can and should be blocked on that basis. If it uploads copyvio, the same. Local checkusers should not waste time using that tool merely because a new editor resembles Russavia. Mass deletion of the uploads of any anonymous editor, when they appear to be useful, is disruptive and damaging, wasting user time (as we saw with one example the other day). I recommend a ban on mentioning Russavia, because it has proven, for the last couple of months, to do nothing but create disruption and incivility. WMF global bans are specifically not explained, yet we have editors here who try to explain them, sometimes violating policies themselves, such as edits that call other editors "pedophiles." On en.wiki, that would lead to an immediate block.

If someone believes that an account is violating TOS, they may certainly report that to the WMF. That is none of our business. Disrupting Commons, that's our business, but positive editing and useful uploads are not disruption. Administrators, in theory, serve the community, not their personal opinions. The community, so far, is making it clear that it does not want Russavia banned. If Russavia reads this, though, I'd recommend he not use any offensive usernames here, nor make any other provocative edits. The community could change its mind. --Abd (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

How can you, on one hand, say this poll doesn't reflect "community opinion" and on the other conclude (with incomplete maths) that it is "clear" what the community wants or does not want? The only thing one can conclude (as if we didn't know) is that the Russavia issue divides the community and there is no clear agreement among those who participate in this forum. Which reflects badly on Commons. The whole debate is pointless as (a) he's blocked already and isn't going to be unblocked and (b) he'd ignore the community anyway. This is one case where "want" is about as influential as child's plea for a later bedtime, and the tantrum that results reflects about the same level of maturity and acceptance of limits. -- Colin (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can do it because I have almost thirty years of experience with on-line process. (Yes, I was a moderator on w:The WELL in the 1980s.) We see, here, a sample of the community, likely a biased one, somewhat toward your views, Colin, and still it's majority-opposed to what you want. If the whole debate is pointless, why are you stirring it up? However, there was a real question asked, by INeverCry, and INC is being advised. That is what this is about. Your comments about Russavia might as well be designed to stir him up. Most people do not respond well to being called childish. --Abd (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The debate (locally blocking Russavia) is pointless precisely for the reasons I gave, which include this section. Believe it or not, there may be some people coming to this discussion who don't know Russavia's problems on multiple WMF projects: the opening question merely asks them to block a long-time user because of a (possibly) offensive sock name, which is small. Or some people with WMF-issues who are using this conflict as a means to stick-it-to-them, quietly ignoring the facts surrounding Russavia's reaction to community blocks and bans. Far from "stirring it up" I'm presenting clear evidence that people are supporting a user who holds us all in contempt and cares nothing for community opinion. -- Colin (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I am not "supporting the user." However, I do not see that the Commons community has asked Russavia to stop, and, personally, I have not asked him, either. I've suggested he be careful about possibly offensive user names. Speaking for myself and likely for a number of others here, whom, we would think, are part of "us all," I do not feel held in contempt by Russavia. And I'm seeing less regard for "community opinion" from Colin, than from Russavia. Regard for such opinion would have suggested not starting this provocative section, which he acknowledges is pointless. Instead, Colin is trying to "inform" others about Russavia's "problems" on multiple projects. That could have come up in a global ban discussion at meta, perhaps, but Russavia would probably not have qualified for a global ban discussion. An indef block is not a ban. See m:Global_bans#Criteria_for_global_bans. The WMF short-circuited the community-established global ban process. Perhaps it had good reason, but, quite simply, we don't know that. I do know that at least one or two of the recently globally banned users had not violated the TOS. Instead, there were other obvious possible reasons. The truth? I don't know. --Abd (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't acknowledge this section is pointless - it has a very clear point -- to demonstrate the contempt Russavia has for community. It happens use evidence from the Wikipedia community but there is no reason to believe he'd behave any differently should Commons community block him. Given your own Wikipedia ban/block/whatever I can understand you trying to claim this section is pointless, and to deflect attention away from its relevance. It's not convincing. -- Colin (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, since your final ban on Wikipedia was for community block evasion, which you helpfully recorded at wikiversityalso, I think you've exhausted any credibility and our discussion is now at an end. -- Colin (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

My response to Colin, I have archived to history, because it does not need to stand on this page. permanent link. --Abd (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents here. I do not think Russavia is showing contempt for this community. I do think they are showing contempt for a WMF block they feel is unfair and to me that is a big difference. It may well be justified, we don't know, but I also know that he played a prank on Jimbo the Wikipedia God king that pissed him off royally and I think its entirely possible that Jimbo asked his buddies to block Russavia for no other reason that being an annoyance. Reguyla (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

COM:AGF is a policy here. So your comment like "its entirely possible" has little value unless supported with evidence. Jee 02:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It has as much value as assuming the checkuser program is correct, which is notoriously untrustworthy and knowing that Russavia is known to use an extremely wide variation of methods to connect. It also goes as far as trusting Jimbo who has himself shown a history of questionable decisions (like the reason he no longer works for the WMF I might add). So there is plenty of AGF to go around here and AGF is not a suicide pact. It goes both ways and I have not seen anything to give me the impression that any of these edits were not done in good faith or aren't beneficial. As far as I can see, they were deleted out of spite and a foolish blind faith in the WMF who has shown repeated mistakes themselves. Reguyla (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Is disruptive the creations of socks to re-upload deleted files without a valid reason?

I noticed some problems with this thread, and specifically the actions of INeverCry against the Russavia's contributions. As The_Photographer mentioned, removing unilaterally files in use and in scope (in the same way as WMF blocked Russavia) is more disruptive than making socks to evade an unilateral and unfair block. The Criteria for Speedy deletion does not mention that the files uploaded by blocked users should be speedy deleted as is.

I  Support the block of the socks, and I still  Oppose the Block of Russavia (unless he continues). But I  Strong oppose the unilateral decision of INeverCry against the Russavia's contributions (as like the WMF actions against him), because these are disruptive actions that affects the whole Commons and other WMF projects.

Therefore, I thing the files in scope (and specially in use) uploaded by blocked users or socks (specially blocked by WMF) should not be speedely deletedThen, I'll propose in the Village Pump an update to the Deletion Policy in order to mention that.

Unfortunatelly, the WMF did not considered the huge problem: The Community division, that is the most disruptive of all. I are not actually mentioning the actions of the WMF, Russavia or INeverCry, but the side effects that all this mess caused on the whole community. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This is simply a blatant abuse of admin flag by "INeverCry". Really unbelievable. How much of blind hate some users must have to perform such actions? And what comes next, please? Did you btw know that the gadget "VisualFileChange.js" allows any admin to perform deletion of thousands of files from a particular category within a couple of minutes (sic!)? No wonder if some of the Russavia-hating admins comes one day and eliminates hundreds or thousands of freely licensed, correctly categorized and widely used files that way. How naive I was to think that user blocks aren't self-purpose! Apparently, some of them very well are. I will not require any sanctions against "INeverCry" because it is just useless; to fight against the WMF lobby is like to fight against the wall. I'm pretty sure similar abuse will come. Really, really poor. --A.Savin 18:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

INeverCry clearly believes he is doing the right thing. And he's asked, here, which is totally proper, for a start. My position, so far, is that Commons community-granted tools should not be used to checkuser, on own initiative, apparent Russavia socks, rather more conservative checkuser policy should be followed, and then, not to block or delete solely on that basis, absent community support. It's divisive and disruptive and, as pointed out, clearly harms the purpose of Commons. Until INC is clearly advised by the community, though, I consider that he is acting within discretion. And then, because it's obviously been leading to disruptive discussions, he asked the question, again a sign of one who knows that administrators serve the community.

The hopelessness expressed by A.Savin is self-verifying. "Fighting against the WMF lobby" is a framing of the dispute that makes the WMF, and WMF supporters, into an enemy. Bad Idea. Rather, we need to focus on the goals that we share, among ourselves and with the WMF, even if we may not always agree on how to further those goals. The WMF has freedom of action, as it legally must. So ... let the WMF handle and be responsible for their own decisions, that's the argument I'm making here. INC is a volunteer, who works hard for this project, and does not deserve "sanctions." He deserves support and guidance. --Abd (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose out-of-process deletions of useful content. There are two very marginal claims in this particular case:

• The claim that by being global-blocked, an editor can't "really" release his contributions to CC and so the information is all not really usable by us. This is dangerous because it undermines the reusablity of ALL Commons content, because who knows what uploaders are secret sockpuppets of banned editors? If someone deliberately tries to make us think he's given us a release, doesn't that mean we can rely on it for legal purposes? I think the argument should not hold; if it does, maybe we should all call it a day, abandon this project, and try to find a way to volunteer for The Pirate Bay.
• The fear that "EcuadorPutas" is offensive to some of the people illustrated, especially women from Ecuador. But the event apparently used the "Putas" name, they were present at it, so... it doesn't seem that bad, especially when it's listed as the name of an uploader and not even as a filename. If the username were kept and reused for other events things might get a bit different, but it's still a pretty marginal claim.

For these reasons I say there should be no further deletions, and the person who did the deleting owes us reuploads of those Flickr files under his own username to set things right. Wnt (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Too late. INeverCry already deleted every single one of them. I personally wish they would have waited until after this discussion had ended but oh well. If anyone here thinks they are not just going to resubmit more images they are kidding themselves. All we are doing is making more work for ourselves. Reguyla (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry guys; unless my comment above is legally proved to be untrue, INC can block any sock of a WMF banned user on sight and nuke his/her whole edits including uploads without even check whether they are "useful" or not. This is because any edit that is not binding to wmf:TOU is dangerous to keep not only for for WMF but also for maintenance volunteers too here. Note that only editor/uploader is responsible for his mistakes per DMCA. Ande here it is a WMF banned user who can no longer make an agreement with WMF. Ask the legal before making another nonsense comment here. Jee 01:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning only says that you have to agree to the terms of use and license content. It doesn't say that you have to be able to make agreements with the WMF. It also doesn't say anything about others being able to prevent you from agreeing to the terms of use; the only requirement is that you agree to the terms of use. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • "you have to agree to the terms of use" = agreement with you and WMF on ToU. I didn't mention any agreement other than this. See wmf:Terms_of_Use#12._Termination. The only service available to a banned user is "you may still access our public pages for the sole purpose of reading publicly available content on the Projects." His existing contributions are still under ToU too.
    • If he still can edit as far as those contributions are good, what is the meaning in banning a user? Then why we prevent Pieter Kuiper from making "valid DRs" against Fae's uploads? Jee 02:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
      • From what I can tell, wmf:Terms of Use#12. Termination means that, should the WMF choose to lock your account, the terms of use will be terminated with respect to that account, but if you then create a new account, it would seem that you enter a new relationship with the WMF with respect to that account, separate from the relationship associated with the former account, unless I am missing something. Also, I'm wondering if it would be legally possible to prevent someone from agreeing to the terms of use... There was a case in Sweden where the court ruled that it wasn't possible to prohibit thieves from entering shops before they had actually stolen something, on the grounds that a shop is a public place to which you may not restrict access. I would then argue that Commons possibly also is a 'public place' in that sense. I am not sure what the laws of other countries say. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm not remembering the exact words; but what I saw in that copy of the mail someone posted publicly WM Office clearly mentioned that this ban is for the person; not for any particular account and is applicable to any new account created or edits from IPs too. We are not lawyers; so better consult legal before making a firm stand. But until then, there is nothing wrong in INC's actions. Jee 03:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

At this stage, the ONLY disruptive user i see is INC, now that i see what Russavia was trying to upload, the username does seem "justified" ... take a look at this set of images which he uploaded (now deleted) [12] and read the banners the people are holding, for those that can't, here is one of the images he uploaded. Its understandable why he was blocked, but to delete "those uploads" is IMO, an abuse of administrator privileges. INC should restore all of those images cause, they MOST DEFINITELY qualify to be on commons under our licensing policy. At commons, we ban/block users, not delete their edits/uploads which do not violate our licensing policy ..--Stemoc 02:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If a user uploads files using toollabs:flickr2commons, note that it is always possible to view the uploaded files, provided that the default file names are used. Take File:CICLEADA BINACIONAL PRESIDENTES ECUADOR y COLOMBIA, III GABINETE PRESIDENCIAL, RIOVERDE, 15 DICIEMBRE 2015 (15844091499).jpg, for example. "(15844091499)" at the end means that the user tried to upload flickrphoto:15844091499. That is, take the number at the end and add the interwiki prefix "flickrphoto:" in order to see the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and his first 22 uploads was from that set and if INC had bothered to actually check what was uploaded instead of blindly deleting everything, he would have seen that not only the images, but the username he used was justified. This isn't the first time INC had "goofed" it up, I remember fixing his mistake once across wikimedia last year, ironically, with the help of Russavia. I'm not sure what grudge INC has against Russavia but for god's sake, GROW THE EFF UP..this isn't some primary school/kindy where you go running to the teacher screaming "russy, pulled my hair" .....If i wanted to be in a community with cry babies, i would stick with enwiki ...--Stemoc 03:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

INeverCry doesn't have a grudge against Russavia. INeverCry is a "by the books" kind of guy who believes that blocks shouldn't be evaded. He's known for playing "whack-a-mole" with sockpuppeteers. His belief in possessing a duty to find and block sockpuppets has pushed him to exhaustion, and that exhaustion caused him to retire from Commons a few times. I know because I'm one of the curators of the "We miss you" page. INeverCry got along just fine with Russavia prior to the locking. I don't believe that a grudge exists. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

+1. We were in different poles in many times; but that fact never prevented me to approach this user when admin help is needed. He was perfectly neutral in all cases I had deal with him. A recent case was about User:Biopics where I argued for consideration as he is an ex admin and valuable contributor. But his firm decision was opposite. In most of his actions, we can see his charming move to protect the project. Jee 15:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

+1 From me too. I don't agree with him deleted all of the uploaded content, but I don't think he has a grudge against Russavia either. Reguyla (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have exactly the same impression about INC. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Its time to close this discussion

I am fighting the urge to do it myself but its really time to close this discussion. The user (and this new account) has been globally blocked by the WMF, INeverCry has deleted all the uploaded content and this community does not have the ability nor will frankly to undo a WMF action. As such, there is little value in keeping this discussion open longer. Whether this community chooses to ban Russavia is irrelevant, they are still banned and there is nothing to make us think it would have any more effect than the current ban. I further recommend that future socks are identified to the WMF to be dealt with and as long as the account is making positive contributions and isn't being disruptive, as is the case with this account name, we simply ignore it and let the WMF deal with it. It's their block and their responsibility, especially since they cannot or will not tell this community why or allow them any say. Reguyla (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Second. This thread isn't going to overturn the status quo. This thread won't result in Russavia's former account being unlocked or in Russavia being community banned. Continuing is pointless. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Stefan4

I believe this user is harassing me. In the past, Stefan4 has made highly questionable comparisons regarding Commons:Threshold of originality. For example:

• In this DR, Stefan4 claimed that hand-drawn signatures (which as we know, handwriting is unique from person to person which is why forensic analysis of handwriting is admissible in courts of law) is equal too File:Logo del Partido Cristiano de Austria.png which is very obviously basic text.
• In this DR, Stefan4 claims that A simple border is not a "simple shape", which means they were referring to the circle around the Republican Party's elephant logo and not the Republican Elephant itself, and then as a follow-up response tried to claim that the same circle in question is equal in complexity to the w:File:Prince logo.svg.

Shortly after my pointing out their questionable judgement in similarity of complexities, they nominated several of my own uploads (in less than 1 hour) for deletion saying they have "bogus licences". I consider this an obvious case of harassment and retribution. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) As explained at COM:TOO#Austria, simple text is copyrighted in Austria, as demonstrated by the supreme court of Austria. I'm not sure why you are trying to dispute that.

I am not sure why you are saying that "a simple border" (the one at the bottom of page 1 of [13], described as a "registered work", i.e. something copyrighted) appears around the Republican Party elephant.

When you claim that my judgements are questionable, then the natural thing for me to do is obviously to look at your own judgements to mention some in my reply in the deletion discussion, and then I immediately found some that I mentioned there. When a file with a bogus copyright tag is discovered, the obvious follow-up action is obviously to nominate the file for deletion, and then I also took a look at a category containing the file and found a few others.

If you search for 'Republican logo' at www.copyright.gov (limited to visual materials), you find lots of copyright registrations for logos containing elephants: 'Elephant with rising sun' (described as 'logo', VAu000211134), 'Elephant logo' (VAu000387572), 'Republican Women Logo ("Elephant-RW")' (VA0001772037) etc., implying that there are plenty of copyrighted Republican Party logos containing elephant symbols. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your own words speak for themselves. In the Austria case, your argument wasn't that basic text is copyrightable under Austrian law, but rather than a hand-drawn signature which was found copyrighted under Austrian Law is similar in complexity to a logo which consists solely of basic text. In the case of the GOP logo, I have already pointed out what you actually said. I think you're deliberately misleading in your TOO comparisons and I think it irked you so much that I pointed it out that you chose to nominate my uploads for deletion in revenge. Your choice of timing (less than 1 hour) is at minimum questionable. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In the Austrian case, my argument wasn't that a logo which consists solely of basic text is copyrightable. My argument was that a logo which consists of careful positioning of text and shapes may be copyrightable for the same reason as simple moving of a pen is copyrigtable in the cases about handwritten text. Don't claim that I have said something which I haven't said. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone can read for themselves what you actually said at the time and know what you meant. You said that, and I shall quote, I don't really see why it would be more creative to write a word by hand than to write some text inside a yellow C. You clearly compared a person's handwriting to a text logo. I don't care how you spin it, they are not comparable. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I clearly compared a person's handwriting (something very simple, made using hand movements you've made thousands of other times, requiring no creativity) by choosing an unusual location for writing a few letters. Nothing else. Clearly, the former was sufficiently creative according to Austrian courts. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If that was the case then, you should have made such an argument then which you did not. I've caught you in at least 3 different cases making TOO comparisons that don't make sense and other users (including admins) have agreed with me every single time and none have agreed with you in any example. I think it irks you. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

'If that was the case then, you should have made such an argument then' - which is precisely what I did: 'I don't really see why it would be more creative to write a word by hand than to write some text inside a yellow C'. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Your words are very clear, you say that you see no reason why handwriting (which is unique from person to person) is any more complex than something that uses simple and publicly-available font. You are in essence saying you believe that handwriting and simple fonts are of the same complexity and I think you will be very hard-pressed to find anyone who agrees with you on that. It's even worse with the GOP logo, you're saying you think a circle is the same complexity as the Prince logo which could never be considered basic geometry and is a highly complex mixture of shapes. You're either being disingenous, or you just don't care at all. In any case, nominating my uploads within an hour of my pointing this is and calling my works' into question as "bogus" is so very obviously an attempt at revenge and it's pathetic. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Per COM:BP, "Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment." Even if misguided. Revent (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, there have been numerous cases where users have been sanctioned here for harassment of other users, including following their edits or revenge deletion nominations. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes; en:Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." I know "this is not Wikipedia" fans will jump in; but Commons lacks many good policies like en:WP:INVOLVED. Jee 14:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, there's nothing perceived here. It would be nice if we could just reduce it to my imagination but everyone can see what the motivation was. My files in question have been here for months and I have never had my road signs questioned like this before, least of all by Stefan4. This isn't the first time, or even the second time, I've pointed out Stefan4's strange TOO comparisons. this response in particular, I find telling. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Fry1989, you state that Stefan4 is 'harassing you' because he nominated some of your files for deletion. Looking at the arguments at that road sign DR I seriously doubt they should be deleted, but by your own statement Stefan is correct that they are not properly licensed. Even if you think he's harassing you, by Commons policy simply looking at a person's contributions for policy violations isn't harassment. You don't make a case here that he's harassing you after claiming that, but instead go into rehashing a pile of arguments you've had with him. From what I read, you both have misunderstandings about copyright. Revent (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The question for me is not whether the nomination itself is grounded in proper reasoning (I disagree, but you appear to believe it is so I will leave that question open), but rather who made the nomination and their choice in timing. Some of the images in question have been on Commons for months, and I created a sub-page for them making it very public these were my uploads and works. I find it extremely suspicious that Stefan4 chose to nominate these files of my within an hour of my pointing out (for at least the 3rd time if not 4th) their questionable TOO comparisons which I find deliberately dishonest as Stefan4 keeps trying to make them even though they are always rejected both by everyone else and by common sense. For me there is no question this is about revenge, I have seen this behaviour before and I can spot it like someone can smell a fart in a lift. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the impression the 'deletion request' is grounded in proper reasoning, I just think he was correct about there being a licensing issue. Regardless, though, even if he was motivated by what you think, I very seriously doubt any administrator is going to sanction (or even warn) him on the basis of a single DR.... it's not a 'pattern' of harassment, and it's a bit much to leap to that from a single event, even if the timing was... let's say, convenient. Filing a single DR (even if he was looking for something because he was offended, which I am not claiming) isn't exactly stalking you. Revent (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't claim any stalking or pattern, and I don't see the need to define a pattern either. For me there only needs to be a motive and timing, and for me that bar has been set. I am not one to go whining about harassment often, but this is so obvious a case to me that I was forced to do so. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Renisance2K - recall

Renisance2K (talk · contribs) As already mentioned above here -> #User:Renisance2K. The user has uploaded now for the fourth time a copyrighted image here. -> File:AnnWolfe.jpg. The picture was taken from here. --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  17:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Two weeks block because i don't think that a three day/one week blocks help (every week a upload). --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

More Paul Easter sockpuppets

User:Juyorgro, User:Grino79 and User:Gyhuo88 all appear to be Category:Sockpuppets of Paul Easter, uploading the same old publicity shots of Easter as their "own work", for use in sock-written autobiographies on Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

New account User:Housepainter177 is now uploading the same photo and a DVD cover. --McGeddon (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:HOT SAUCE MOM

Resolved

This user appears to be uploading material intended to disrupt wikimedia projects. See for example File:FAVONIAN IN REAL LIFE.jpg, apparently intended to target User:Favonian. Further, the media file File:Abusive mom on the Dr. Phill Show.webm appears to be a copyright violation. The last image they have uploaded is File:FUCK YOU.png. At a minimum, the first two references media files need to be deleted, and perhaps the third. What to do with the user...? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well that was quick. All files deleted and the user has been blocked. Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Probleme mit User:HHubi

Hat seine Disk Seite komplett gelöscht und somit alles entfernt! Obwohl er ja auf der de:wp wegen ständigen Verstosses gegen das Urherberrecht gesperrt wurde, furwerkt er hier immer noch herum. Ich habe jetzt schon mal auf ein Dutzend seiner "Werke" wegen URV LA gestellt, wer weiß wie viele da noch zu finden sind. -- Centenier (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and dubious contributions by User:Popolon

User:Popolon has falsely accused me at least four times of vandalism: 1 2 3 4.

Several of his editions are original research with the aim of presenting images for what they aren't, e.g.:

• Creation of a non-existing Tibetan flag
• Edit warring and manipulation of sources in order to support claim that this would be a Mongolian (later changed to Yugur) yurt
• Edit warring and manipulation of sources in order to support claim that this would be a Mongolian (later changed to Yugur) yurt - second picture
• Assumptions on what would be a HK or Canton flag...
• Wrong location and/or wrong village name (at fr.wikipedia)

Can an admin warn User:Popolon for his repeated personal attacks and advise him to properly source his asssetions and to stop edit warring? Thanks,--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin ask to this user to stop to remove information], where there is evidence for himself than these information are true... What is the exact term if this isn't vandalism ? He made lot of edits like this on fr: en: and commons in few month of activities. Is there a mean to block him if it continues ?Popolon (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating a flag for Tibet based on a picture from a chocolate manufacturer from Dresde... This leaves me speechless. Pleclown (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a serie of cards by the same manufacturer, all are matching historical flags (look at the Category:Tell (Chocolate)), like the korean one, matching the flag before of Korea before 1905. There are other on the flickr account from around the world that match this time flags. The Tibet one match the time of the well documented Tibet under Qing administrative rule (1720 - 1912) Popolon (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The sameway the user 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 change first (see history) the name mongolian to tibetan, with comment, this is a tent made by hui made thing for picnic, and after that, claims that's a Tibetan tent, I addded on Yugurs (a turkic-mongolian people that uses both tibetan (due to their religion), tukic, mongolian (due to their origins) and han (as do mongolians) motifs (I tried to comment as accurate I can used motifs here)), uses mongolian, turkic and han languages) page some links to article that point out that Yugur uses this kind of tents 27 march[14] (Links:[15] [16] [17]), he then only removed on english one, where I didn't added links on 30 march[18]. In fact this kind of tant, is both used by mongolians of Tibet and Yugurs. The user added a link to a page at the time and removed the picture from en: Yugur page the 30 march, with comment this is tibetan one, the document in the facts describes Tibetan, Mongolian and Manchus tents, and pointout that the motifs are typically mongolian one[19](here an "asar" after the document, with mixture of Mongolian/han chinese/hindou and tibetans motifs).Popolon (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You are misquoting me, shall I add it to the list of personal attacks?--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What is misquoted here ?Popolon (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll let you use google translate to see the difference between tent made by hui made thing for picnic, and after that, claims that's a Tibetan tent and "Il ne s'agit pas de yourtes mongoles, mais de tentes à structure métallique que l'on retrouve dans différentes régions de Chine, comme au Tibet. Ces tentes ne sont pas caractéristiques de la culture mongole, et leur structure est généralement produite par des soudeurs Hui et parfois Han. Dans le cas de la présente photographie, l'ornementation est de style tibétain et n'est pas à proprement parler d'essence mongole (bien que les deux soient étroitement liés, cela va de soi)".--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You in fact said that on fr.wikipedia about this picture here : [20] "(Comme déjà indiqué, il ne s'agit pas de yourtes mongoles mais de tentes à structure métallique (généralement produite par des soudeurs Hui) que l'on retrouve parfois dans les estivages dotés d'un accès routier et dans les sites de pique-nique.)", so I don't misquote you and you are unfair in your informations here. Popolon (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You are introducing another quote, which seems to demonstrate your lack of understanding of French grammar. As in the first quote, I was only referring to the Hui for usually producing the metallic structure, not the tents and their decoration. In the above sentence, if I was referring to the tents, I should have written "produites" with an "s" in good French. You will find very few ethnic Tibetans working in welding or slaughterhouse jobs (mainly for cultural/religious reasons), and there has been since very long a very complementary relationship between Tibetans and especially Hui that have specialised in these activities (among others). Since my first intervention I wrote that these tents are not typically Mongol and that their decoration are rather of Tibetan style. I didn't deviate since. If I highlighted the metallic structure of these tents (in the new link you have provided), it was to let you understand that they were not typical nomadic tents (normally using wooden poles) and that your latest addition in the article "Nomadisme" was not appropriate. You will sometimes find these tents, I repeat, in summer pasturing camps with road access and at picnic sites (a very popular activity with locals). I may add at festivals, as temporary housing during the construction of new houses or for migrant workers, and even sometimes for tourist camps. Is it possible to put an end to these distractions and come back to my request: repeated personal attacks and using original research with the aim of presenting images for what they aren't?--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

But you added in a revert a document that says that's typcaly mongol motifs... That was the reason I called this one Mongolian, I reverted the name to mongol, as Yugur here use the same motifs than mongolians (chinese shou symbols and typically tuco-mongol vine and deer motifs in angles).Popolon (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• User:6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 collapsed the following report and suggestions from me. A summary:
• Both users are to be warned, Popolon for terming what could be good-faith edits "vandalism," and 6-A04 for tendentious argument on this page, as can be seen above, elsewhere, and in the collapsed section. I will warn both on their user talk pages; it would be useful if an administrator confirms this, but I do not believe that any block is, as yet, necessary, until and unless there are violated talk page warnings. --Abd (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• Warned Popolon. Warned 6-A04 --Abd (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Remarks from Abd

These users are debating what properly should not be debated on Commons. As an example, File:Qinghai.Yugur_yourte.jpg is a photograph taken by Popolon. We would normally respect the description of a photographer as to the thing photographed, and especially as to the location. Any of these things could be in error. Because we don't want misleading filenames, consensus should be obtained on a name, and it can be moved. If a description is misleading, additional information -- or allegations -- may be added, but Commons is not an encyclopedia, and descriptions need not be verifiable. These users are now debating encyclopedia content, also out of place here. This report was filed by 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38, a new user, CentralAuth. Users here should not be sanctioned based on behavior on other wikis, but it is obvious from the above that an fr.wiki conflict was brought here. See his fr.wiki user talk page in tendentious argument with Popolon, who had warned him on March 18. This does not look like a new user to me. 6-A04 also filed a request on fr.wiki (permanent link) that Populon be blocked, creating walls of text, vastly detailed. And referring to Commons edits for some of his evidence. That this may not be a new user was noticed on fr.wiki as well. That someone new would come in swinging so hard is very unusual. In the other direction, Populon was uncivil; calling 6-A04 a "vandal" was unnecessary and inflammatory, and there was revert warring on both sides. Central Auth for Popolon: a trusted user here, and with substantial contributions, and appears to have a clean block log everywhere. Neither user has been warned on Commons. For both users: I see no warnings of the other user, from either of you, here. (Popolon did warn 6-A04 on fr.wiki.) I see no clear effort to negotiate differences. I see 6-A04 ready to ask for the other user to be blocked, instead of asking for assistance in resolving a dispute. For his part, Populon returns in kind. 6-A04 looks like he may have constructive contributions to make, though I have some questions about his uploads, "own work" with apparently no photography date and no metadata. But I'm not expert on that. These users should be warned, that is, guided toward civility and collaboration. I will do so later. --Abd (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Hello Abd, sorry for the long reply, but I believe some points you raise are not totally accurate. As an example, File:Qinghai.Yugur_yourte.jpg is a photograph taken by Popolon. We would normally respect the description of a photographer as to the thing photographed, and especially as to the location. Because we don't want misleading filenames, consensus should be obtained on a name, and it can be moved. I have never disputed the location of this picture, but its misleading filename. I've justified it on the talk page and have requested the file to be renamed, which was done by another editor. After that, Popolon renamed it no less than three times, first to Qinghai.Tentes mongoles.jpg, then to Qinghai.Yugur yourte.jpg and last to Qinghai.Mongolian yurt.jpg. A neutral name would be "Decorated tent near lake Qinghai". This report was filed by 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38, a new user I am not a new contributor, and have made it clear on my presentation page. I've closed my previous account (which made it possible to identify me personally) after I received some threats by e-mail. I've no record of any sanction in any wiki/commons project and have not worked on the same page with my new user name. Users here should not be sanctioned based on behavior on other wikis, but it is obvious from the above that an fr.wiki conflict was brought here. Indeed, I initially filed a request against Popolon on fr.wikipedia, but was told that I should not include claims related to commons at fr.wikipedia. The present request does respect the separation between wikis, as I have only mentioned his personal attacks and problematic editions at commons. And referring to Commons edits for some of his evidence. If you look at the history, I have reformulated my request and removed all links to commons. To the opposite Popolon is referring to other wiki projects in his argumentation (as well as Abd, btw). Popolon: a trusted user here, and with substantial contributions, and appears to have a clean block log everywhere. Neither user has been warned on Commons Popolon may not have been warned, but his track record is not completely clean either. He seems to believe other contributors are after him ("he choosen for vengence to ask to delete") or have hidden agenda (" I suppose this is more for political reason". It is also not very "elegant" from his side to re-introduce as an IP contributor points that were disputed three year earlier. For both users: I see no warnings of the other user, from either of you, here. I believe I have made it very clear on different edit summaries and talk pages that calling me a vandal is unacceptable (for example here), and have remained patient and civil in my exchange with Popolon (here another discussion) while Popolon was inflammatory. I see no clear effort to negotiate differences I do believe that I have created several talk page to discuss editorial differences (like here and here), just to be called a vandal knowing nothing about what I am writing about… I see 6-A04 ready to ask for the other user to be blocked. For his part, Populon returns in kind. I asked an admin to "warn User:Popolon for his repeated personal attacks and advise him to properly source his asssetions and to stop edit warring". It is actually Popolon who referred to possibly blocking me, while I have never mentioned this term. I have some questions about his uploads, "own work" with apparently no photography date and no metadata. But I'm not expert on that. I have precisely removed the metadata for not being exposed to further threats (see above). All pictures are my own work, and I have inserted the date I have first published them, as per upload template. If you have some questions, you are welcome to ask them but shouldn't this be done somewhere else as in the present request? These users should be warned, that is, guided toward civility and collaboration. I believe that I have remained polite even when exposed to violent personal attacks.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC) 6-A04, one of the fast tracks to being blocked is filling AN/U with long and tendentious "corrections." I'm not going to give you a detailed explanation, but a word to the wise: stop it. Just stop. Let this request go away. If my recommendation is followed, the worst you will see here is a warning. If you continue, I predict a block, sooner or later. Start cooperating with Popolon, and if you need assistance in that, ask for it. Read meatball:DefendEachOther. You respond to dicta, of no serious consequence, as if it were an attack, against which you must defend yourself. Popolon should not have called your editing vandalism, but that was not a "violent personal attack," it was simply an error. From enwiki, Crying "Personal attack" can be a personal attack. None of this improves the project. --Abd (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC) To be honest, that is not the kind of analysis I was expecting from an admin. If repeated false accusations of vandalism is "simply an error" but reporting them is a "personal attack", then I may have seriously misunderstood the rules of the community. Sorry for that. Thanks if you can at least close this request in good form so that we move to something else. Regards,--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC) I'm not an admin. I can't close this, I've commented in it. Most closures here are by admins, who may or may not act. Fact was stated (from enwiki, what "can be.") Shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise don't. Tendentious argument will continue to seek trivial errors in what is seen as opposition. If we only get -- or accept -- the analysis we expect, we can learn nothing. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much for your valuable analysis of my cross-wiki behaviour. I understand now that you have first hand experience on the best way to be blocked. I'll try to follow your advice. Regards, --6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Error report

It is impossible to find anything on this site that tells a reader in a simple and clear fashion how to submit an error report. I finally found this page after nearly thirty minutes of searching, to no avail. The site seems to have how-tos on everything except that - as important and fundamental as an error correction would surely be! I found the runaround experience quite frustrating. How does Wikipedia Commons hope to receive feedback from readers on errors if they can't even find out how?

So, I shall report an error in this message, but then that's it - if that doesn't do it, then it's Wikimedia Commons loss, not mine. The photograph on this page is not of Archbishop John Hughes - it is a photo, and a common one, of John Cardinal McCloskey, his successor, who was the first U. S. prelate made cardinal, by Pope Leo XIII in 1875.And I can't even tell you which page - except it was a photograph labelled as Archbishop John Hughes - and it wasn't; that's how hard a time I've had trying to do what, one would think, should be simple to achieve.

And, by the way, when I tried to register, I got an error message, saying that that email address was already taken; then when I tried to enter it, I got another error message saying, in effect, that that email address was not on record and I needed to register first. Nice, eh? So, next time I see an error here, you can bet I won't be the one to correct it. I wonder how many of your readers have had the same experience; I'll leave that speculation to the people responsible for this idiocy. And now I can't even find a "send" button! So, I'll click the "save page" button; if that doesn't do it, then too bad. And thanks for the info on Wikimedia but not for this absence of clarity and help.

Robert Taylor <email>

Hi Robert, thanks for your message, sorry you found the reporting process confusing. The Commons categories for the two people involved are category:John Hughes (Archbishop) and category:John McCloskey. I take it you are saying that the files with NARA in their filename (e.g. File:Archbishop John Hughes - NARA - 526780.jpg) are actually John McCloskey? He certainly looks like this one labelled as McCloskey: File:John Cardinal McCloskey - Brady-Handy.jpg. --99of9 (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

«I can't even tell you which page»? Why? You don’t have browser history? No browser address bar? Cannot locate a tab (present on every page) that says "discussion"? Reminds me of that adage about those who cannot dance blaming the pavement for being eneven. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Might as well resolve this here.

Source photo, National Archives 52038, source for photo used on w:en:John Hughes (archbishop of New York). Seems like the same person as File:John Hughes burial - Brady-Handy.jpg

Then there are National Archives 526780, and National Archives 530239. These appear to me to be a different person, but the National Archives has labelled them as "Archbishop John Hughes, ca. 1860 - ca. 1865," as with the first image.

Then we have Library of Congress 01642, "Archbishop McCloskey." This is the same person as NARA 526780, looks like the same sitting, perhaps, except the cloak appears different. Library of Congress 3c10007 seems to be the same man, younger. This is the same man, from an 1878 book. There are many images on the Library of Congress site for Cardinal McCloskey.

My conclusion is that the National Archive has mislabelled two images of McCloskey, 526780 and 530239 as being Hughes. this Catholic source has a Brady photo of John McCloskey. We don't have it. Looking for it here it is. Smithsonian Institution. Now at File:L mccloskey.jpg. We could probably get a better image from their archivist, with whom we have excellent relations, right?

We are not the only ones to be sucked in by the National Archives error: Catholichistory.net.

Here is more of the real John Hughes: PBS. About.com gets it right. Catholic New York has another photo (painting?). Of course, Wikipedia got it right as well, probably from the beginning. For the first image file added to the John Hughes article in 2006, I found this nifty log entry from Wikipedia: [21]. The image was probably a lower-res version of what was later linked, scraped from the web, perhaps, but not necessarily copyvio.

There are a million stories in the Wikicity. Now, how do we tell the NARA? --Abd (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am filing a report to NARA through the on-line form at [22]. --Abd (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this was my conclusion yesterday. I reported it at Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting which is linked from the file description page, but seems to be deserted (last archive in January 2013), @Dominic: . --99of9 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Unauthentic portrait

Maurice Flesier constantly reverts the portrait of the ottoman emperor "Yildirim I. Bayezid Han". The picture I want to use is the original one hanging in Topkapi Palace in Istanbul and in the shrine/tomb of Yildirim Han Hz. , plus ottoman emperors did not wear crowns (as in the picture Maurice Flesier uploaded).

As you can see the portrait was reverted many times. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Y%C4%B1ld%C4%B1r%C4%B1mBayezit4.jpg

And now I got this message from him...

Can I learn reason to revert of Bayezid I portrait? Next edit war, you will be reported on COM:AN!

"I hope the category I chose and every thing is alright, this is my first activity here and I must say its very complicated. My only intention is to keep things authentic and I have really big interest in ottoman history and there are many western portraits of ottoman emperors to discredit them as they were enemies back in that time and the pictures from Maurice are such"

Firo1453 (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The initial version of File:YıldırımBayezit4.jpg should not have been overwritten by any other version of the painting. The other versions should have been uploaded under different filenames. This gives the projects the freedom to choose the version they prefer. --Túrelio (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I have created File:Yavuz Sultan Selim.jpg as this file was being flagged on User:Fæ/SignificantReverts. Someone may wish to flesh out the details, especially better sourcing, or create more variations for the different uploaded versions as needed. --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm wrong there appear to be five separate images involved. I think the best solution would be to separate them into individual files, and let individual projects choose which they prefer. If nobody else wants to volunteer, I am willing to do the separation when I come back from my "vacation" on 12 April, because my internet connection is poor at the moment. Green Giant (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well done on the identification. Better filenames will be needed too. --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestions on filenames are welcome, otherwise if it is left to me it will be quite literally File:Bayezid_I-a.jpg to File:Bayezid_I-e.jpg. :) Green Giant (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is quite a mess. The file is in very wide use. So as not to cause massive disruption, some process will need to find what file to keep with the same name. Forking will then be done, but consensus should be found on what name to keep the same. I would think of looking on major wikis and finding what was the current version when the image was first added, then prefer that (or a version that is agreed upon as an improvement.) If local discussion can be read, there might also be a clue. --Abd (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Request from Eugene a

• Please remove my nickname and my page from Wiki Commons, because I do not want to participate in this nonsense. I uploaded a lot of medieval painting, but incompetent participants removed this pictures. I'm tired engaged in meaningless things. Thank you. Eugene a. inadvertently removed? valid request from the user, 20:32, 8 April 2015, restored by Abd (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC).

Looking at the user talk page before he blanked it, what I see is a user who made some (minor) mistakes, and who did not receive adequate guidance and support. Very common.

One of the last admin actions relating to this user was the deletion of File:Virgin_and_Child_with_Saints_1370-80,_National_Gallery_of_Canada,_Ottawa.jpg. The deletion might be technically proper, but the user's work got pushed under the bus, which can seem completely crazy. This may have been a recreated file from a previous deletion request, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:28 Jacopo di Cione Triptych of the Virgin and Child Enthroned with Saints 1370-80 (76.5 x 69.2 cm) National Gallery of Canada, Ot.jpg.

There is another current deletion request for an upload of this user: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crucifixion, ca. 1355, Oxford, Christ Church Picture Gallery.jpg. Commons policies can be arcane, and what came to be missing here was support for the user. The problem could be fixed, in any of several ways. The best could be to obtain information about the frame. If the frame is very old, or repaired or remade to imitate a very old frame, which is by far the most likely case for a museum piece, there is no copyright on it. Or a "virtual frame" may be made, easy enough. But I'd question the policy, it is a setup for a user to trip over. (The precautionary principle run wild.)

We cannot accommodate the user's request for Talk page deletion, but the user page may be deleted. --Abd (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there are any moderators watching this thread, so I tagged the userpage for speedy deletion.

I think that we should change our approach to the blanking of user talk pages. It's clear to me to that the user was frustrated, and revert warring and speaking through edit summaries doesn't dispel frustration. When a user talk page is blanked, we shouldn't conclude that that user isn't listening. Instead, we should conclude that the user is having a problem with the message itself. We should think to ourselves: Perhaps the standard templates aren't enough to help them. I believe that the proper response would've been to start an actual conversation with them, not revert them over and over.

In addition, the page that LX used an justification to restore the talk page (Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#Can_I_do_whatever_I_want_to_my_own_user_talk_page.3F) doesn't include any statements authorizing an edit war. The section in question merely says:

Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in dispute resolution.

That is advice **for** people considering page blanking; it isn't mean to be used as a blank check for revert wars **against** people considering page blanking. A different section of the page does say that archiving is preferable to deletion, but that section doesn't state or suggest that blankers must be penalized or reverted. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I've engaged in edit warring? If so, in which edits and by what definition? I made one edit restoring blanked-out content. The user in question has a long history of similar problems, and multiple attempts to explain the issue have been made. The response has been thoroughly dismissive to the point of self-righteously recreating previously deleted content without discussion. I don't see any benefits to sweeping that under the rug, or why archiving is not a viable alternative to blanking. It becomes really difficult to get an overview of long-term issues if there are blanking edits interspersed throughout the talk page history and no archive. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

LX is demonstrating a common trait for those who work on cleaning up "copyvio," which is a lack of understanding of how to handle an irritated user. This was a communicative user, in fact. However, consider how all this looked to the user: a stone wall. I have reviewed the talk page content restored by LX. LX claimed copyvio on the matter of "3D," which can be subtle and difficult to understand. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crucifixion, ca. 1355, Oxford, Christ Church Picture Gallery.jpg, where LX "explains" the matter to me. In fact, I had read that policy page. I had done more than that. I'd read the cases on which the policy might be based. Commons policy often does this: it takes a general rule and fixes it as if it were a universal. This is not the place to debate that policy, but just consider how the policy looked to a naive user. Really stupid, as to the cases presented. This ultimately led the user to think of Commons as a collection of fools.[23]

That doesn't mean that the user was right. This is, as with certain other cases, a possible area of ambiguity in copyright law. However, we have several fixes available.

Yann demonstrated one in the DR closed and linked above, I'd suggested it. Did anyone suggest that to the user? Or offer to fix the problem? Did anyone carefully explain to the user what "3D" means in this case, interacting in a way that showed clear intention to help instead of what I'll call "make-wrong."?

LX should be warned about reverting the user on the user's own talk page. There are rare exceptions where this might be acceptable, this was not one, and almost certainly contributed to the user blowing a fuse. LX, we must realize, was also enforcing a policy (not user talk page policy, but policy around old art that is allegedly 3D). Notice: the policy does not state how it is to be enforced. Hence the way is open for blunt trauma to be created. I would not even suggest a warning to LX, as long as what LX did is common practice, as it is.

We need to start looking at Commons culture, or else we are going to continue to bleed users -- and administrators and other functionaries. At this point, my goal is simply to raise awareness of the issue. Resolving it will take consensus, which will take an interested community. Recognizing what is missing is the first step toward powerfully solving problems. That is not about "blame," at all.

Now, as to the "3D" problem. There were several available or possible fixes.

1. Remove the frame, as Yann did, which could be done more skillfully, as Yann knew. I commend Yann for taking the step, thus avoiding deletion and project damage. The new frame could be as Yann made it, or could be a color matching the overall color of the original frame, and there are other possibilities.

1. Decide that a frame is mostly flat, and that the skill involved in photographing it is little more than that of photographing any canvas for an oil painting, because the paint itself is three-dimensional and can show shadows. The user actually pointed this out, [24]. (There is a newbie error here, and elsewhere on the Talk page, that nobody pointed out to the user: responding to deletion requests and notices on the user talk page. Usually a waste of time. Rather, response should be in a DR, or with a speedy deletion, on the admin talk page of the deleting admin -- first -- or in an Undeletion request if that fails to satisfy. However, most new users may need assistance dealing with DRs and speedies, and the talk page responses show that. So who assisted? I see one warning of the user for uploading copyvio, and the user did not believe he was uploading "copyvio," this was all inadequately explained, so the warning was useless. Then another warning -- from LX -- for uploading what had previously been deleted. by template. The template is not a bad one, it does give instructions. However, a personal offer of assistance was missing. "If you do not know how to do this, please ask me for assistance." Again, routine, and inadequate.)

1. Explain the issue to the user, carefully and supportively, so that the user stops wasting time uploading files that may eventually be deleted, but still brings keepable files. Such an explanation might begin with, "Yes, I understand. This seems really stupid." Basic communication skill: establish rapport through a kind of agreement, whatever is possible, then guide.

The second option would be the most productive for Commons, until and unless there is an actual case showing effective copyright (sustained in court) of a photo of a relatively-easily photographed frame. This could be covered as an exception on the policy page. A frame, of the kinds found in this user's uploads, is not an ordinary sculpture, even though, in some cases, it may be "sculpted." If someone can point to contrary case law, great, I'd love to read it. Again, I don't expect resolution here. But we have policies or guidelines or common practices that deviate from copyright reality, and to handle this will take consensus, and consensus takes civil discussion, which takes common respect. --Abd (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I used the word "restore" when I referred to you; then I used "doesn't include any statements authorizing an edit war" in order to describe the contents of "the page". I didn't mean to offend you. I also believe that user talk message templates and deletion request pages aren't the best means to reach out to and teach an user having difficulties. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page but I refuse to delete the user talk page. To be honest, whether you blank your talk page or archive it neatly, the history will still contain everything, albeit not as easily locatable. I prefer to follow the principle that if someone is blanking messages on their own talk page, then it should be presumed that they have read the message. The only exceptions would be block notices and other statutory paraphernalia. I hope the user does return at some point in the future. Green Giant (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think speedy deletion here is a bit abusive. I also removed the frame and closed the other DR. Please don't bite the newbies. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Yann: I wanted to ensure that Eugene_a's wishes were met, plus that userpage was created by someone other than Eugene_a. The only content that Eugene_a added to his or her own userpage was the deletion request itself. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Some good work here, at least a beginning.

• Yes, removal of ordinary user talk page content "can be interpreted as hostile," however, users are usually granted the freedom to do this. As noted above, removal of a notice will be "interpreted" as having seen it. Reverting the edit of a user who has made a change to their own user or talk page, if that change is not contrary to policy (and removal without distortion is not contrary to policy), is generally considered the beginning of revert warring, even if it is only one removal. Block notices for a blocked user are an exception, while the user is blocked, as noted by Green Giant. If the user is unblocked, the notices may be removed. Now, is this "friendly"? No. All users should be encouraged to archive rather than blank. That is an act of cooperation with the needs of the community. In this case, the lack of cooperative guidance from the community is visible. We are all responsible for that, and what I've written here was not intended to blame any specific user for what is missing from all of us.

• We have not created structure to ensure that the community supports and guides individual users, and that would include the user who reverted the departing user. We are too busy arguing about the fine details of a very arcane subject: copyright, something where the user-off-the-street will often get it wrong. And when they get it wrong, we throw the book at them. There are possible reforms here that would vastly ameliorate this situation. Are we interested? Do we care?

• Commons welcomes by bot. This is a problem. First of all, it's meaningless, there is no real persom welcoming, and nobody is, then, going to be watching that page. I manually welcome users on Wikiversity, as do others. And then, if there is a problem with the user, I get a notification, and I then know if assistance is needed. Bot welcoming seems to save work, but it does not create a connection. We could fix this, rather easily. But do we want to? --Abd (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Look2See1 again

User:Look2See1's history here for the last several years has consisted of constantly thumbing his nose at the community, both through repeated violations of COM:OVERCAT and mangling description pages; see his block log and the first section of Commons:Village pump/Proposals for examples, as well as the numerous warnings at User talk:Look2See1/Archive 1, [25], etc. Regardless of the stern warning that he should have taken from the latter, he's continuing in both patterns: see mangling of an image description page and revert-warring to enforce overcategorisation. Given his years of tendentious editing and rejecting all input, there is no way that we can trust that any further warnings will be effective; a block is the only way that we can prevent Look2See1 from editing in defiance of community norms. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit is by you and it clearly violates COM:OVERCAT. --A.Savin 23:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that it was unintentional, and I've fixed it. Look2See1 has revert-warred to defend overcategorisation: it's clearly not a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend Again

My intentions are to assist making images findable by the average Commons user, as part of the collaborative editing community. Unfortunately, Nyttend's speculations are quite incorrect and in my experiences another presumptious attempt to tell instead of ask. He has repeatedly confused his opinions and preferences with "community norms" — perhaps he is aggrandizing his needs with that imagined designation. Nyttend is not recognizing it's his thumb and nose being dismissive of basic group minded behavior. When intelligent, calm, and respectful editors and administrators point out something I've done incorrectly or could do better I listen and change. From my now many experiences with Nyttend, I do not trust his assumptions, perceptions, and interpretations of Commons "community norms." They are usually self-serving coverups of the truth, attempting to force conformity to Nyttend's expectations. Nyttend's use of always That is what families and other relationships are for… this is Wikimedia.

Nyttend uploads numerous wonderful architectural images, and I come across them as a small portion of my numerous images edited. Not very frequently, but with regularity I 'clean up' Nyttend's overcats on those uploads, e.g. removing [Cat:Building in state] when there was also [Cat:Bldg. in city]/[Cat:Wooden bldg. in state]/[Cat:House in state]/etc. They were OVERCATS by Nyttend, but neither they nor the "bot type" reverts mentioned below cause me to threaten dire consequences as Nyttend does here. Why the warpath?

Regarding the File:Whittier Mansion (San Francisco) 2.JPG image categories that seems to have initiated this round of Nyttend's ire. First, there are no "revert-warred" intentions. I recently created Category:Jackson Street, San Francisco, and was populating it. This image has the City's "Jackson" street sign in it, so it was rational to include it, while I had placed Category:Whittier Mansion under [Cat:Jackson Street] also. Jackson Street traverses through quite different neighborhoods, all but 2-(3) of the images are downtown. It has a notable section through Category:Pacific Heights, San Francisco, this image with Maybeck's Roos House image are all that are uploaded currently of that. As I wrote in an edit note to Sanfranman59, "it's an image of the street" (also), as well as of the mansion. If an image serves two purposes/categories well I do not understand how that is Overcat. And it's just 1 image.

Rereading Nyttend's post above, my experience is of a drama queen escalating out of proportion yet again. Nyttend is also doing gender assignment, using "his" while ranting here, not right. Several years ago Nyttend was engaging in cyberbullying upon me at my talk page and here, and doing mass "bot type" reverts of my edits (e.g. 100s per minute) just from seeing my name and obviously without looking at my actual edits. Nyttend was rvt/removing more focused cats or new accurate ones (e.g. NRHP of place) with their destructive choice of behavior, which were egregious examples of Nyttend's own term above — "revert-warred." It was quite insulting and was not community-minded nor Commons-centric behavior. Others in the "editor community" at that time got Nyttend to slow down and back off, it is archived on my talk page.

Nyttend's recurring aggressive attempts at mind reading and motivation assignment, resulting in wacky interpretations and insulting consequences, are a disruptive and problematic continuance of Nyttend's warlike patterns towards me. It feels like Nyttend is a serial 'trash Look2See1' stalker, or at least a cyberbully, now opportunistically seizing a lone Whittier Mansion image to attempt silencing again. Is an ethics review process regarding Nyttend's choices available/appropriate ? I recently heard Jimmy Wales on NPR discussing (again) the need for much more diversity in the Wiki editors community, which I happen to represent in some areas. I am tired of Nyttend's recurring aggressive attack mode and actions discouraging diversity apart from their axis, it does not belong in a civilized volunteer project. — Look2See1 (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The above response a good example of Look2See1's persepective: any opposition is deemed bullying and given extensive personal attacks and ad homines. He's demonstrably exhausted the patience of the community through edits that violate our policies and demand extensive amounts of editor time to clean up, but continues, convinced that his opponents just want to harass him. At en:wp, we consider this tendentious editing (especially the "One who never accepts independent input" section) and show such users the door. Why do we tolerate this user's actions? Please enforce the community's opposition to Look2See1's style, demonstrated at the COM:VP/P thread I linked above, and stop tolerating the personal attacks seen in places like this thread. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

---

@Nyttend, Look2See1:This is all very confusing. NYT accuses L2S of overcategorizing files, L2S accuses NYT of the same. You can't both be regularly overcategorizing. Could you please both provide 10 quick diffs showing where the other violated COM:OVERCAT, with a brief explanation for each, as necessary? Anyone who is willing or not willing to do so - it will help illuminate about who is correct in this instance.

If you have made any errors in the past (accidents or moral problems), please state that now.

Please avoid mentioning anything to do with harassment, as it's not central to this thread (we can handle that again at another time; let's keep it simple for now). Failing to follow this will give me a clue that you are probably trying to soup up the conversation. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A comment from Anna Frodesiak

I never weigh in at commons, but thought I'd click this to see what all the fuss is about. Well, that clearly looks like overcat to me. Edit summary "...it's an image of the street..."?? Outrageous! Overcat, I say. I certainly support reverting that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Two cents

Magog: All you need do is search through L2S's talk page archive for 'overcat' to see that this user either doesn't understand COM:OVERCAT or chooses to ignore it. The behavior goes back to at least 2011. I've reverted many of his/her edits over the past few years and have made a point of referencing COM:OVERCAT in my edit summaries. After several attempts to engage L2S on his/her talk page the past few weeks, I had some back and forth with him/her today. I don't know yet if s/he agrees with the points I made in my most recent message there.

L2S: I really don't intend to pile on here, but this has gone on for several years now and you've been called on it by a number of different users (i.e. it's not just Nyttend). In fact, you were blocked at least once for it that I'm aware of. I'm happy to continue discussing it with you if you think it will help you understand why what you're doing is over-categorization (and why Nyt's edits generally are not). --Sanfranman59 (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to Magog

In accusing me of COM:OVERCAT, Look2See1 refers to "Cat:Building in state". This was a widespread issue on things I'd uploaded, but it wasn't my fault: images like File:Portland Club in Maine.jpg and File:Bowman-Carney House.jpg had "Buildings in Maine" (and a comparable situation for many images from other US states) because of a bot. I'd used Category:Historic American Buildings Survey in Maine at upload; they got changed to "Historic buildings in Maine" by User:BotMultichill (example 1 and example 2), and when that category tree got deleted, the bot was instructed to replace its members with "Buildings in X" (example 1 and example 2). I can't help it when a bot introduces improper categorisation. Yes, I make mistakes sometimes (see the top of this thread), but when told of them, I fix them. The problem's both that Look2See1 does it persistently, and also that his edits are examples of his broader persistence in editing despite requests, advice, and warnings from other editors: he does what he wants, regardless of what others think.

Seven quick diffs: [26], [27] (both times the NR in Rush County category), [28] (see explanation in subsequent edit); creation and subsequent edits to Category:Populated places in Ventura County, California; [29] (structures is a grandparent category of towers); [30], [31] are seven examples. We all make mistakes, but when you've been blocked for doing something, and you keep doing it, we need to question whether you're making a good-faith mistake. When you edit-war to include those mistakes (three more diffs: [32], [33], [34]), despite years of warnings on your talk page, you've demonstrated that you're not going to follow our standards. Look at User talk:Look2See1/Archive 1: there are fifty-six occurrences of the string <overcat> — by my count, 30+ of them are people objecting to Look2See1's violations of this standard, and several of Look2See1's own comments (see the comments beginning with "Hi LX — I disagree", "There are always", "V-wolf, please") defend the practice. Look at yesterday's comment at his talk page: when another user objects that he's violating COM:OVERCAT, the response apologises if his action "is offensive to you". We're talking about repeated violations of our project standards, not merely personal offenses. As I said at the top of this thread, Look2See1 routinely treats policy-based and factual objections as personal affronts and responds with personal attacks, whether calling for an ethics review of me and saying that I'm in "aggressive attack mode" (in this thread); when reverted because he adds a factual error, he calls the reversion vandalism and says that AgnosticPreachersKid's actions are childish, cyberbullying, and autocratic, and a few days earlier accuses the same editor of being deceptive. Finally, run a search for his username at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 49 (there are three relevant sections), and you'll see places where he attacked another user as cyberbullying and "revert[ing] my edits in a seemingly temperamental vandalism spirit". And all of this is on top of his persistence in replacing normal English text with exceptional formatting (example) that has attracted extensive opposition (including the COM:VP thread I linked above), which he continues despite the wholescale rejection of his writing style. I'm not going to address this additionally until/unless you address it additionally. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Look2See1 is prone to accuse others of vandalism, disruption, etc. in order to deflect when someone points out his/her behavior. As linked above, any attempt to correct the category description at Category:Central Union Mission was reverted and I was accused of vandalism. Anyone with basic knowledge of Washington, D.C. knows the address currently listed on the description is not in Logan Circle and that Look2See1 combined elements of the previous description with information from the HABS report from the b&w photos. Now the description is full of errors. I tried more than once to point this out on this board, but not a single editor would take a look at the problem. So I've left it alone because apparently no one here could care less and Look2See1 is determined to revert any corrections I make. Apathy by administrators lets Look2See1 continue his/her disruptive behavior. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Bulk upload of probable copyright violations

I am not a regular Commons user, so forgive me if I have the procedure wrong. If I do, please would an experienced person examine this request and move it to the relevant procedure.

I am worried about the entire set of contributions here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikitoruz - an example is File:Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker, 1849).jpg, where the uploader declares that they are the copyright owner, but the author attribution is different. This requires an experienced Commons person, please. Timtrent (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have notified the uploader of this discussion on their Commons talk page. Timtrent (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding to the file mentioned I find this. -- Geagea (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. A different photo, but almost identical. Probably the same photographer, with a sequence of photos. --Abd (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that, in File:Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker, 1849).jpg, the quoted author, BEDO (Thailand), is linked to the uploader’s (so far redlinked) user page: Mikitoruz (talk · contribs): There is no discrepancy with {{Own}} and authorship as reported. (Other concerns remain, though.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that on the English Language Wikipedia, Pi-gimjiRu (talk · contribs) has been determined to be the same editor as Mikitoruz (talk · contribs), the latter arriving as the former was blocked. I note the contributions record here of the latter also appears similar to the former, not a huge surprise. I realise that Commons and en Wikipedia are very different and with different rules. This is simply fyi. Timtrent (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There are also similarities here and there with Baitoeytnt (talk · contribs), and there Babebu (talk · contribs), who has not yet arrived here. Timtrent (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Users who are blocked elsewhere sometimes end up with multiple accounts here, without any actual disruption here. I have requested that the user identify any other accounts used, and will recommend that the user, if possible, stick to one account. (There are reasons why that can be complicated, but what is most important is that we know what's going on. As well, sometimes, it can be a problem for a user to connect accounts, due to cross-wiki issues.) --Abd (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure yet, but I have an idea what is going on. If my idea is correct, the user is the photographer. User:Pi-gimjiRu is likely the same user, and the user is responsible for the photographs found on biodiversity.org. Pi-gimjiRu linking to that site on en.wiki was considered spamming. I'm guessing conflict of interest. We don't care about conflict of interest here, we are happy to have images with permission. We may need OTRS. I would approach this that way: "I assume these are your photographs, but we will need verified permission through OTRS." No accusations of copyvio, but, of course, if the verification is not forthcoming, the files will be deleted.
• The user should be informed that if the files are deleted, they can be undeleted easily, if authorship and permission are verified.
• Continuing to look, I see w:en:User_talk:Pi-gimjiRu#Blocked The user has clear difficulty with English, and will need substantial assistance. Stubs on Wikipedia, problem for Wikipedia. Not a problem for us, images are images. See, as well, w:en:User_talk:Mikitoruz#April 2015. So the user creates a page and cites the thaibiodiversity site as a source. See [35]. BEDO = Biodiversity-Base Economy Development. I expect we have no problem with linking to a URL, perhaps as source. S/he has BEDO as "author." BEDO may be, in fact, the owner. S/he may or may not have authority to release for BEDO, but I'll guess that if anyone can arrange it, S/he can.
• I've seen this many times. The user means well, almost certainly, but has no understanding of Wikipedia policy (nor of Commons procedures). The user is confused by attempts to explain. It was a bad fit, poor English, trying to edit Wikipedia. But we can handle it here, I believe.
• I find it very likely that this user can be a productive contributor of images, therefore it's worth the effort. If I'm wrong, we'll find out soon enough.
• So what about all those deleted pages noticed on User talk:Pi-gimjiRu? What I've seen so far is that these were likely ultimately legitimate, but not documented/verified, they will need OTRS. The user had no understanding of what to do. Mentorship is needed. I have never gone through OTRS. It would be better that someone guide who has the experience. I don't see a Thai translation of the OTRS page. --Abd (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)