Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 29

Problematic user

Krantmlverma is a serial violator of our upload policies and seems often to re-upload content that has been deleted. They display similar tendencies at en-Wiki. Could someone please look into this: there are numerous current and past deletion noms and discussions, per the notices on their talk page. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A recent example of reinstatement is File:Akhilesh Yadav2012.gif, and I note that the user was blocked last year for fundamental misunderstandings of our policies. Nothing has changed since then. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If I may point out, this behavior is also on ample display at hi.wiki. Efforts to make the user understand have mostly proved futile. He replies with hidden snides and plays himself as both a victim and a hero. He has also been heavily involved in self-advertising and glorification. Lovy Singhal (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

They have only today uploaded this, which was deleted previously (as a GIF) as a consequence of this discussion. Honestly, the competence issues are astounding and I would seriously question whether we can be content with any of their extant uploads. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Many of the "own work" uploads are "I have used images from book covers which I have subsequently edited". That's a clear copyvio. —SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Fastily

Fastily is an adminstrator here at Commons. He caused havoc with his Dino deletions. I looked at the delinker log and it looks like this is not an isolated incident.

• He deleted images with reason: "Uploader requested deletion of unused file". This is not a valid reason for speedy deletion (note, response)
• He deletes no source/permission/license images without proper checking. For example vandalized images got deleted (note, response)
• He deletes redirects with reason: "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect" when the redirects are actually in use (note, response)

And this was just in the last 24 hours. I didn't dare digging deeper into the logs. He seems to do a lot of work, but the quality of this work seems rather low. He doesn't accept criticism and refuses to clean up after making a mess. I understand he tries to do what he thinks is best, but this is really harming Commons and it's relation with the other projects (like Wikipedia). What to do with this administrator? Multichill (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please tell Multichill here to stop harassing me? I'm well aware of the errors I've made and it's pretty obnoxious of Multichill to continue re-posting rude, condescending comments to my talk even after I've removed them. Also, I would like to make it clear that I'll not be processing items in Category:Other speedy deletions anytime soon. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you confuse well funded criticism with something else. Instead of attacking me you should address the points I (and others) brought up. Multichill (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's utter bullshit, and you know it too. Since this simple matter is so apparently incredibly difficult for you to comprehend, let's simplify this to three things: 1) Mistakes acknowledged, and duly apologized for. 2) I'll not be processing Category:Other speedy deletions for at least a few months. 3) Multichill needs to get his little paws off of Fastily's talk page and refrain from dickish trolling since Fastily has already made the last two points blindingly clear elsewhere, prior to Multichill's initiation of this discussion. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the real big amount of work, only a few admins work on. Fastily obviously tries to clean some backlogs, perhaps even using automated methods. If he/she does so, I think it shouldn't be a taboo talking or even consider using bots but one would have to ensure that no vandalism took place before they do anything. Or we decide that our backlogs can grow to ∞ but then, we'll have more requests here (on com:an) to delete/close/… or we find a way to prioritize some requests. Wrong decisions cause dissatisfaction but also request no one is working on. -- RE rillke questions? 11:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think Fastily's responses to Multichill are rather uncivil and shouldn't be tolerated. Multichill has a long history of valuable contributions here, and characterising requests and complaints from him as "dickish trolling" should not be acceptable from any user. In my experience if Multichill takes time out to comment on something, then there is something that needs looking at.
• Fastily likes to process things quickly and although deletions are always carried out with the best intentions, he can and does get things wrong. When things go wrong we need a way to undo the damage just as fast (and not leave it to others to unpick the mess), if that means we need better tools (eg an inverse-delinker to quickly reverse part of it's edits before new edits make the automated correction difficult) then we'd better create one.
• Looking at the recent deletion of redirects as "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect" they appear to be in the acceptable category of "unneeded redirects to recently uploaded and renamed files". I think the use of "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect" as an edit summary is wrong, the reason for deletion is none of those (they are neither implausible, broken, or cross-namespace). A better edit summary would help.
• "Uploader requested deletion of unused file", there might have been special reasons for this deletion, but if the only reason is as stated, then it needs a proper deletion request.
• I do think that Fastily's techniques are accepted not because they are the best but because there aren't enough people willing to process the backlogs. Whether they are acceptable as far as the rest of the community is concerned, or whether they follow policy is almost the essence of this current discussion. Sometimes I think a bot might as well do the deletions if the files aren't going to be looked at individually. A bot could more consistently look at whether the file or talk page had been edited since a "no permission" etc tag had been added, but it might be more difficult to determine whether the uploader had responded anywhere else (eg a talk page) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Shit happens - that's life. Not uncommon to accidentally delete an image that has been vandalized or where an uploader or other user tries to get images deleted/removed with false statements/claims. Back to normal operation mode please. --Denniss (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fastily is deleting category:unknown like a bot. And he is almost as unresponsive as a bot. Cleanses his talk page, no archive, and unlike a bot he tells complainants to sod off. In other words, a bot would be better. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In case of Fastily, "shit happens" is sorta permanent state. --Trycatch (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

With the Dino deletions, what happened is someone change the license to an unfree one and just deleted everything the uploader even has done, even if the license was not changed at all. The main thing I just ask for Fastily is to just check an image before doing his deletions. His silence on the Dino issues bother me since it was not only a lot of images that had to be undeleted using pywikipedia, but it caused a lot of processes on the Commons to be stopped on here and on other projects and not a single word was said. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, no, not silence, but lack of comment. I'm not denying the fact that I'm at fault here; in fact, I have taken full responsibility for everything. I have not said anything, simply because there is nothing to be said. I'm not going to post some apology filled with exaggerated regret and because these kinds of things don't carry any weight and really lack sincerity in every possible way. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if an apology wasn't going to be perform (and I'll never ask you to write one) but more acknowledge what has been posted and talk to the people from the different projects and say "Give me time, but I will fix" kind of deal. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if need an admin bot, we should get a real one instead of having human admins with bot-like behavior? At least an admin bot would behave deterministically (in contrast to random and irrational), will not be rude to other users, and will do its work much better. Trycatch (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fastily does a lot of good work. But yes, along with the batch deletions and such comes complaints, mistakes, and so on. That having been said, behavior like this and the reactions like we have here (in my opinion) are sort of what led to his retirement on enwiki. I really hope this doesn't turn into "enwiki round 2". I think one step toward a better situation would be if Fastily communicated more effectively and collaboratively rather than acting, as others have said, merely as a bot. Killiondude (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Sarangbliss

I went to add a copyvio notice to this user's talk page, to find that it was the 17th. They've never done anything but keep uploading new images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted their uploads and issued an explicit warning. Materialscientist (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sudden disappearance of a deletion request and irrational closure of another DR

I am surprised as to how casually Russavia is treating DRs. The DR cited in the above headline was simply deleted by her. Further, for another DR she closes by typing "In scope of plaques in France. No reason to delete, it may be of use somewhere, sometime" - All deleted files have some utility - only they are out of scope on Commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

 Not done I don't see any problems here, sorry.--PierreSelim (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't see anything on my talk page relating to this. Why have you decided to bring this to the dramuh boards? In relation to your first accusation I will mind you to look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:INTERIOR STAIRS VIEW , OLD HIGH COURT.JPG. Nothing was deleted. In relation to your second accusation, I will not be responding to personal attacks -- accusing others of being "irrational" is dramuh-attention seeking. The file is a photo of a plaque in France (which isn't a FOP violation) and is in the scope of fr:Delphine Aigle. That article is under consideration for deletion on frwp, but that is not our concern on Commons, nor should it be. If you are going to claim COM:SCOPE issues, you need to not only state why it is out of scope (unless it is bleeding obvious), and if you do state why, you need to make sure the reasoning is sound and valid. In this case it was not; it is a plaque denoting that this was the home of Delphine Aigle, a "heroine" of the French resistance -- who may or may not be notable -- again, not our concern. Next time, please use editors talk pages --- they are there for a reason --- instead of taking things unnecessarily to our dramuh boards. russavia (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Message sent to Russavia's talk page. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

By the way, is this noticeboard a dramuh board or drama board , according to Russavia? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

I think Russavia indeed aludes to "Drama" as in the first and second en:Wiki articles under see-also section at en:Drama_Queen. I haven't yet noticed a "Don't feed the Drama Queen" page (along the lines of en:Do not feed the trolls), but I think there should be one ;-). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

PS I don't think you are being one of the above, but you might want to edit out "irrational" :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

PPS I stuck File:INTERIOR STAIRS VIEW , OLD HIGH COURT.JPG back into an article, but the other illustrations for that article were deleted a long time ago due to no license (although I think they were otherwise fine, but just no response from uploader). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

PPPS The rename to File:INTERIOR STAIRS VIEW , OLD HIGH COURT,DHAKA.JPG is unnecessary, we do not need to dis-ambiguate file names (see Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_be_renamed.3F), the existing name was accurate, but not very precise. The file description page is where details are required (in multiple languages), the filename is just a handle for identifying the file, not a description. Finally if a file is renamed, you might as well fix other deficiencies like turning all upper case into more readable upper and lower case (but note that this is not an invitation to rename it once again, see previous link ;-). (sorry for my lecture :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As regards to the use of a few words, a message is already posted on her user talk. I wonder why she considers our noticeboards as dramuh boards or drama boards when she is a sysop. Finally, all said and done about INTERIOR STAIRS VIEW , OLD HIGH COURT,DHAKA.JPG, Tony Wills still insists on status quo. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Think "Dramuh" is kind of a LOLCATS spelling. As for drama, cast up your eyes above to earlier sections on this page... AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mumbaifreaks et al

I've had to block a few socks of this user on en.wiki, all but the newest have copyvio image uploads here too. If anyone cares to do some laundry, they are User:Rpaigu, User:Majorcaptain and User:Dindriyena. On en.wiki we've had more than just copyvio problems though. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked

• User:Rpaigu
• User:Majorcaptain and
• User:Dindriyena

as probable socks of User:Mumbaifreaks. However, the latter has behaved himself -- only a couple of copyvios and no warnings so far, so I have not blocked that one.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I only short term blocked the master on en.wiki too, and the disruption here hasn't been as bad. Thanks. —SpacemanSpiff 01:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Tm

Tm has reverted changes in many images without any reason. The reverts have undone good changes like high resolution uploads, fixing levels, cleaning brownness etc. Please check. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment. We had this same issue with a Titanic b/w image earlier. It seems some editors like the older original images for some articles. It was decided that newer colourized versions should be uploaded under a different file name. You may try that, then replace with your versions in some articles and see if other editors revert. If so, then consensus should be reached as to which version the articles should use on each talk page. These are just my thoughts to keep as many happy as possible.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Musukundan

Repeatedly uploads copyright protected material after several warnings. --Muhandes (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 1 month. Upload deleted. --M0tty (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Cyril94

Cyril94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

keep your eye on him , uploads non free images from google. Has been warned.--Trex2001 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

added the {{End of copyvios}} warning. Hope he'll get the message. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been open long enough, and consensus here supports unblocking Ottava Rima with the conditions detailed by AFBorchert below. The restrictions will be listed at Commons:Editing restrictions and on the user's talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Ottava Rima was blocked indefinitely in January as a result of this long discussion. In his rationale for this block, 99of9 wrote

On the other hand, if there is a willingness to admit to the disruption, I think a one month block is entirely sufficient.

This and the conditions for an unblock appear now to be adressed by Ottava Rima:

I am sorry and I deeply regret my actions in late December/early January where I entered into an excessive combative interaction with multiple admin which detracted from the over all prosperity of the community and disrupted honest discussion about important issues. I resolve that if I am allowed back I would focus primarily on uploading images and not participate in or create "drama."

To me personally this sounds as if Ottava Rima is indeed acknowledging the problems that lead to that block and promising to focus on the upload of archival material of Fort Benning he has been working on in January and which was interrupted by the block. Given this statement, I would suggest to lift this block as I have no reason to doubt his word. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose - No, just no. I don't believe this. I don't believe Ottava has changed, and I can't believe we have admins naïve enough to trust him. The guy has a history of trolling, and even a month ago was immediately accusing an admin who declined an unblock request. He is a troll, has always been a troll, and will forever be a troll. See also the "my statement" section in that link: nothing but bile. Keep him indefed. Remove talkpage access. Ban from IRC. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I agree with Mattbuck. He showed/shows the same behavior on EN and Meta; getting constantly blocked for personal attacks, apologizes a month later, gets unblocked and repeats the same procedure again. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I always want to think the best of people, and that they can change. If this statement had been the first we'd heard of Ottava since the January block, I'd seriously consider under what sort of upload-focussed edit restrictions we might conceivably unblock (though I'd want some more discussion with Ottava about past actions). However, given the way the unblock request of a month ago went - well, sorry, I don't believe that Ottava is really ready to avoid drama, even if he is totally sincere in his current statement. If he has files he would like to contribute to Commons, maybe someone else can upload them for him; if he's willing to do that, it would certainly count in his favour for a future unblock request. Rd232 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Honestly, folks. Do you really want to prove Ottava Rimas claim to be correct where he stated that It is pretty obvious that it doesn't matter what I say or do. The case was closed in January with the rationale that the block can be lifted after a month when the problems are acknowledged. Exactly this is the case now. I do not think that this statement came easily nor do I think that he issues such a statement without taking it honestly. Finally, there is no real risk if we unblock him as we can reinstate the block any time. But we hadn't a deal like this before with him, hence we should proceed per AGF and give him the opportunity to complete his interesting Fort Benning project. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it certainly does matter what he says and does. It matters what he said a month ago, it matters what he says now, and it matters what he might be willing to do if he's not unblocked now (in particular, if he's willing to provide files to a third party to upload for him). If he were to engage more extensively and deeply with this discussion, in a really constructive way, that would also help demonstrate that he's both willing and able to put drama behind, and hasn't just wrung an apologetic paragraph out of himself in the hope that everything will be forgiven and forgotten. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Rd232, what do you expect? He acknowledged that he had entered into an excessive combative interaction and he promises now to focus primarily on uploading images and not participate in or create "drama." What do you expect more? Pages of text elaborating this? Rd232, the WMF projects live from putting trust into its editors despite all odds, even if there were unfortunate encounters before. AGF is one of the pillars. We did not went before with Ottava Rima through a cycle at Commons where he after an infinite block acknowledged the drama and promised to avoid this in the future. Please remember also that there were quite a number of voices at the last discussion opposing a block. 99of9s block was obviously an attempt to signal that this must not continue but that there is a path open to return after at least a month has passed. Hence, we are obliged to risk it. He has also a project he wishes to continue and as far as I know he had set his heart on this. If the drama should repeat, it is very likely that an infinite block would be not just reinstated but upheld. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I do agree with AFBorchert. If the contributions are positive (& maybe exclude admin board stuff) then all is well, if not then I doubt there would be any real issues with another block. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
      • AGF is not a suicide pact. A while back Ottava agreed to be unblocked subject to an edit restriction restricting him to the File namespace; this was later repudiated without consequence - see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_32#Breach_of_previous_restrictions. And now you're happy to unblock without even a formal edit restriction, just a mere promise to focus primarily on uploading images and not participate in or create "drama."? Even though just a month ago Ottava was demonstrating some of the same behaviour that got him blocked? Basically, we're expected to believe that from January to April Ottava didn't change one bit, but from April to May, he had an epiphany, and is now New Ottava (TM)? Possible, but unlikely (there's a reason en:Wikipedia:Standard offer refers to 6 months without problems). I'm willing to believe it's the beginning of a change for the better, but not that it's the end - that's just not credible. That's why I'm suggesting he contribute files via someone else uploading, as a demonstration that he is still genuinely interested in contributing, and not just in being vindicated by virtue of unblock (and once vindicated, will soon revert to the old norms). ... Well, if you really want to craft an edit restriction and take responsibility for enforcing it, and Ottava clearly and explicitly accepts it, maybe I'll change my vote. Otherwise, no. Rd232 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Ok, would be for you a restriction sufficient that Ottava Rima must not edit any of the administrative boards at COM:AN and its subpages, much like the other current restriction at Commons:Editing restrictions? --AFBorchert (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, using the same terms as that existing one has an attractive simplicity, I suppose. And I in designing that restriction I did try to make it as practical as possible (to permit DR and user talk discussion especially, because if you're allowing uploads that's probably necessary)... So with some misgivings about the chances of this working out, if you're willing to support such a restriction, and to take responsibility for enforcing it (especially in the sense of mentoring Ottava on how to respect it, if that proves necessary), I can live with that. I'd say offer it to Ottava and see what he says - a public response to that should go some way to showing whether he's ready to turn over a new leaf or not. Rd232 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose It's a step, but this seems to avoid addressing a lot of the issues that he was blocked for. Most of the people [1] was directed at were not admins, and this response leads me to believe that he thinks that statement unpolitic, not wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment OR will probably say I not should contribute to this thread however despite his opinion of me I am quite relaxed about an unblock. It seems that he will either contribute positively to the project - a net plus for everyone, or not in which case another block will occur. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If the community wanted unblock him subject to an ironclad upload-focussed edit restriction (something like the current example at Commons:Editing restrictions, but more closely restricted to File: namespace, at least initially), I could live with that. But the likelihood of problems arising again is much too high for comfort - and the amount of time, effort and drama involved if a reblock is necessary is also too high for comfort. I'd be more willing to take the risk with more demonstration of commitment to change than one short paragraph just one month after showing the same old problems. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support If he causes further discontent, he can be easily reblocked. He gets too much into nitanoid arguments but so do a lot of people on the Wiki, including those opposers who just want to make him crawl.TCO (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "he can be easily reblocked" - doubtful. Very doubtful. Reblock (if it were to prove necessary) would surely be time-consuming and drama-filled, which is why an unblock should not be done lightly (so that hopefully a reblock wouldn't become necessary). Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support unblock per Herby and per TCO. I agree he could be easily reblocked, if necessary. Besides I'd like to point out that admin mattbuck repeatedly has been attacking a blocked editor. Such practice is unexceptable because a blocked editor cannot respond such attacks.
• I'd also like to bring up a post one editor left at his English wikipedia page:

"The problem here, is not with the WMF, site rules, or individual editors, but with the contagious witch-hunt mentality of the community. I know, it's easy, and perhaps even fun to ostracize and single an editor out, seduce the masses with promises of drama, and freely harass and attack that poor soul without fear of retribution. During such times, and even in general, we have a tendency to focus on the negative and overlook the positive; stellar contributions are rewarded with silence, and mistakes, regardless of how minute or well-intentioned, are met with aggressive complaints and/or trips to AN/ANI.The thing most people fail to understand is that there is a real person reading all these insults on the other side. Throughout my tenure here, I have seen countless editors, from IPs to Admins, to Arbs, say things or insult others in ways that they would dare not in real life. Such has only become more apparent to me during my break from Wikipedia. I have been actively watching, no, desperately reading and watching various talk pages, discussion boards, and noticeboards, searching for something to wholly prove me wrong. I have not been met with success in my search. Given the current state of things, I believe that Wikipedia is going to destroy itself through mob-mentality and infighting. This project is ill, very ill, and I fear for its future."

• Although the above was said about English wikipedia, commons is getting there too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't get it; how does an attack on mattbuck avoid what you're complaining about? In any case, we aren't complaining about OR's mistakes; going back to the original block request and as I mentioned above, even after he was blocked, he consistently engaged in behavior where he turned any discussion into an attack on the other user, often accusing them of willful intent to damage the project. And this half-assed statement dragged out of him after a multiple-month block, doesn't say he was wrong in making accusations; it says that he was wrong in causing drama with admins.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose In the last months I never saw a constructive collaboration of this user but only barefaced and provocative activity's. If this user wants really to contribute in a positive way he should start with a new account. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Wladyslaw, in the last months Ottava has been blocked, so you possibly could not have seen any contributions of the user. Besides he may not open a new account. He's blocked, and opening a new account calls "socking" in wikipedia's language, and make no mistake some users will go after that new account as a pack of rabid dogs as soon as it is discovered, and it will be rather sooner than later even if his behavior will be absolutely perfect. Trust me on that, I know.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  As a matter of course I meant the months before he was blocked, which one else? If he starts a new account without droping back in his old habits no one will discover him. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Wladyslaw, have you read what I quoted above? Here's one more time: "During such times, and even in general, we have a tendency to focus on the negative and overlook the positive". Let's please focus at Ottava's positive contributions, shall we? Anyway what I was trying to say is that: nothing horrible will happen, if Ottava is unblocked. Even, if Ottava is again to engage in the behavior that lead to the block, he could be reblocked. Nothing bad will happen to Commons. It will go on with all its free unfiltered porno and hate propaganda images that are not even added to the right categories, which are the the real problems. So let's give Ottava another chance please. He could be unblocked with restrictions. How about unblock with 2 months ban on all drama boards?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  (after EC) Maybe you didn't read what I has written above. I didn't say that he never do positive work, I said that I never perceived that. His agitation was so huge that his positive work became a minor point. As I realized that he also apologiesed at en.wp and after a while nothing has changed I don't understand why this should be different here at commons. Maybe this point I didn't get. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Personally, I'm a bit tired of the argument that just because someone does good work, they're entitled to abuse everyone around them. Perhaps we can set up a fee schedule, this many personal attacks for each 100 pictures uploaded or something?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock subject to edit restriction

Subheader added to clearly distinguish proposals: above, unblock without conditions; below, unblock subject to edit restriction. Rd232 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ottava Rima has agreed to following restrictions which would be added to Commons:Editing restrictions:

• Ottava Rima is banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages. Where necessary (including starting new threads), he can contact any other editor to ask them to post for him. Ottava Rima is restricted to using only that account. Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks.
• If things go well in the presence of these restrictions then Ottava Rima could ask for them to be lifted after 3 months. Lifting would be subject to community discussion and consensus at COM:AN/U.

These restrictions follow a precedent and were worked out in cooperation with Herbythyme and Rd232 (see above). Hence, I would ask all of you to support an unblock of Ottava Rima under these editing restrictions he agreed to. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Rd232 suggested that I should act as an informal mentor for Ottava Rima. We both accept that. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support - maybe I've just missed something, but I never saw the point of the block in the first place. Commons is full of users who are equally or more disruptive (hell, one of our 'crats - Russavia - is banned for a year on en.wp, and Fry1989 engages used to engage in a personal attack almost every time he opens frequently and he doesn't didn't even apologize for it). Besides, I would totally support the idea that, if he has even a hint of a personal attack from now on, anyone can ban him on sight. w:WP:ROPE applies here perfectly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, I've been holding back on this one for 3 days. First night I saw this, I thought "oh hell no". The next day after thinking about it more, I came to the conclusion of a cautious support for an unblock, and now I'm not so sure again. However, I would like to ask Magog the Ogre to stick to factually correct statements when he chooses to include other users as a comparison. If he can link even ONE actual personal attack I've made inthe last 3 months (a broad enough period of time I would think), I will personally apologize to both the person I attacked and to Magog. But considering I only get in disputes with other users about 1/9th of the time of all my edits here, and my 3 years on Commons is littered with "please" and "thank you", I'd suggest that statements like "Fry1989 engages in a personal attack almost every time he opens his mouth" should be kept out of this. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've changed it to past tense and toned it down. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support unblock. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support The user claims that he won't repeat the issues from the past. I think that we should generally try to AGF when a user makes such a statement. If issues occur, it is easy to block the user again. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Most of my interctions with Ottava have been negative, and I'm not really sure a leopard can change its spots, however I think he deserves a single last chance, that he be unblocked with a short tight leash, and that the indef block becomes permanent for any trangression at all.--KTo288 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• As long as Ottava Riema him-/herself assumes good faith, does not take each little disagreement for a large disruption of the work flow of Commons and refrains from misinterpreting what the other party said (just to make it explicit), maybe. Uploading good, free files is no problem and seldom requires interaction with other contributors. -- RE rillke questions? 15:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support. We are only human. I agree to give Ottava Rima second chances under conditions. Geagea (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support unblock subject to edit restrictions as specified. I sincerely hope that this works out, and we don't end up regretting this. Best of luck to all of us... Rd232 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support for clarity - I do support this. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support He has talked the right talk, now we need to see him walk the right walk. Ottava, please note that although the restrictions may be lifted after three months, I take your statement as a long term commitment. --99of9 (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support. seems a reasonable approach. --Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated discussion on the meaning of the word "indefinite"

* Comment I don't know nothing about this history, don't know that user, and what he did, but if he was blocked indefinitely, maybe Admins had some reasons for that, and, I guess, decide this after a long evaluation process (discussions, debates, votes, warnings, short blocks etc)... And now, as for me, poor anonymous user, what means "indefinitely" in "Commons" english ? Nothing but "temporary", I'm afraid... Please remain constant in your decisions if you want to remain credible. Only my opinion, and nothing personal against the user himself nor the administrators. Thank you. --Jebulon (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Please be refered to this qualification by the blocking admin 99of9 which concluded the long discussion. This qualification started with This block is listed as indefinite, but can be lifted any time after 1 month if it is agreed in a public discussion that Ottava meets the following conditions, followed by some conditions. We are currently discussing here whether they are met or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) OK, thanks for explanations. One of you gave me the same in french on my talk page. I understand better now. My issue was with the use of the word "indefinite"...--Jebulon (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC) You are not alone, Jebulon. It took me years on Commons to finally realize that indefinite means something like "not clearly defined or determined" in the context of blocks. Initially, I thought it meant forever or for an inifite amount of time. Nowadays I think about it like "a block until it is likely that the circumstances which caused the disruptions leading to the block will not happen again". It is these nuances which are sometimes so hard to grasp for us non-native English speaking users, and which can cause confusion and misunderstandings. --Slaunger (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

User:Rodrigo Mayared

Uploading copyright violations only. feydey ^(talk) 20:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Uploads nuked, let's see what comes next. --Denniss (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Joaquotv

Uploading not free images. feydey ^(talk) 20:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Uploads nuked, final warning issued. The next copyvio will result in a block. --Denniss (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Magideleon

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

Once again, Magideleon is uploading non-free images, and insults others, as can be seen on File:Cuarta.jpg file description. Ralgis 21:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

 Indefinitely blocked - I actually did that before I saw this topic, after I noticed your copyvio messages. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Dr. Anannt Sharma

Moved from Commons talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Rd232 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Anannt Sharma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) i nominated his uploads for deletion since they are out of project scope. After all, we are not a file hosting service...--Trex2001 (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Satvik Varma

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

userpage is a complete resume, only upload is a profile picture of the user. In total, i would consider this an advertisement, so i warned him.--Trex2001 (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, user even tries/tried to install another promotional article in en wiki. --Denniss (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Mr roy

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

several of his uploads got deleted already because out of project scope. Warning issued. There are at least 20 or so images left.--Trex2001 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• The rest have now been deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 14:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User:LucasHammar

LucasHammar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Severeal of his uploads have been nominated for deletion. He continues to remove DRs from the files (like here) and ignores any warnings on his talkpage by just deleting them.

See also the discussion on his files here.

--Trex2001 (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Comment The notices on his talkpage have only informed him that files have been proposed for deletion. COM:TALK#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? suggests that it is fine (but not recommended) to remove text from your own page, and there wasn't really any discussion going on there anyway; the discussion takes place elsewhere. He hasn't been asked to stop removing {{Delete}} templates from file information pages. Maybe he just doesn't know how the process works. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

would Template:Dont remove warnings be appropriate then?--Trex2001 (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

forget it, user has been warned now--Trex2001 (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If you you are looking for autotranslated user messages: Help:Gadget-UserMessages -- RE rillke questions? 13:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a Swedish user. English is then normally not a problem. The name is also typical Swedish. -- Lavallen 13:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks Rillke for the heads up--Trex2001 (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User continues uploading logos, issued final warning.--Trex2001 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Pz3190

• Pz3190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user insists in uploading a non-free logo: File:CNT EP IMAGE.svg besides warnings. Ralgis 22:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Ольга Тихонова

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

Copyvio after the last warning. Kobac (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. - A.Savin 08:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Epsylob

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

user has been warned about copyvios(uploads from non-free software screenshots, images found on the net....)--Trex2001 (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

...and continues to do so.--Trex2001 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked by Herbythyme for 1 week. Trijnstel_talk 11:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Bengt Nyman (talk · contribs)

User at will and intentionally creates duplicate categories such as Category:Kronprinsessan Victoria and Category:Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden (see talk pages there). I have fixed the first one and feel h/s should be asked to fix the other one h-self. No use posting anything (other that a tag about this thread) on h talk page, it seems, since h/s removes everything there. Potential big and expanding problem if it continues. User uploads valuable photos h/s takes h-self, but needs guidance rather urgently. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't how to handle the user, but for the categories of the crown princess, a {{Category redirect}} to Category:Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden where most of the pictures are? --MagnusA (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but shouldn't the images be adjusted first so there are no images attached to the redirect? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't a bot move them automatically if {{Category redirect}} is added? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, all moved manually using Hotcat, since they needed another fix too. They listed the generic Category:Royalty of Sweden which is superfluous since the Crown Princess category already belongs to that category (if you go up a few levels in the category tree). On the other hand, all of the photos show Category:Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland, but his category wasn't listed at all. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads

• Dukes85 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

I think all of his uploads are copyvio (some are already deleted/nominated), but I'm not sure. Could someone else take a look at it please? Thanks. Trijnstel_talk 21:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

All either npd or nsd. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

RossTheBoss

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

Could you please keep an eye on him? He has recently uploaded pictures of celebrities and singers, most likely to have all rights reserved. One of his sources may be a flickr washing account (pictures with Copyright watermarks released under creative Commons licence). Thanks!--Ileana n (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Wpedzich MorganKevinJ^(talk) 01:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Min2winit (talk · contribs)

Almost all of his uploads are the result of copyright infringement (check his talk page). Please either block him or restrict him from uploading any further files on Commons.—Bill william compton^Talk12:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Warned MorganKevinJ^(talk) 01:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Harminder singh

Would it be possible to accelerate the processing of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Harminder singh. this guy keeps uploading and vreating fan categories. --Foroa (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any more the tools to insert a warning, project scope, ... message on a user talk page. Where are they gone ? --Foroa (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WHAT DO YOU MEAN? PLEASE REFER TO THINGS LIKE Warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindustanilanguage (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10. Jun. 2012‎ (UTC)

Are you looking for the user-messages-gadget? There must be a notify-this-user-link (even on block/user rights/log/contribs/...)-page. -- RE rillke questions? 20:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, found it back in gadgets / maintenance tools / user messages. --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:24.255.133.196

I noticed this edit by this IP (who previously posted on this user page before, first to announce a death and some other things) telling people if they can out the people who are the adversaries of this user, they will get paid $25K (this user also has done stuff in the past where he offered to pay people if they proved people wrong). I feel this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable, so I have blocked the IP for a year. The block can be reduced if this payment for harassment/intimidation is retracted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems a good decision to me. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably a good decision. Last time when I received a such a concealed threat, one of the admins just imposed a three day block on the user. And I was the second person to receive the threat from him/her. The user, however, never repented giving these threats and is still free to contribute, even though, I guess he's not active now. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC).

The whole IP/Doug_youvan situation is pretty strange and now that a supposed comment that Doug_youvan has passed, then hasn't, is just making things even more confusing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Dave1185 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Civility barnstar 2.svg

Originally this was a regular deletion request, the nom states his case, the author states his case, then others come in with keep, delete or other commentary. However, this one turned into a personal attack on the author of the image by the nominator, User:Dave1185. As I have seen done many times before, I removed the personal attack and put in the edit summary exactly why I was doing so. The attack was replaced with a further threat against me for having removed the personal attack. Can an admin please have a look?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked, please just calm down. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

From the looks of it, Kintetsubuffalo isn't the one who needs to calm down, and contrary to the closing note, I only saw one person threw around insults. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I quietly removed other personal attacks earlier on in the discussion. There were two parties to the incivility. Regardless, I support Kintet's removal of off-topic bickering. Mattbuck's closure is also good. --99of9 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Supermæn & his bot User:OnBot

This user and bot committed vandalism here (this four letter words by OnBot) and here (militan slogan by Supermæn). I asked him about these edits in Turkish Wikipedia and I understood that these edits were done by intentionally. Takabeg (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits reverted, user warned. Thanks for reporting. Jafeluv (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What to think about problematic DRs like this? Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Already responded here. Jafeluv (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Fastily

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

Fastily uploaded a presentation from UCSD, claiming it to be his own work. Pieter Kuiper emailed his colleage at UCSD and received apparently a response according to which no permission was given by the presenters. Pieter Kuiper filed then a deletion request as IP which was subsequently speedily closed with delete by Fastily with the comment fair enough. But Fastily went on by blocking not just the IP but also Pieter Kuiper indefinitely for block evasion. I find this very troublesome. It is bad enough to have apparently uploaded a copyvio but to block the messenger indefinitely for telling this is something which surely should have left to other admins or some consensus finding process at this board. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

For better or for worse, DR reason adjusted. Do what you will with the blocks (which I believe, involved or not, are inherently correct in terms of policy), but with the understanding that I shall be abstaining from any further contributions to this messy affair. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Very very bad block indeed in that situation --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Fastily, regarding your DR reason adjustment: How do you come to the conclusion that a speech is in the public domain or can be happily derived from just because it has been held at a public place? --AFBorchert (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly, I was mistaken, and I am quite happy to admit that error. Of course, in my defense, I've only been uploading videos since the beginning of May of this year, and am by no means an expert on that subject matter. I'll be reading up on those policies in the meantime. On a related note, I wish to make it clear that I don't have any issues with the editors currently combing through the several thousand of files I've contributed to this project. Being human, I will inevitably err (in good faith of course) with some of my uploads, and I would definitely like to be notified, in a friendly manner, about questionable uploads. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, Fastily, and we should indeed take the opportunity to learn something from it. What me admittedly upset here is that you blocked the messenger. I know that PK is no saint but I think that this was the wrong block by the wrong admin at the wrong time. Would it be an option for you to revert the indefinite block such that your previous block would be reinstantiated (which would expire on July 7th)? Then we could close this here, I think. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, if I may, I wish to recuse myself from making any new block-related decisions pertaining to PK and delegate that matter to be resolved by the community. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think any administrator should not need to be remembered by others never to use the block buttons if you are an involved party. Please refrain from such a doubtful usage of your tools. Blocks like this are far from helpful in gaining community trust. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hence my recusal from further administrative action. Quite fair, no? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume you will therefore revert your block under the circumstances. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, and nor will I be taking any further action. The fact of the matter is, I'm done with this fiasco, and plan on returning to quietly developing bots and contributing files in the background. I have little interest in petty drama, and more than enough has been instigated on my behalf. I'm removing myself from this toxic equation, so that perhaps others will follow suite, allowing more reasonably minded individuals more room to quickly resolve the matter at hand. Last I checked, the one thing that differentiates en.wikipedia from commons is the atmosphere of collegiality we possess here. I would like to think that it still exists and that we should, not could, all be doing something productive with our time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 12:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And so the witch hunt begins. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The witch hunt here was one of Pieter. This is just fallout to what happens when you go off on a witch hunt (and abuse your admin powers, and have a shaky grasp of copyright).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've no intention of witch hunting anyone but a block such as this was utterly wrong under the circumstances - I am sure you would not place such a block when you were is what appears to be a rather unpleasant dispute with a user? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

At the moment Fastily is doing Commons more harm than good. I lost my trust in him some time ago. This is just another incident in a long chain of unfortunate events. I think it's better for Commons and him if he resigns his adminship. Multichill (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Can all involved parties try to calm down a bit? I feel that the Commons community suddenly has become very hostile. Block here, desysop there. In my opinion, the contributions of User:Fastily and User:Pieter Kuiper are generally good, although the present conflict has stirred up emotions a bit. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is any appetite for taking things further in the direction of the comments by Multichill above (i.e. make a case that Fastily should resign or be desysopped, for longer-term and wider problems than this incident), then this section basically duplicates Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Pieter_Kuiper_has_been_blocked_indefinitely above. Rd232 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a desysop, per Multichill. --JN466 15:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• For the people who didn't notice it yet: Fastily was also a topic on this noticeboard last month. So this incident doesn't make me loose trust in him, because I already lost it earlier. This incident is part of a pattern. Multichill (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• I do not feel comfortable with having an admin who is not aware what a fixed work is, when you can legally fix a work, and under what circumstances an unfixed work can be PD. Or to put it simply, he should know better than to videotape somebody's stuff and put it on Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Also desysop, per Multichill & JN466. An admin who doesn't understand "don't block personally involved, or seemingly involved, parties" and who doesn't recognise the irrevocability of a CC licence shouldn't have a mop. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Don't desysop. While Fastily shouldn't have made that block, as he was involved, PK goaded him into doing it with his malicious trolling. Almost all of Fastily's admin actions here are good, and he recognizes that there were problems with his block of PK. --Claritas

(talk) 23:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oy, whatever. One can just as well argue that PK was "goaded () into doing it (by) malicious trolling". The difference is that one user abused their admin rights, the other didn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Can all involved parties try to calm down a bit?..." as per Stefan4 above --Neozoon (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support desysop, it's nothing like an isolated incident or something. @Stefan4. "I feel that the Commons community suddenly has become very hostile." -- definitely. However, not in the last place that's because people think they can get away with anything -- and it's true for both PK and Fastily. It sometimes amuses me how easy to get admin bits on Commons, and how hard to lose them because of abuse -- it should be the other way around I believe. --Trycatch (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support due to this and other issues, especially his inaction and utter stupidity at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastily/Archive_1#Dinosaurs User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The block of Pieter Kuiper is currently being discussed at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Pieter Kuiper. A desysop request can be started by anyone according to the instructions at COM:DESYSOP. Any objections to closing this section at this point? Jafeluv (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think COM:DESYSOP's "some consensus for removal" has been met (I interpret that as multiple users in good standing supporting removal). If a request for desysop is actually going to be pursued, this section might serve a further purpose in drafting one. Rd232 (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

While I am disappointed that Fastily refused to revert his bad block and chose to go into hiding instead of helping to resolve this, I would suggest not to pursue this further into the direction of a desysop request. People have at times a bad day or bad week. We should not make this bigger as it is. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support desysop. And this is not only because of the very clear abuse of admin tools in the case of Pieter. Which it WAS a very clear and vindictive abuse of admin tools. But also because generally, Fastily just loves deleting other people's work, often on very spurious grounds (for example deleting user generated own work images/maps because the uploader didn't specify "source" (as in "myself") in the template) while him/her self uploading obvious copyright infringements as pointed out above (if I wanted to be mean, I could easily point out several other problematic images, in addition to those which have already been removed, from the user's uploads, but atm I have neither the inclination nor the time to do that). This is what got Fastily in trouble over at en-wiki and after being sanctioned there transferred the exact same behavior here. It's either an issue of competence or some kind of "I get to delete you therefore I win!" kind of game the user is playing, or both, but in either case, it's not the proper approach for an administrator of any website, certainly not this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: In regard to deletions that appear to be unjust, I suggest to raise this at COM:UDEL if they have already been deleted and/or to raise this at his talk page. I know that there were already concerns in this direction at this board. We should, however, give anyone including admins the opportunity to discuss this first and then to learn from it. We have an incredibly amount of backlogs at Commons and Fastily tried to do something about this. We should support him in improving this process and should not immediately ask for a de-sysop when some cases went wrong. BTW, anyone including non-admins can help here by checking tagged files before they are up to deletion. If there is a coordination required to avoid the same file checked multiple times we can surely set something up supporting such a process. In case of mistakes remove the tags and notify the user who tagged it or open a regular DR for it if more input is required. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We should, however, give anyone including admins the opportunity to discuss this first and then to learn from it. Discussion and learning is key, yes. Everyone makes mistakes, the key is to be open to feedback and learning. One of the reasons I'm open to the possibility of supporting a desysop (I'm undecided, there's not a bunch of evidence presented here) is the bad experiences I've personally had in trying to discuss things with Fastily. The incredibly swift auto-archiving (one day!) also effectively cuts off discussion which may not be concluded satisfactorily, in a way that fits rather neatly with the unresponsive attitude I experienced. Rd232 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fastily's dismissal of other editors and little issues like the rapid blanking of talkpage comments might be acceptable for an infallible admin. However basic mistakes like the "revocable" CC licence of the dinosaurs are at odds with this assumption of perfect unchallengability. Admins can have it either way, I think there's a recognition that some margin of error is resonable, but they can't have it both ways at once like this. Fastily acts in a way as if they never make mistakes, yet they make them, and make some big ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that threads should stay longer on a talk page of an admin. I wasn't aware of that. And he should move to another archive, the current has meanwhile accumulated 543,188 bytes which takes ages to load. I think from this thread that we should encourage him to take these issues seriously when he returns from his break. Good communication is indeed essential to resolve issues that inevitable occur during the activities of a busy admin. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"take these issues seriously"

They're probably listed somewhere under "guidance to new editors". Why do they need explaining to an admin? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The talk page issue had been brought up before and dismissed by Fastily. In various fields of admin activity by Fastily, we had the same issue when they hastily closed DRs, deleted images with no source, .. Each time it ended with "I will stop doing these" while letting other users clean up after them. --  Docu  at 04:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, let it go, friend. Andreas pretty much nailed it. Seems almost like a normal person, not a Wikimeanian. TCO (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Napoleon 100

This user has uploaded many images from 1940-50s under PD-art (older than 100 years/life of the author plus 70 years). Tagged some. Please check. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Those tagged were deleted. I could not find others. Yann (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Parinig (talk · contribs) repeated copyvio

Every single upload by this user has been copyright violation. Recently he/she has uploaded three helicopter photographs lifted directly from the Internet. Previously the images uploaded were taken directly from Swiss government websites, but have been released by the uploader as their own work, claiming to be the copyright holder. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've warned him (next time we will block him) and removed the copyvios. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This warning should be sufficient. Next time this user gets blocked. --High Contrast (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Shobhit.Sharma.Wiki (talk · contribs) repeated copyvio after multiple warnings

Repeatedly uploads logos after being warned that they are not his property. --Muhandes (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 month, as he was already blocked earlier for this. Yann (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Zscout370

• Zscout370 (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes)

I realize commons community is incapable of reacting to problematic behaviour but... Zscout370 seems to have a serious problem in restraint on using Sysop tools as visible in File:Flag of Israel.svg. He not only reverted my introduction of information template (only to revert himself (kinda)) but also protected the page. Afterwards he blocked me for a day. Zscout370 did not notify me on my talk page and I noticed the warning on his talk page after I had already made my edit and would have willingly stop prior.

• My edit to the page that got me blocked: 18:56, 8 June 2012
• When I noticed the warning on Zscout370's talk page: 18:58, 8 June 2012

I was replacing a few instances of {{Ku}} with {{Ckb}} on pages where the text is entirely in Arabic script. Both templates read the same thing but ckb properly sorts text in rtl and displays a matching script. Both templates display the same word.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You been told at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Discussion to not make the changes, you been told on my talk page to not make changes, and yet you still did it. You were only blocked for maybe an hour or so. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

[3] 19:00, 8 June 2012 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) blocked とある白い猫 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation blocked) (Edit warring after warnings: You been told to stop with the Kurdish changes; you still did it.)

Your block was for a day and that discussion had nothing to do with ckb language code replacement.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It does. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Toaru-whatever -- I realize that you feel extremely passionate about this issue (for whatever reason), but there seems to be very little point in setting up structures on Commons which contradict the decisions which have been arrived at concerning already-established Wikipedias... AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Anon-whatever. I am not passionate. I just see a technical problem that has a negative impact on commons. The current commons template structure contradicts existing structure of said wikipedias as we do have a w:ckb that separated from w:ku in 2010. We are banning the use of language codes for ckb as users will be blocked for using {{Ckb}} in place of {{Ku}} when appropriate. There was no consensus to ban the use of {{Ckb}} on commons and any user can update language codes to something more appropriate. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 21:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a matter of ku vs ckb. One is problematic. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Users will not be blocked for using ckb in place of ku where appropriate. If someone is translating descriptions or writing original ones and uses ckb, nobody is going to second-guess them. But you started a discussion on the Village Pump, and when nobody, including the Kurdish speakers, responded positively, you went ahead with your changes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I was blocked for that reason. Those replacements were appropriate. The idea was to generate a few examples on how little was going to change should the updates were made. It was for demonstration purposes. I was going to stop after 10 examples even if I was not blocked for it. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you were blocked for replacing ku with ckb, not for using ckb.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So? There is no point in using ku for text that is in ckb. This is like insisting on tagging something as Chinese when you know the text is in Japanese. Japanese uses Chinese characters but it shouldn't be tagged as Chinese. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any oversight on this wiki for admin actions? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Jebulon

Jebulon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is adding repeatedly personal, a kind of ironic, s.th. provocative comments at QIC. Latest examples are [4], [5], [6], [7]. In all those comments I see no factually intention covering the candidature itself. This examples are not closing, there are many of them. This behaviour of disturbing I realise since several months now. I expect that this behaviour will end because it is not raison d'être to carry out the personal preconceptions in the functional pages like QIC is one. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What is finally the purpose of this denonciation ? Yes, I fully agree. And so what ? QIC is a very serious thing, and nothing other than promoting Taxiarchos pictures is allowed there (or, at least, it is forbidden to decline). "Disturbing" the "soft terror" is sometimes necessary. Nothing personal, I ironize only against a kind of behaviour, not against the person, obviously !!!! Let's breathe a bit ! By the way, if you don't know what is a revenge vote, hidden behind so-called technical arguments, please have a magnificient example there. Must be preserved in formalin, and shown in the "Commons User's Highschool" for the following generations, IMO. Too funny. --Jebulon (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here Jebulon assumes me to make a "revenche contra". But for what? I will note that I was banned for three days because such a comment was seen as personal insult. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• A pity that it's inflaming again. Albeit we actually have the wiki principle here, it would really be better now for both of you, to avoid any of each other's candidatures consequently. @ Jebulon: The recent comments in the QIC were indeed not helpful. I've found a comment by you requesting Taxiarchos to keep away from your candidatures, but, to be fair, do the same concerning his pictures. @ Wladyslaw: Please remove your recent FP vote, although you may (and should) vote in any candidature you like, it's simply producing too much trouble in this situation, which we don't want. Nevertheless, all I've said above is not an administrative requirement, warning or similar, just my humble opinion. Thanks - A.Savin 11:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, A.Savin, for appeasing words, you are right and I apologize, I'll try to keep away from Taxiarchos' pictures. Indeed, my comments were not helpful regarding the pictures, because it was a comment about a behaviour and not a technical one, and therefore not the good place to do. A paradox: i've made a pure technical comment under another picture, but nobody asks me for a removal... Anyway, no matter. Ira furor brevis. --Jebulon (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    •  Info As he removed my comments in QIC, I've removed "to be fair" the strong personal attacks by Wladyslaw in FPC, and in order to calm down, I've removed my own previous comment about his revenge vote in the same page.--Jebulon (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I will not talk narrow-minded "if you remove your comment I will remove mine". Here we have a clear misuse of the functional side and a comment of Jebulon. A comment Jebulon criticized some weeks ago against me. Did we have double standards here? --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear: I don't ask anybody to do or un-do anything. I absolutely don't care about Taxiarchos/Wladyslaw's oppose or comment at my picture on FPC, anyone is able to have his own idea about this vote and his timing. I just do, for myself, what I think I have to do. I have no idea about bargaining, negociation or "if" or something. I've nothing to "discuss" with Taxiarchos/Wladyslaw because it is simply impossible to question his opinions.--Jebulon (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't need any deviation of Jebulon and let's get back to the basic point: Jebulon weighted because I called votes activity of revenge and now he did. Not only that he did but he don't miss any chance to call pro-votes for my pictures as a kind of "friendly turn" or comments factual dissensions in a very unobjective way. Either Jebulon avowe that he'll stop this behaviour or I request to bann him several days and give him the chance to think about his attitude. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Jebulon has already said he'll stop. To be specific, he said: "[...] I apologize, I'll try to keep away from Taxiarchos' pictures." Does this really need further discussion? --Avenue (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sententiousness promises from Jebulon I have already read here weeks ago. I never asked J. to keep away from my candidatures but I expect objectiveness he obviously can't hold. And J. just wrote that he have tried to keep away but didn't manage. I see this discussion here as last warning to him. Next time I request a ban for him. It's unbelievable to be engaged with such a immature stuff. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

...Or I'll request myself a ban for Taxiarchos because of his use and abuse of insulting words like "Sententiousness", "ridiculous behaviour", "immature stuff" against me. Last warning to him. Resolved until next time indeed, but enough is enough !--Jebulon (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry, obviously it is not resolved. Let's have and administrative decision here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Provocation in QIC goes on. I request to ban this user temporarily. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • How can this possibly be perceived as a provocation, when it is made as a response to your comment regarding a review of Jebulon, which goes like this "Your arguments are not comprehensible, indeed they are sadly not really established."?? For me, that is provocative. Shakes head. --Slaunger (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Not understanding and argument and stating this is provocative? Shakes head. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
      • There is a big difference between saying you don't understand someone's argument (e.g. "I don't understand why you think [...]. Can you please explain why [...]?") and stating directly that their argument is incomprehensible. The former is almost always reasonable; the latter is not far from calling them a raving lunatic. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but not by much. --Avenue (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • There is only a difference if you want to side with Jebulon and you will. One indication is your exaggeration. So your comment is not very helpful sadly. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
          • As I was trying to say in the section below, you may not realize how it sounds to a native English speaker, but I can assure you that the word "incomprehensible" is much stronger (and places the blame on the other party) than "I don't understand" or "please explain". Your English is very good, but there are subtleties in any language that make it difficult to be diplomatic unless you stick to moderate language. --99of9 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed closure: interaction ban

I propose that a mutual interaction ban is placed between Taxiarchos228 and Jebulon. Neither should comment or vote on one another's images, nor reply or mention one another's comments, nor visit one another's talk pages. 6 months?

•  Support as proposer. --99of9 (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Both do great work, but in recent months neither seems to be able to communicate productively with the other. --Avenue (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Slaunger has convinced me an indefinite ban, until both agree to work together without rancor, is better than a fixed term. I'd also prefer not to ban interactions on their talk pages. --Avenue (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Support The interaction ban seems to be appropriate in this case.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral I do not oppose but I don't believe it will solve the problem. Just look at the section below COM:AN/U#User:Biopics: Taxiarchos is a good and valuable contributor for Commons, I've personnaly learnt a lot from him and Jebulon (well I hope) but from time to time he just can't accept review of his own work. I know some comment may seems harsh or unjustified but sometimes it's constructive in its way, may be the one who did the comment can also learn something from the photographer. Sorry for all the talking ... --PierreSelim (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Really, all that is needed is to avoid getting personal in the reviews. I think it is too far fetched in its proposed form. For instance about talk pages. I do not recall ever having seen any unfortunate interactions on their user pages. Say, if one of the two gentlemen stretched out their hand acknowledging the ridiculousness of the conflict and offered peace, should that not be allowed on a talk page? Frankly, I have not seen any retaliatory votes from either side either. Retaliatory comments yes, but not really votes and they have been not only on own nominations but just as often in consensual reviews. Lenght. Don't like a fixed length - then it seems like some sort of punishment. The point is to avoid further disruption. Instead of x months, I would rather say until they have made a mutual agreement to forget past bad history and work productively within the same subject areas without snide, ridiculing or other baiting comments. I am sure that if a little positive attitude is found, we do not need to use this "interaction ban apparatus". At least I see that Jebulon has ceased firing back with unconstructive comments. Now we just need one more party to calm down. And a settlement. --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that is "all" that is needed, but this is not as easy for everyone as it sounds. I agree the talk page ban is probably unnecessary. Things have not always been friendly there,[8] but I haven't seen any major conflicts. I also agree that an indefinite ban, until both agree to work constructively together, would be better than a fixed term. --Avenue (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Chaudhay420 (talk · contribs) repeated copyvio after warnings

Repeated blatant copyright violations after multiple warnings. --Muhandes (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess this account is only present for Copyvios. Please refer to 420 in Popular Culture in India on the Wikipedia. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC).

i actually like that, really creative...wrong, but creative--Trex2001 (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Or do you mean fraudulent but lovely? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC).

I suggest a block on this user name. The user can be suggested to opt for an acceptable username, if (s/)he would like to make meaningful contributions to Wiki Projects. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC).

User:Chikit150

Chikit150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

continues uploading copyvios after warnings--Trex2001 (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

He was already blocked 1 day for this on June 17th, I've blocked him for 1 month hoping he will get the message this time. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User:ArthurWeasley

I have blocked this user indefinitely for trying, yet again, to revoke his license on images he donated in 2009. This time, he tried to do it by making DR'S that claimed the images were incorrect in some kind of fashion. The last time he did this caused a very major problem at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastily/Archive_1#Dinosaurs and caused not only the deletion of hundreds of images (by changing the license from free to unfree) but also caused a lot of Commons processes to stop (such as Delinker being blocked from several projects). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know. Going through his edits he's been mostly updating the links to his website on his many uploads, and it looks like he's nominated a very few of them for deletion along the way due to being wrong. Isn't it possible he's alerting us in good faith about this? You put a block in place that prevents editing own talk page, perhaps you could chat with him about his motives? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 05:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If you mass DR your images not even a month after you put the same images from CC-BY to CC-ND-NC just to remove them, then change your reasons for deletion just to pull one over our eyes, I lost a lot of AGF very quickly. I'll unblock the talk page, though. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• On Commons:Deletion requests/File:Triceratops new BW.jpg he claimed that the file was unused, but the file is obviously in use. I have closed all of the DRs with the same reasoning. If files are inaccurate that is a matter for local projects to decide whether to use. Other than that, free licences can not be revoked, and I see this as part of that attempt. russavia (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Nothing justifies indefblock here giving that the user was never blocked or warned before. Moreover, nothing justifies any block here, because it seems that he nominated only few pictures he thought were inaccurate -- while he uploaded ~600 pictures, he nominated because of inaccuracies only ~60. BTW some of these inaccuracies were pointed by other users, e.g. [9], [10], so it's completely beyond me, why people who are not subject experts assume bad faith of experts so easily. --Trycatch (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The indefinite is mostly for him to stop and discuss on why he wants the images gone. I know some have supported an accuracy issue one some of them, but others are just a reason (I feel) to get rid of images he tried to before by changing the licensing or coming up with a reason to slip a few past by us. He also has been contacted by other users regarding if he was even able to legally upload the images. Once he begins communication on his talk page, I will lift the block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User was unblocked by another admin. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to this block, the user (uploader of >600 of high-quality dinosaur drawings) decided to leave Commons: [11]. --Trycatch (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the Persian (Farsi) version of Categories .

moved to COM:AN to get a quicker answer--Trex2001 (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Biopics

Biopics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) personal insult --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Two questions for Wladyslaw:
  • Do you have any threshold for reporting people here? --Slaunger (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you ever try to communicate with users prior to reporting them to COM:ANU? --Slaunger (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Biopics aka Wetenschatje is well know for a rude conversation. I have already discussed enough with this user (e.g. here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_22#User:Wetenschatje). Here we have an not acceptable insult. There is no need to deflect of this, Slaunger. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. In fact I never report users first at COM:ANU, an so I didn't here or at any other cases, so stay calm.
  • ??? I do not see any sign on the user talk page or on the thread above, that you have tried to resolve your conflict yourself with the other user prior to coming here. Why do you think I am not calm? --Slaunger (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not think Biopics reponse was out of line considering that you had just ridiculed him with the personal insult (note the symmetry) "Biopics: instead of making a speech about your perception specify the category if you can, if not: don't get on our nerves." Biopics was referring to the Taxon requirement for QIs in the guidelines, an entirely valid expectation for a QI. It is part of the homework prior to nomination and not the responsibility of a reviewer. --Slaunger (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • We don't have the same opinion referring to the Taxon requirement but here is (1) not the space to discuss it and (2) it is not relevant for the question and the announcement. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• (EC) You were the one who personalized that thread: "Biopics: instead of making a speech about your perception" ... "don't get on our nerves". I realize that this was probably not intended to be rude, but if this came from a native English speaker, I would consider it rude. And anyway, we have a very clear principle that QI discussion should be about the content of the file, not the other commenters. Given that you were the one who started it, I am not inclined to sanction the response (with a similar level of rudeness). --99of9 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stick to the point and make the difference: "getting on ones nerves" is no insult but a personal statement. This expresses my opinion (but others think similar) and is for sure no invidious term. An insult is a word just having the intention to hurt a reputation and is in most cases just an respectless comment. To call s.o. a troll or s.o. is trolling around is IMO such an insult. If I am wrong please explain it to me and I will gather this word in my vocabulary to call persons that are gteting me on my nerves also "a troll". --14:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You wrote "our nerves", not "my nerves", so how can such a generalizing comment about a person be a personal statement except if it was in majestatis pluralis. And how come you know what others think? --Slaunger (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I wrote this because also other users are sick of the nit-picking comments of Biopics. But this is not the point and it is for sure no insult. This we don't have to discuss here. Don't deviate and I guess Biopics can also speak for himself. Thank you for considering. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"making a speech" implies that Biopics was over-dramatizing something, what he actually did was "comment" (and apply the rules of QI to the image). It is somewhat rude to exaggerate in this way, especially if you are also supposed to be discussing the photograph according and whether it satisfies the rules. "don't get on our nerves" is rude because it implies that someone is too annoying to properly listen to or engage with. But the main point is, if you don't like what happens once a discussion gets personalized, then you shouldn't personalize discussions. --99of9 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the main point is: is calling someone a troll an insult or not. I don't decry Biopics rude style but one the used word "troll". Not more and not less. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree completely with 990f9 here. To say someone is "trolling around" is not polite, but you started it. --Avenue (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not called his behaviour "trolling", that is the point. And I haven't started nothing, the antipathy between Biopics and me is older than a year, so no one of us will speak to each other in a friendly way. But it is an extremely difference between an critical inflection and a personal insult he did now. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You both commented rudely on the other's behaviour. "Trolling around" is probably closer to a direct insult, but the difference wasn't as big as you think. When three people (including two native English speakers) disagree with your interpretation of a communication, that might be a good time to reconsider your interpretation. --Avenue (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Biopics is terribly blunt at times, but I think it's a virtue. Get over it. --Claritas (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Any immature behavior from a generic user can be tolerable; but difficult from a moderator (Sorry; I don't know the exact titles in the Commons hierarchy). See the current status of the thread. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Biopics is not an admin, if that's what you mean. --Avenue (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• If it can clarify things for Jkadavoor, on Commons we have Check users, Administrators, Bureaucrats with special rights. We also have some level of trusted user with specific rights to review licences or rename files. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• If so; I've no complaints about him/her. Thanks you, Avenue and PierreSelim. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:StasKulchenko

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

is uploading copyvios ([12]) after warnings -- [13] -- BIT1982 (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 3 days. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Leandro parodi

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

is uploading copyvios (Special:ListFiles/Leandro parodi) after warnings. Moros y Cristianos 06:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done The user has been already warned in the past, and also blocked few weeks ago (for 3 days). I've blocked him 1 month this time and nuked the uploads.--PierreSelim (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action. Moros y Cristianos 06:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Luck8888

Luck8888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

is uploading copyvios (Special:ListFiles/Luck8888) from https://www.flickr.com/photos/jingulrich/. Lots to tag, lots to nuke, all © All rights reserved. Moros y Cristianos 13:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nuked uploads and warned MorganKevinJ^(talk) 14:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Moros y Cristianos 16:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Tatianna

Tatianna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This editor claims all their images are their own work which is obviously a false claim. The artwork images are derivative of the artist's work. The paintings range in time from 1949-1984 which according to Russian copyright appear to be still in copyright, so are non-free. Ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Started mass DR. Since the user is no longer active, no need for further action at the moment imo. - A.Savin 15:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Rolandhelper‎

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

has been updating copyvios, got warned and blocked for 3 days, still continues to do so...--Trex2001 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 month. Yann (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

He's been blocked on English Wikipedia for block evasion, so someone might want to keep an eye out for IPs similar to those seen in the sockpuppet investigation for him. Σ (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:C3F2k

This user has consistently assumed bad faith in my edits, and it's now coming out as a deliberate attempt to discredit me in any dispute we're both involved in. The user started the above AN/U about myself, but then withdrew it after his lack of diffs or evidence coupled with the objections of two users I rarely get along with anyways. However apparently C3F2k hasn't let it go, because he just added this comment to a DR we're both in. Yes, the file happens to be one of my uploads, but I do not see how that is in any way relevant to my objection to it's deletion, and evidence towards why it shouldn't be. This is targeted harassment, plain and simple. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful with the usage of this noticeboard. The DR will resolve itself, sufficient people seem to understand that PD-textlogo applies. No need for discussion here. (btw, you linked to the wrong diff.) Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't link the wrong diff, I picked the exact one I wanted thank you very much. Now, if C3F2k had made that comment alone, this wouldn't even be here. But the fact that he started an AN/U of me only a few days ago asking for me to be blocked and banned from interaction with him simply because I disagreed with him in a few DRs (where I was absolutely civil despite my objections), and the fact it failed after two other users who I don't get along with anyways objected, and his lack of evidence for ad hominem accusations like "hounding" and "getting into massive arguments", preceding this choice of comment in an attempt to discredit my objection to the deletion of Dish Network logo 2012 just because I'm "the uploader", I consider a targeted attack on myself. It's bad faith assumption that simply because I'm the uploader that makes myu objection less valid, it's frankly irrelevant because uploaders are always allowed to defend their files that are nominated for deletion (and in fact encouraged since whenever a file is nominated, a notice must be placed on the uploader's talk page so they can replay), and this user has assumed bad faith towards me from the very beginning. And I'm not the only user that C3F2k has asked to receive a punishment for having the audacity to disagree with him in a DR, he's only been on Commons since May 20th 2012, and in these less than two past months, he's started one AN/U for a user to be blocked for disagreeing with him, and started a de-adminship request against one of our most prolific admins because Jim had the audacity to keep a file that C3F2k thought was "dodgy". Fry1989 ^eh? 22:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This is why I proposed an interaction ban in the first place. Also this seems to be misuse of the noticeboard. Plus, where have I assumed bad faith? And also I am still trying to get the hang of Commons. Do you want me to leave? This is why I quit from Wikipedia, because of this. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The interaction ban was absolutely preposterous, I had only encountered you maybe a few days before you started that AN/U about me, we never even fought about anything, all I did was give my opinion in a couple DRs that you happened to be involved in as well, some you started yourself, some you didn't. For being "brave enough" to not agree with you about whether a couple files should be deleted or not, I get an AN/U asking I be banned from interacting with you, and blocked for "hounding" you, something which I never did, I had never even gone near your talk page or addressed you directly in any of the DRs. You completely over-reacted, and others agreed. But now you're going further, you deliberately added a comment on this DR pointing out I happen to be the uploader of the image in question. Now I ask you, how is that relevant? What possible factor does that add to my objection to the file being deleted, and whether or not my objection is valid? Maybe you didn't do it to try and discredit me, maybe you just felt it was something that should be pointed out, but then when I went to your talk page, I find out that you created a De-adminship Request for one of our best and calmest admins just because he decided to close and keep a different DR that you disagreed with. If you want to get along with people here, you are gona have to learn that not everyone will agree, and when they don't, that doesn't mean they're bad, it doesn't mean they're harassing you, and it doesn't mean they should loose their admin powers. Do I want you to leave? I rarely want anyone to leave Commons, and so far, you're not one of them. But I would like you to not single out people just for disagreeing with you in DRs, and asking that they be De-admined or blocked or banned from interacting with you because of it. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I will have to learn that. But remember I have only been around here for 1 month, which is not very much. And I would've put that tag on any other DR if the uploader commented, not specifically you. It just alerts of a possible conflict of interest. And yes, I do regret that de-adminship request. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 01:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I had alot to learn when I came here 2 1/2 years ago, I still have things to learn. And regret shows that you understand when your wrong, but an interaction ban is only warranted when there is massive disruption and harassment by one user against another. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Continuation

C3F2k if continuing to follow me around and stir up problems. Today has been part of a continuation of my above complaint. I edited File:Best Western logo.svg back on the 19th, removing the Registered Trademark symbol. I have my own reasons for this, which can be seen on the file talk page. Anyways, VernoWhitney disagreed with that, and we ended up having a discussion on the file talk page outlining our views. We never did come to a formal agreement, but an informal one has come to pass since VernoWhitney has left the file to my revision without the mark for over 4 days. Today, C3F2k "stumbles upon it"and reverts me claiming there's no consensus. I notified him on his talk page (twice) to joi in on the file discussion page, but instead he removed that from his talk page both times and continued to edit war on the file 4 times, the final one threatening to report me "to the admins". He did actually do that, only to remove it moments later saying it's "better off taking it one on one". He then when to an admin Morning Sunshine's talk page to directly request I be blocked, for an edit war he started. Directly asking an admin on their talk page to block another user without looking into the details is not only wrong, it's dangerous, causing an admin to block the wrong person, or give out indiscriminate blocks without knowing the details of the situation. Once again C3F2k shows disregard for proper process here, continues his attempt to intimidate me, and it needs to stop. I'm tired of being followed around, I'm tired of him asking for my block whenever he and I cross roads and happen to disagree, and most importantly I'm tired of this user disrespecting proper process for dispute resolution such as talk pages and (when neccessary) AN/U boards. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 related note I have warned C3F2K and blocked Fry1989 for edit warring on File:Best Western logo.svg (Fry has previously been warned in similar circumstances). After the block expires, if an alternate version is desired, it can be uploaded to a new location. Fry1989, your "informal [agreement]" with VernoWhitney was no agreement at all - there were multiple reverts from both parties after the last talk page post (before this latest flare-up). VernoWhitney's leaving the page is a credit to them as the one who first got tired of the revert war, it is not an agreement that you were correct. --99of9 (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'm glad that you were at least attempting to talk, Fry1989, but alas you both failed to cease fire before actually commencing discussion. --99of9 (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Sonu101

• Sonu101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Has repeatedly uploaded copyvios despite an end-copyvios warning. Please delete the new contribs (tagged) and deal with as appropriate. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked a week by Morning Sunshine, I've deleted the few last images that were copyvios. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Dário17 10

• Dário17 10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Several uploaded protected images, O Globo as a source, all material on this group is protected. Sorry my bad english. Fabiano ^msg 01:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

OrionHsu (talk · contribs)

Hello,

This user has a lot of deleted images, and still 3 more pending in Category:Copyright violations. And dozens more not yet evaluated. Need a complete review. Yann (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Löschen zweier alter Dateiversionen

Hallo,

bitte bei den beiden Dateien File:Berlin-Baumschulenweg Güldenhofer Ufer 12.jpg und File:Berlin-Baumschulenweg Eschenbachstraße.jpg die jeweils alte Version löschen. Ich hatte vor dem Upload vergessen, die Kennzeichen unkenntlich zu machen und nun neue Versionen hochgeladen.

Danke und Grüße --Assenmacher (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Erledigt. --Denniss (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Klasse, herzlichen Dank! --Assenmacher (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Niabot using deletion nominations as retaliation

The User:Niabot is antagonizing me by wiki-stalking my uploads. Note that shortly before his nomination of a parade float photo of mine, he was trolling my Talk page, and nominating another photo of mine for deletion. I noted at the time that Niabot had singled out my parade photo in particular (because he has a vendetta against me alone), while letting pass the numerous other similar photos of the Electrical Light Parade. Credit where it's due, User:Russavia at least made the other lighted parade photos disappear, since mine was made to disappear, so the ruling was applied consistently. Nonetheless, the actions of Niabot beyond reasonable doubt were not sincere Deletion requests, but rather a petty trolling amusement for him. I request that Niabot should be warned. -- Thekohser (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you inform me about the uploads so that i was interested in what you would upload, after reminiscing over you previous block? Of course i noticed the copyright violation and created a deletion request. Later on i suggested to delete all images from the category. I don't see this as my fault or stalking if you make me curious with your comments. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 16:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you mean that by my removing your trolling comment from my Talk page, and you reading my edit summary that mentioned that I'm uploading content to Commons, that this was an invitation for you to wiki-stalk (that is the term, yes?) my uploads and find fault with two of them, where one was exonerated, and the other was brought down by only a very loose interpretation of a French law on lighting displays, as it would hypothetically apply in the United States, then I suppose we can all applaud the interpretation that this "informed you" about the uploads. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Entschuldige bitte, aber bei dem Kommentar konnte ich gerade einfach nur lachen. Es war so amüsant zu lesen wie du es versuchst schlichte Tatsachen zu verdrehen und Mücken die Rüsselnase aufzusetzen. Schau dann erst einmal eine Runde Fußball, bin sowieso schon in bester Stimmung. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Suck it up. I'm a little tired of people complaining about people nominating their files for deletion based on valid copyright issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting (but expected) response. The hypocrisy begins to leak out here, because very recently (maybe you weren't aware, Prosfilaes) a user who was found to be nominating files for deletion based on valid copyright issues was banned in large part due to that practice. So, it would appear that if you're in the "in crowd" on Commons, revenge nominations are something you tell the victim to just "suck up"; but if you're not in the "in crowd", then the same sort of revenge nomination is a blockable offense. I'm beginning to see how it works here on Commons. (By the way, 50% of Niabot's revenge nominations were determined by the community consensus to lack any copyright issue at all. I wonder what would happen to a police officer who shot an innocent bystander every other time he was aiming at a lethal criminal?) -- Thekohser (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do know about Pieter Kuiper. You'll note that he has a long complex history where a lot of the people whose files he nominated for deletion were told to suck it up. It could be hypocrisy; or you could be looking for any excuse to stir up trouble and paint yourself as persecuted.

Your metaphor is stupid. On the flip side, we might wonder about your uploads; what would happen to a food manufacturer where 50% of the tested jars of product held a deadly disease?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Damn, you're good, Prosfilaes. Working from the bottom up, I'd say that if my metaphor is "stupid", then that makes your converse metaphor equally "stupid", right? And, from the top, I'd say that I know about Niabot, and I'd say that he has "a long complex history" here on Commons, too. So, I guess we're back to Square One. Will Niabot be warned about issuing deletion nominations as an act of revenge or trolling? Or, is that too horrifying a thought for the "community"? -- Thekohser (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course my metaphor is equally stupid. It's amazing; people go into a volunteer community and abuse people, particularly the community as a whole, and and wonder why people don't want to work with them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Niabot knows well enough that there are limits to the acceptability of this behaviour, but the Pieter Kuiper case shows that those limits are quite high. Two DRs re one user, with one DR successful, isn't enough to make a fuss about. Niabot can, if he wants, follow the same advice I gave Pieter: when it comes to people he has disputes with, he can look for alternative ways to handling issues than raising DRs himself. If further issues arise, we can tackle them then, but a certain amount of ignoring (alleged) motivation and focussing on facts does help. Rd232 (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Niabot seems to be learning from this incident by calling me a "disgrace" and assesing my images as "crappy quality".

Look at this crap!

I'll just leave the wise administrators with this disgracefully uploaded, crappy quality image that I shot with my camera and donated to Commons. Cheers! -- Thekohser (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no call for such rudeness in response to a legitimate question, and I've said so on his talk page. (However, the Epcot rainbow image you asked him about is objectively not of the best photographic quality; the flower image is much better. I'm sure you can see the difference too. There is Commons:Photography critiques if you're interested.) Rd232 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Rd232, that my Epcot rainbow image is not of the best photographic quality. However, I think the purpose of adding the photo to Commons was to provide a unique perspective on a rather interesting alignment of the rainbow with the Epcot logo on Spaceship Earth. In fact, I would dare say that mine is the very best image combining "Epcot" and "rainbow" to be found on Commons, if we're talking about naturally-occuring rainbows. At any rate, surely all of my uploads are of a higher quality than the image uploaded by User:Mjenkins33, yet I haven't seen any criticism whatsoever directed toward that user's work. Just a hearty Wikimedia Commons Welcome on his Talk page. (Then again, his image upload was taken with a camera back in the year 210, so perhaps the point of his image is simply the miracle of electronic photography existing in the era of Septimius Severus. Maybe space aliens provided Mjenkins with either Roman Empire era optics, or perhaps time travel. Take your pick.) -- Thekohser (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. You're well aware of the antagonism between you two; there's no need to dwell on this particular remark ("...crappy..."), which is just another example of it. Your own evaluation of your contributions shouldn't depend on such remarks any more than the Commons community's does - you shouldn't feel a need to prove it's wrong. In short, just ignore it. Rd232 (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Just if you like to read more about whether using crap for one's work or not is appropriate, I have a full thread of this on my talk page archive (In short: I asked someone to stop using "crap" but the one disagreed that "crap" is inappropriate for describing Niabot's work). If you also want to know more about my dictionary, let me know ;-) -- RE rillke questions? 21:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dreamchaser50 (talk · contribs)

This user keeps re-uploading same kind of files after two mass deletions and warning. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:SLV100

SLV100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This editor has been needlessly trying to rename the File:Licensing tutorial tr.svg.png to a new name. His rename requests have been turned down by first by me, then by Materialscientist, and INeverCry as there is little reasoning behind his requests. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC).

 Comment what can administrator do about that ? It seems a discussion has been started by Materialscientist and the disagreement seems to have stoped (discussion seems to be the solution). --PierreSelim (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for a discussion at all. You can't move MIME type: image/png to .svg due to MediaWiki's build-in check that MIME type matches file-extension. Perhaps SLV100 will get it. If SLV100 wants to help, (s)he can translate File:Licensing tutorial en.svg to Turkish so we have a real SVG and not this pseudo-one. -- RE rillke questions? 09:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not complaining - I don't know good Turkish but I guess one of our friends can communicate the problem to this user. Hindustanilanguage (talk).

User:AnonMoos

Request to reopen

Ahem... This issue actually has nothing to do with Latuff (except that AnonMoos don't like his political views). Instead it is about how to categorize islamophobia. Is is a form of racism, similar to antisemitism (as various experts say) or is it not (like AnonMoos say). That is the core issue. // Liftarn (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was closed because you presented yourself as the innocent virtuous aggressed-upon victim of personal attacks, and that allegation didn't pass the Commons admin common sense standard (which is the real main policy here). If you wanted the substantive factual issues to be discussed here, then you should have raised them... AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Marc

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

Personal attack against me, the files that I should have supposedly destroyed were in fact deleted in cause of copyright violations committed by this user, look User talk:Marc. By the way only administrators could restore files, so Marc's prompts to me are pointless anyway. Hereby I request the removing of Marc's last offending edit on Commons:Requests_for_rights and a final warning for him.--IusticiaBY (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an accusation. But why don't you ask the user for evidence. -- RE rillke questions? 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Accusation without attestation is defamation.--IusticiaBY (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't talk about files on Commons, but I talk about books on Wikisource. Here are the books you have destroyed : s:fr:Livre:Wells - La Russie telle que je viens de la voir.djvu, s:Index:Wittengenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu, s:Index:Russell, Whitehead - Principia Mathematica, vol. I, 1910.djvu, s:Index:Our knowledge of the external world.djvu, s:fr:Livre:Russell - Le Mysticisme et la Logique.djvu.

So yes, you are unreliable and dangerous. And you are very impolite too, because you don't respond and don't even try to repair what you have done (ask for restoration and reupload on Wikisource). I have spent several hours to make some files ; in a few minutes, you have thrown all in trash. Marc (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

All deletions look correct to me. Files have to be in the public domain in both the source country and in the United States in order to be uploaded to Commons. The mentioned books are not in the public domain in the source country since the authors died less than 70 years ago. Thus, the files don't belong on Commons. If French Wikisource has other rules, then the files may be uploaded locally there. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

After User:Marc doesn't stop to repeat the harassment against me, I'm hereby requesting a substantial block against him. He didn't kept the rules of Commons, he offends other users and and he shows no insight into his misbehavior.--IusticiaBY (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I talk about the books on Wikisource. You can't simply delete a file without any consideration for what users do on others projects. This is why I have asked IusticiaBY to do the necessary to repair what he did. So, I have tried to discuss politely with him ; but he don't respond. And now those accusations and he requests to block me... I think it's enough ; this is insane. Marc (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons can't host files which are not in the public domain in the source country. If French Wikisource depends on copyright violations being present on Commons, then this is only a problem for French Wikisource. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I talk about the use of the files. 16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)He has tried to discuss, but in no way polite, look User talk:IusticiaBY#Books that you have destroyed. Incidentally, I find it very strange that on French Wikisource the French(!) copyright is not applied.--IusticiaBY (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

So, for you, when you don't respond, you are polite ? when you refuse to do the necessary, this is a polite behavior ? Incidentally, I didn't know that this is you who decide what can be uploaded on Wikisource or not... Marc (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Marc the problem is that you are not on frwikisource here and by our policies on copyright it seems you are wrong, and that the files couldn't be host on commons. IusticiaBY did what we do everyday on commons to remove copyvios, i.e. tag files and notify the user. It's an sysop that have deleted the files, but please stop being aggressive against IusticiaBY who used the regular process. Now to me the problem is that Commons and frwikisource do not applies the same rules on copyright and it's quite clear by reading s:fr:Wikisource:Respect_du_copyright that Marc believed the files were PD. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem is that I talk about the use of the files. There are now some books on Wikisource without files, and no one cares about the fact that these files must be restored and reuploaded on Wikisource. I don't have some of these files, and it has took me several hours to make them. You think I am aggressive, but what would you think if someone destroys your work and does not care about it and does not respond to you ? What is so difficult to understand ? Marc (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This is really the same thing as deletion of images used in Wikipedia articles (which also happens all of the time). Anyway, for fixing this on Wikisource, see COM:Undeletion requests#To allow transfer of fair use content to another project. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not exactly the same thing, because a single file may be used for proofreading thousand of pages, and when you delete a file, you destroy the work of several users on Wikisource and you ruin the very purpose of Wikisource. But I see this is not your concern, so I don't intend to stay more longer on commons. Marc (talk)

I have one question: as it's copyvios, shouldn't the book be deleted from Wikisource instead of discussing on COM:AN/U ? --PierreSelim (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You can reupload all the files on Wikisource and discuss about that here and here. Marc (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, best regards. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Trop aimable... Marc (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

C'est problèmatique là si wikisource et commons n'acceptent pas les mêmes oeuvres ça risque d'arriver plus souvent, donc pas la peine de se presser, mieux vaut résoudre le problème de fond. Maintenant, tu me demandes d'uploader un texte qui est sous droit d'auteur en France, c'est un clair non pour moi. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The files are in the public domain in the United States, so strictly speaking, they are not copyright violations in the Untied States, although they aren't allowed on Commons. What matters is whether they are allowed on French Wikisource or not. Of course, all of the files are copyright violations in all of Europe (except Belarus where some of them are in the public domain), so any Europeans editing the pages on Wikisource or uploading djvu files with the books may be taken to court by the copyright holders. Some of the files are in the public domain in Québec and some files might be in the public domain in French-speaking countries elsewhere in the world (e.g. in Africa), but many of the files are copyright violations in every French-speaking country, which looks odd for a project meant for French-speaking users. s:fr:Aide:Respect du copyright#Œuvres qui sont dans le domaine public contains a list of misunderstandings about copyright law, so it is not clear which legal standard French Wikisource is using. For example:

• "Œuvres publiées avant 1923." This is a US rule: such works are in the public domain in the United States, but are often copyrighted elsewhere, e.g. in Europe, as we see in this case. So is Wikisource using US law?
• "Œuvres publiées dans l'Union européenne, en Australie, au Brésil, au Nicaragua, au Nigeria, au Paraguay, au Pérou ou à Singapour dont l'auteur est décédé depuis au moins 70 ans." This is a rule applying in the mentioned countries: such works are in the public domain in the listed countries, but may be copyrighted in the United States, which is the reason for COM:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review. So isn't Wikisource using US law?
• "Œuvres publiées aux États-Unis après le 1er mars 1989 dont l'auteur est décédé depuis au moins 70 ans." This, again, is a rule applying to the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru and Singapore, but not to the United States. If the publication was between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002 and 70 years already have passed since the death of the author, then the work is always copyrighted in the United States until the end of 2047, since you can't create works posthumously. So isn't Wikisource basing the copyright status on copyright law at all? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Avant de faire des allusions insultantes, tu devrais considérer la situation en connaissance de cause. Wikisource francophone suit les lois européennes dans l'ensemble, mais publie des textes libres de droits aux USA en ajoutant un avertissement à chaque texte. Je rappelle que des textes français libres de droits aux USA ou ailleurs, mais pas en Europe, sont publiés massivement par : Gutenberg, Internet Archive, Google, HathiTrust, etc. Wikisource a eu des problèmes avec Gallimard à ce sujet, mais l'affaire n'a pas été très loin. Ensuite, si nous ne suivions que la loi des U.S.A., la majorité des contributeurs francophones seraient hors-la-loi ; si nous suivions la loi européenne, nous serions dans certains cas hors-la-loi au point de vue US ; si nous suivions les deux, un juge US pourrait quand même faire supprimer des œuvres en vertu d'un obscur traité non appliqué depuis 15 ou 20 ans, et donc en réalité on est toujours à la merci de la loi américaine. Avant de s'en prendre aux contributeurs, il faut donc voir avant tout que la situation en elle-même est peu compréhensible, voire parfois à la limite de l'absurdité. Marc (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A priori Wikisource (fr) devrait respecter le droit US et le droit français voir foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy/fr (les exceptions aux droits d'auteurs doivent être « en accord avec les lois américaines et celles des pays où le contenu du projet est le plus consulté »). Personne ne conteste à quel point c'est hallucinant et inadapté, mais on ne peut pas faire grand chose là. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Manifestement, Wikisource dans son ensemble ne suit pas cette règle. Cela voudrait dire que des suppressions importantes de livres seraient nécessaires si vraiment cette règle absurde devait être appliquée. La fondation Wikimedia a une politique intéressante pour promouvoir la connaissance. Marc (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

D'ailleurs, quand Gallimard a demandé le retrait de certains textes, et que ces textes ont été republiés malgrè cette règle, la fondation était parfaitement au courant et je ne me souviens pas qu'on nous ait objecté quoi que ce soit. Marc (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ce genre d'argument n'a pas sa place ici, on applique: Commons:Critères d'inclusion/Principe de précaution. Pour le message d'au dessus, tu te trompes sur un point, on essaye pas de promouvoir la connaissance, mais la connaissance libre ce qui est complètement différent. Maintenant je ne vois pas vraiment ce que tu veux qu'on fasse à part enfreindre les règles de notre projet qui sont différentes de celles de la version francophone de Wikisource. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ce n'est pas un argument, c'est un constat que c'est manifestement le cirque. Et comme je viens de le dire, cela ne concerne pas que la version francophone de Wikisource. Marc (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Steven185 (talk · contribs) and 187.5.48.121 (talk · contribs)

As I'll be offline for some days, an eye should be kept on this user who has — despite warning — overwritten File:Emerson Sheik.jpg (originally uploaded by a different user) 3 times with his version, claimed to be own work, but obviously a copyvio, as it had been published earlier in an uncropped version[23]. In addition, File history suggests that he is likely behind this IP's 187.5.48.121 (talk · contribs) nice comments ("Oh god, are you retarded? have mental problems? this file has no definite source, understand?")[24] and ("You're crazy? have mental problems? god, this file is other source, is a older image has no definite source, understand?")[25] which were posted within 30 minutes after my first problem tagging of his 2 uploads. Account (3 days) and IP (2 hours) now have been blocked, but who knows. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I will take an eye on this. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:BekaRonaldo9

User has already been blocked after Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 26#BekaRonaldo9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). User has recently uploaded File:Ronaldo Luiz Nazario De Lima.jpg and File:Ronaldo Nazario.jpg, both obvious copyright violations. I'm not sure if this user will ever be interested in contributing non-copyrighted work. --Ytoyoda (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 month. Copyvios deleted--Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jermboy and his various socks/IPs

I would like to start a discussion about this user, and the possibility of unblocking him with some restrictions or something. From my own observation, the user has poped up here over the last few weeks under new accounts with a suffix number like "Jermboy1", and when it's blocked, create a new one like "Jermboy2" and so forth, and most recently not even bother and just use different IPs. Also from my observation however, is that this person hasn't truly done anything harmful. Infact, he has become useful to me, as I've been uploading a lot of files lately pertaining to road signage, and he has shaved off a lot of time for me by cat-sorting my images appropriately and adding the files to the right pages.

If people agree, I wouldn't mind seeing if we could approach this differently. Instead of blocking every new account and IP we see, would it be possible to contact the user and get them to agree to one single account? If this person would agree to that, and to stick to road signage which seems to be their main focus, I don't see much harm in that. I'd like to see how others feel on this, admittedly, I've only become aware of this user recently, so idk if they have a past or not. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If Jermboy27 (talk · contribs) wants to be unblocked then it is up to them to come forward by asking to be unblocked via the main account which is blocked. At this stage I'm opposed to see them unblocked since they have continued to upload hoaxs, failed to give sources and the fact that they keep socking via new accounts and IPs shows that they haven't learnt what they are doing is disruptive. Bidgee (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll not comment on this for now as I'd like to think first however I do think it would be appropriate to offer the community some background to this. See recent links are here, here and a fair bit with links here. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Nabil80 and File:Flag-map of Morocco.svg

Similar to the Serbia and Kosovo dispute, there has been alot of POV and arguments over Morocco and Western Sahara. This map is supposed to be of Morocco without Western Sahara, and there are other SVGs with WS for users who support that claim to choose from. This user reverted the map back last year in August to include WS, and just recently did it again today. Please provide a sound warning to the user that this will not be permitted and there are other maps to choose from. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done (renamed the other version of the map to File:Morocco Flag Map (including Western Sahara).PNG to make it clear that this is the version including the Western Sahara)

--Neozoon (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)