Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 40

Widespread spamming by a photographer

May I draw your attention towards User:Alvarosevilladesign. I've recently amassed hundreds of edits while removing his images from top categories like Black and white photography, Ecuador, Spain, UNESCO, South America, or World Heritage Sites. COM:OVERCAT has been brought to his attention several times. Still he (respectively IP users) continue spamming his pictures to categories too high in the tree, see e.g. the latest IP contributions. He has created his own Commons page with lots of external links: David Adam Kess (photographer), and his own Category. He tries to get an article in en.wp en:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Adam Kess as well. A number of his pictures have been inserted to lots of wikipedia pages worldwide by IPs, although they are probably not the most valuable of all images available. I checked only a few, e.g. File:The Galápagos tortoise or Galápagos giant tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra) - Santa Cruz Island.jpeg (inserted to c. 50 articles), File:Puerto Ayora isla Santa Cruz Islas Galápagos Ecuador foto por Alvaro Sevilla Design.jpg (c. 50x), File:A Black and White Photograph from Spain.jpeg (30x +). I can clearly see a conflict of interest. --Sitacuisses (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Their uploads look ok to me, and whilst the categorisation is a minor problem, I think we are more likely to help them to help us to help them, if we leave messages for them which is a bit better than "Please read Com:Overcat! Please read Com:Overcat. Please read Com:Overcat. Please read Com:Overcat. I think I'll repeat this until you actually read Com:Overcat. Thanks. --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)" Why not ask the editor if they need some assistance in categorisation - it can actually be difficult for people who aren't familiar with how that side of things work. Usage of their photos on other projects isn't something that need to deal with here; that's an issue for individual projects. russavia (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I see the editor is Spanish-speaking. Do we know if they speak English? Perhaps having things explained to them, and an offer for further assistance, in Spanish might be a better way to go about things too. russavia (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I explained him in spanish. Regards! Ezarateesteban 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note that another user had already pointed him to COM:OVERCAT before me. Initially, I also thought that language might be a problem. But his self-description is written in plain English (you rightfully deleted the commons page with the same content), and he states there that he was born in Boston and is a graduate of Northeastern University (Boston, USA). I'm quite sure that he understands what he is doing, and that this is why we see so many of the edits distributing his images are executed by IPs. As I wrote above, categorization is not the only problem, but his pictures are being spammed across many Wikipedia projects in contradiction to the policies for illustration. For example, in this version of the German article about El Escorial Palace, IPs from Ecuador added two black & white photographs with vignetting effects, one of which has almost the same content as another picture that was already there, and one was even added twice to the article, once at the right edge, another time in the gallery at the bottom. These pictures were also added to many other articles, although there are plenty of good colour pictures of El Escorial available. --Sitacuisses (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing here for an admin to do. Titles of uploads are not promotional, there are no watermarks and there is no plugging of commercial websites (even in the CC-BY attribution). I don't know what the story is with anon IPs, you may want to ask them, perhaps they don't log in at work? As for improving articles in various language Wikipedias, that sounds great. If you know of better quality images to use instead, you can go and replace them all, but as a complaint that could apply to almost anyone inserting an image into an article - few users would check all alternatives first. Alvarosevilladesign seems to be an asset to Commons as a quiet content creator with over 700 images uploaded in the last 12 months. --Fæ (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that you have got the point and I ask you to get deeper into the matter before you deliver judgement. I have spent a few hours with this within the last weeks, and I don't appreciate premature reactions to my inquiry. I don't have enough time to delete all the images that were added in an inappropriate way to hundreds of pages in dozens of different languages. How many of you believe that this is a picture representative of Galapagos? The self-promotion goes even further. As in File:A Lava tunnel on the Island of Santa Cruz Galapagos photo by Alvaro Sevilla Design.JPG, he copies long parts of Wikipedia articles to the image descriptions (the text comes from en:Lava tube). This of course is in contradiction to the licence terms, it's copyfraud. But why does he do it? In my opinion the purpose is search engine optimisation; Google gives more value to pages with texts of a certain length, and this text is full of keywords related to the image. This, along with the many wikipedia articles he inserted the image to, will rank his images higher in Google Images. If this is not spamming, I don't know what it is. Somebody is abusing wikipedia for self-promotion, and some of you just say "there's nothing here to see, move on"? If this conduct catches on, we will get lots of conflicts with more photographers who abuse this project by promoting their pictures in the same way. "We" doesn't refer to Commons alone, but to all the wikpedia projects all over the world, where galleries are being added with more and more inappropriate pictures. --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody should be blocked from Commons for crosswiki inserting images on other Wikipedias. From our point of view we have somebody who uploads pictures, which is good. However if there are formal issues like overcategorization, overly long or copyright-violating file descriptions, then a block may be necessary. Cross-wiki abuse can be prevented through global locks, global bans etc. (haven't checked what policies precisely apply to this case), but we shouldn't keep people from donating images because of things that are strictly done on other wikis. darkweasel94 18:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems annoying, but you appear to have brought this to AN/U before exhausting discussion with the uploader as there is very little discussion on their talk page. Certainly you cannot imagine that an administrator would want to block this account for spamming? I carefully looked one of your key examples of spamming, the Puerto Ayora photo, there is nothing there promotional, apart from this guy mentioning it is a great place to visit in the description; I don't see how that benefits him commercially in any direct fashion. If you get a list together of where 'picture A' has a clear rationale to be replaced by 'picture B' in all sister projects, then you might want to ask for someone at Commons:Bots/Work requests to pull a script together if there are a lot of them. If they are pushing inappropriate photos into articles in a way that goes against local policies, then I would expect them to start getting blocked on those projects soon enough. Yes cribbing long bits of text from Wikipedia onto Commons needs attribution, you may want to attribute one as a demonstration and advise them of how to do this better. I have uploaded a lot of photos to Commons (some featured in the WMF annual report), if I wanted to start to place my best uploads into 100 different language Wikipedias, then this would not be against any Commons policies I am aware of, indeed that is the point of the free reuse licence and it would be up to me to comply with local style, licensing, image relevance or other policies and guidelines or run the risk of being challenged on the sister projects. However, I am happy to back away and make no further comments on this thread. --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, and writing in this language costs me even more time than I would want to waste with spammers anyway. And then I won't spend more time than necessary with a person when I notice that he ignores my hints and resorts to IP edits instead, which seemingly has been the case (IP from Quito/Ecuador, like other spammer's IPs). According to his self-description, Kess is a professional photographer. Professional photographers sell images, and Google Image search is nowadays the easiest way to find images. Wikipedia images are ranked high in Google Images, and Kess is doing everything to rank them even higher. What more do you need to know how these edits benefit him commercially? How do you expect dozens of local project to stop him from spamming, if he adds only a few photographs to each of the projects? It's the number of different projects that counts here. I do appreciate that he has donated lots of images to Commons and I don't ask you to block him immediately. I was hoping for a more elaborate reaction from experienced users, a reaction that also takes into consideration that blocking an account won't stop IPs from spamming. --Sitacuisses (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Some more evidence of Alvarosevilladesign's dedication to Search engine optimization (SEO): On User talk:Alvarosevilladesign I found the following links to some of his (?) uploads that have been deleted as they were "Out of project scope: Promotional content", or "advertising". There is a deletion request page for one of the images. Note that User:Andreateletrabajo refered to the author as a SPA, {{u|Alvarosevilladesign|Internet Search Optimization}}. The deleted images had the following names, all starting with "Internet Search Optimization":

• Image:Internet Search Optimization photo of the Museum of Medicine in Quito that was founded by Dr. Eduardo Estrella Aguirre.jpg
• Image:Internet Search Optimization Quito Tourism Poster at the Museum of Medicine in Quito founded by Dr. Eduardo Estrella Aguirre.jpg
• Image:Internet Search Optimization photo of the Museum of Medicine in Quito.jpg

Admins may assess whether there is rule to this naming of files. Was it a beginner's mistake that he has avoided since then, but that is still revealing?

His user page did contain an external link to an SEO website right from the start: [1]. On this site (I won't add the link here) you'll find the following acknowledgement: "Dave Kess, President – Internet Search Optimization". Among his fields of activity is "Design and implement marketing management of Wikipedia pages." --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the testimonials at Dave Kess's SEO page (he boasts creating en:Surfing in Ecuador, en:Waltham Model 1857, and others), Alvarosevilladesign must be a sock puppet of User:Ilovetosurfthewaves (blocked at en.wp: en:User:Ilovetosurfthewaves) and User:Bonsairolex (also blocked at en.wp: en:User:Bonsairolex). Bonsairolex signed some of his photos "dave kess" (e. g. File:The beach at punta carnero .jpg). Rolexdaytonadave is in the list of sock puppets as well. In the light of these findings, I have to constrain my statement above that said "I do appreciate that he has donated lots of images to Commons". Now I'm actually not sure whether we're talking about the donation of photographs or about paid editing. --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If somebody is paid to donate files to Commons, that's IMHO still beneficial if the files are in scope; Commons is not Wikipedia where that's problematic in terms of neutrality, self-promotion, etc., and if somebody's motives behind releasing images under a free license aren't purely altruistic, that doesn't mean we don't need them. The more-or-less current issues that are related to Commons seem to be overcategorization and overly long or copyright-infringing file descriptions. Now: is he edit warring to keep those policy/guideline violations in? Or is he continuing to upload files with such mistakes (after it's been explained in Spanish)? I don't see either of those behaviors in his contributions or upload log - he hasn't uploaded anything for a few days now. I don't really see the current, continuing user problem that needs to be prevented (on Commons) - just somebody who doesn't seem to be aware of our policies and whom we should assume good faith with. If he's a problem on other projects, they can block him if they also think so, but for Commons it's beneficial to have those images. darkweasel94 00:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's not the main point that he might get paid for his uploads, but that a person who has been repeatedly blocked might still get through with constant spamming in Commons and other Wikipedia projects, while admins don't care about SEO activity in their project. I see some of you coming up with various apologies for him that actually miss the point. E.g. russavia: "Vignetting is in the scope as an example of the effect; if it were in a higher resolution, it would have more chance of being used by others in relevant articles." What's he talking about? Even though there's vignetting and the resolution is very low, that image is being used in more than 30 articles, since it was added there by a spammer! I might have to pay an additional visit to Meta-Wiki Vandalism reports if Commons don't show responsibility for their users. Rather than apologies for a convicted spammer, the least thing I'd expect from you is to keep an additional eye on his edits. There's a backlog of his edits and images which I haven't looked at, since Ecuador is not a subject I'm too familiar with. I came across this only by accident. --Sitacuisses (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I was not going to comment here again, but there seem to be assertions of past judgement that should require evidence and the user in question has yet to comment or be engaged in discussion as far as I can tell. Sitacuisses, I may have missed this in the above discussion, perhaps the information is obscured by being in a page you linked to? Could you provide:

1. a link to the sock puppet investigation that demonstrates that Alvarosevilladesign was deliberately misusing accounts or anon IP addresses against policy?
2. a link to the prior case of spamming by Alvarosevilladesign that demonstrated this was against policy?

If it turns out that there are no previous cases, I recommend the apparent claims that this has been proven, such as referring to Alvarosevilladesign as a "convicted spammer", are removed or annotated as allegations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There was a sockpuppet investigation for some of his older accounts: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonsairolex/Archive. Several of his accounts have been blocked consequently in en.wp.

How do we know that Bonsairolex = Alvarosevilladesign?

1. In the first versions of his user page he posted a link to a SEO web page named internetsearchoptimization.webs.com. On this site it is stated that Dave Kess is the site's owner or "President".

2. David Adam Kess is the name that Alvarosevilladesign uses with his photographs.

3. From his page internetsearchoptimization.webs.com/apps/testimonials/ we learn that David Kess has started en:Waltham Model 1857 (started by User:Bonsairolex, who credits some of his photographs "dave kess", see User_talk:Bonsairolex#your_uploads or [2])

4. We also learn from the same testimonials page that Galapagos Islands Tourism thanks Kess for adding galleries to several pages, among them es:Puerto Ayora (Alvarosevilladesign added a gallery), and en:Santa Cruz Island (Galápagos) (again it was Alvarosevilladesign who added the gallery).

This should be sufficient to point out that Alvarosevilladesign, Bonsairolex, Dave Kess and David Adam Kess are one person. The more I was looking, the more evidence I found. User:Daytonarolexboston is probably another of his accounts with mediocre pictures spammed all over local projects [3] [4], and Foroa posting "Please read COM:OVERCAT" to his talk page, to no avail. --Sitacuisses (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. However this does not mean that they are a spammer under the Commons definition, nor that they are misusing alternative accounts on this project. There is no policy against someone being paid to upload images to Commons (many well received GLAM projects rely on employees and contractors to do the work).

I suggest that Alvarosevilladesign is advised that what they are doing may be considered on sister projects to be acting with an undeclared conflict of interest—this runs the risk of having all their work undone in the future as a form of precautionary measure. To avoid problems and misunderstandings, they would do well to explain their project openly, along with declarations of any interests. Hopefully volunteers in the Commons community can advise on how to continue to release their high quality images on Commons, and use these on sister projects, without running the risk of being accused of spamming or using alternative accounts in a misleading fashion.

The community is interested in receiving uploads like this for the benefit of public knowledge and we should support initiatives that may involve people being paid to do the uploading. Doing this as a declared project, within policy and with community consultation for all projects benefiting from the images, would be the best of all worlds. For this to happen it would be better to work positively with Alvarosevilladesign and advise him of best practice. So, shall we try that first? --Fæ (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

By all means do go to Meta-Wiki if you have a complaint about cross-wiki abuse - stewards have the ability to globally lock, etc. If somebody's behavior is beneficial for Commons, I see no reason why Commons should block them - it's not our responsibility to keep people from doing anything at all on other wikis if their presence benefits Commons. darkweasel94 09:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Fæ: These edits don't give the impression that he's ready to agree to the declaration of interests you suggested.

@ darkweasel94: If spamming top categories with hundreds of pictures is beneficial to commons you should go and remove Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. Actually this behaviour counteracts and annoys those users who spend their time trying to make the large amounts of files uploaded to commons utilisable in the first place by moving them to the adequate categories. - I've gone to Meta-Wiki before you posted this, but it doesn't seem to be very active [5]. --Sitacuisses (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My friendly hello has been responded to on my talk page and I will be following up on Alvarosevilladesign's page later today after taking a moment to ponder the case (diff). I do not believe there is any mellow administrator action possible here, so would someone please close down this thread whilst I put aside some of my volunteer time to offer carrots where bashing with sticks has not worked? I would appreciate some mellow and friendly help, so anyone interested should add User talk:Alvarosevilladesign to their watch-list, and will be welcome to chip in with links and friendly advice where suitable, so that we can avoid this escalating into drama on this project and sister projects. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• That overcatting should be a blockable offence for people who freely donate their work here seems beyond ridiculous, and counter-productive to this project. We have people posting hundreds of dick pictures in "proper categories", yet they are a hundred times less useful for us than these. FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So what's your proposed reaction to constant violation of guidelines under various accounts? --Sitacuisses (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sitacuisses, you have failed to present evidence that this account has violated specific Commons policies. Having a commercial interest and donating valid educational content to Commons is allowed and should be encouraged. If they are using alternative accounts in a way that is misleading on Commons, then that may need discussion—though discussion with the user should be demonstrably exhausted first, if anything discussion has barely started, particularly if compared to the length and detail of your engagement on this noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please reread my first sentences in this thread. Do you think I'm making this up? Are you not able to find those edits in my list of contributions? Are you not able to check his uploads and edits? Hint: on July, 14th I amassed more than 1000 edits while removing lots of his images from Categories like Category:UNESCO, Category:South America and Category:World Heritage Sites (link to the history of my contributions [6]). I repeatedly warned him about this, like he had been warned before. Still categorization of his latest uploads is incorrect, just look at any of them: File:Historic Center of Quito - World Heritage Site by UNESCO - Photo 557.JPG, uploaded August 25, was added to Category:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito (good!) - Category:Churches in Quito (redundant to the latter) - Category:Centro Histórico, Quito (redundant) - Category:Photography by David Adam Kess - Category:Photography (redundant, spamming a top category). Thanks for addressing him on his talk page, but his reaction was the way I'd expect from a spammer: After you were talking about declaring a possible COI, he just deleted your post without an answer [7]. I don't understand why you still keep defending him after you got rebuffed like this. --Sitacuisses (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are not making up your evidence, and from my background I understand perfectly the political and governance issues of COI on the English Wikipedia, you could consider me an expert. I just read this situation differently. I have no doubt this is a user with commercial interests and they may benefit from their contributions. I also have no doubt that being "caught out" and publicly accused of COI and being a spammer has put them on the defensive and possibly embarrassed them. The outcome I would prefer to see here is moving this to an adult discussion with this user so that they can declare their interests, continue to contribute high quality images to Commons within the spirit of our guidelines and without causing pointless disruption on our sister projects. Their contribution here is valuable for public knowledge, I see no benefit in driving that contribution away. If they continue to have a problem with over-categorization here, then I can easily put all their uploads in a backlog review category and even consider how to automatically knock back all their future uploads to a predefined set of categories. --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Potential copyvio

I don't know if this is the correct place to make this claim. I believe most of the coats of arms of the province of Guadalajara uploaded by user:Basilio probably are copy violation, as he acknowledged in my user page. (Masegoso de Tajuña, página 235),(Zorita de los Canes, página 337),(Viñuelas, página 329),(Yunquera de Henares, página 333), (Tendilla, página 301) (and more and more and...) I posted this warning at spanish Village pump in Commons, but I didn't get any answer. Greetings!--Totemkin (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you suspect that these images are copyright violations, it is best to open a deletion request for them, grouping all images into one request, see these instructions. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mike_willaims and socks adding seemingly false/promotional images

On the english Wikipedia for the last couple years this user has been adding false information about himself. Him and a sock User:Mike Blackler have been uploading images for use on these false promotional edits on wikipedia. These images are more promotional and PR focused than anything, and many probably hold false descriptions based on his history on enwiki. See File:S._Nick_Barua_with_the_Ambassador_of_Japan_HE_Shiro_Sadoshima_2013.jpg and File:S._Nick_Barua_with_the_Japanese_Ambassador.jpg NativeForeigner 토론 (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the photograph, I would say it is in-scope even if a fake (presuming the photograph of the Ambassador is not a copyright problem). As a case study to demonstrate attempted PR manipulation of the English Wikipedia, it would have definite educational value. If not fake, then it is still in scope.

I'm assuming that is the whole story, if there is a pattern of image manipulation, this would be useful to consider. If you were asking for particular administrator action or an investigation, you might need to spell that out too.

By the way, I have tried Google image matches and Tineye matches for the original and a crop of the Ambassador alone, I find no matches. An examination of the file in Photoshop shows no metadata or history attached to the image. --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mostly I'm actioning this per request of the person who filed the SPI. My personal opinion is that the images are being used for disruption, but there are some probably notable people, hence it stays in scope. I think the images are real but especially in the context of enwiki the content may be misrepresented to a degree where the description doesn't match the true content. (Probably out of Commons purview to deal with though) The SPI filer wanted the users blocked here as well for disruption although they haven't been disruptive here. I would agree one of the two accounts should be blocked as they are definitely the same person, as well as Yuji_Yoshida who is continuing to upload more images of the individual, probably for proliferation elsewhere. These users are indubitably all related to one another (as socks)NativeForeigner 토론 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Daniel the duke

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

User uploaded several self-pics of his genitalia. As I believe we are over-saturated as it is (and there's plenty of "quality" pics on the subject), I nominated them for deletion. The user first resorted to accusing me of basing my nomination on racism, and has now regressed to childish vandalism of my comments. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the previously deleted images, but checking one of the latest is a high resolution image rather better than the majority of similar images. Yes changing the text of your nomination was naughty, he really should not do that again. They are probably upset at seeing their uploads deleted one after another by the same person and feel this is now a campaign. A bit of mellow advice might result in mellow behaviour rather than a block at this stage. --Fæ (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

By the same person?? I only nominated his most recent uploads, all the previous ones were dealt with by Mattbuck. I generally stay away from nudity-related DRs for this very reason, it's a whole mess. There is no excuse for accusing me of racism, and no excuse for vandalizing my comments. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, however starting a DR with the text "Exhibitionist and useless" would be taken by many as a bad faith assumption about the motivation of the uploader. If you start off and continue with confrontational language, it is no surprise when a contributor new to how some folks behave on Commons might react in a confrontational manner and see this as a personal attack. --Fæ (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh so it's my fault that I think we have enough already, a view shared by many many other users, and that based on the wording the uploader chose it's rather obvious this is exhibitionist? Way to spin things around. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to have whatever view you wish. Having seen your interactions over many months, both in DRs and on these noticeboards, it is easy to see that your style remains highly confrontational. I have no doubt that many new users would struggle to know how to best respond. --Fæ (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My "style" is to do what I see as best for the project, in whichever manner I deem appropriate. I have proven my ability to be more than collegial and polite to those who are polite to me, but if you make this a fight with me I will play the same game. Trying to excuse this user's behaviour by saying I've had bad behaviour in the past is both facetious and unhelpful. This matter deals with now, and lashing out at me because I nominated your file for deletion is not excusable. Even if you can excuse the messing around with my comments as "naughty" and out of frustration, I have said absolutely nothing which would lead this user to believe I'm a racist. I don't believe I have even requested a block yet, though you were quick to jump to say it's not needed, I've simply reported behaviour that any user has a right to report if they are subjected to it. Grow up Fae, you have problems of your own to deal with, you're hardly one to wander into mine. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

QED. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just letting you know that as much as you can observe me, I can observe you. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Sorry but the wording of the descriptions he used does not suggest anything to me that would be evidence for an assumption of "exhibitionism". I'm not saying your DRs are wrong, and I'm not saying his behavior is ok in any way whatsoever, but you might still want to use more neutral DR reasons - we don't want to bite the newbies, and if somebody called some of my first uploads "exhibitionist and useless", I'd be quicker to reconsider my participation on Commons than if they wrote "does not add anything educationally distinct to our collection", or "technical quality too low", or something like that which basically conveys the same policy-based message. Of course none of that excuses Daniel the duke's behavior. darkweasel94 19:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have observed many nudity-related uploads over my time here. While I myself have only nominated a few, I have always seen a common language used by uploaders who just want to "show off", attempting to make it sound sciencey and descriptive, when in reality it's just "here's my junk, have a look". Exhibitionism really doesn't add anything to the project, and while this uploader's camera quality may be higher than most, that's how I see it and that's how I call it. It's not ok to call someone a racist (especially without any proof whatsover but simply out of anger, desperation and trying to rationalize why someone would want to delete your image) or to mess around with their comments like that. Any user here who is subjected to that has a right to report it, I'm not stepping out of the norm on this. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Trivial statistical point—Not counting the new DRs raised today, Fry1989 has raised a total of 25 DRs that have been categorised under Nudity and Sexuality. This makes them the fourth largest creator of such DRs. Refer to the summary coincidentally published earlier today at [[8]]. --Fæ (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that everyone has the right to report such behavior. I didn't say anything against that, just noted that what you did also wasn't the most friendly way of doing things. :) But in fact that's more or less off-topic, you're right. darkweasel94 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't be dishonest Fae, especially when it's such an easy manipulation of the facts to catch. That's been during my over 3 years on Commons, and they were all individual image DRs. Most people make mass DRs to include all the uploader's images. When you count the period of time in which I have made such DRs, and that they're all single image, my "ranking" significantly decreases. If you consider how many of those nominations I made were because the uploads were blurry or extremely low quality then the point you're attempting to steer people into believing, that I'm somehow anti-nudity on Commons, becomes even less valid on it's face. Also I've never taken part in any of those more common mass DRs, or any related debates about hosting nudity-related images on Commons. I'm not a puritan, I really don't care if we have penises and vaginas and whatever else on Commons, but as others besides myself feel, we're reaching a point of saturation. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• User blocked for 1 day for [9] Cool off period granted, let's hope he'll be doing better in a day. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Hedwig in Washington, you appear to have forgotten to notify Daniel the duke (talk · contribs) about your action on their account. Could you please follow Blocking policy and correct this? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur both with Fry's cogent assessment of this uploader and of Fae's dishonest and manipulative behavior in this section, which should be condemned. — Scott • talk 11:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scott, nice to see you complaining about me here rather than off-wiki. If you wish to support your allegations with evidence, I suggest you create a new section rather than taking this one off-topic. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for me to do anything. Fry has already pointed out the issues here, even though your behavior in this section speaks for itself. — Scott • talk 16:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Both Don't bite newbies and don't be a dick are policies. Therefore a guy that comes with I am the new dick, don't bite me should expect a "policy error" message. In the present case, I am very surprised to see someone, Jew or not, having so small feets. May be, this feeling results from our large quantity of pictures that are actually educational about perspective. As a result, this whole story looks more like deceitful self-advertising rather than exhibitionism in good faith. Pldx1 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

+1, sole exhibitionism and rude behaviour that someone dares to start deletion request on that crap. No, this "newbie" doesn't want to contribute to commons / wikipedia for educational purposes, rather only for showing his cock to everyone. Commons is not a dumb for private images. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Fae, you ARE being dishonest in your attempt to push off that I am somehow the #4 nominator of nudity-related images and you know it. You claim I've done 25 such DRs, but in this case alone if I had done a mass DR instead of each image individually, my ranking would decrease by 7. It's the same with my other nudity-related DRs over the years. I don't do mass DRs often because they're a lot of work.

Now if you really want to play this game with me Fae, let's play! Tell me oh great expert, just how homogeneous are penises? Just how homogeneous are Jewish penises in particular, that just one sample makes for an accurate comparison against those of non-Jews? These are excuses I see all the time in nudity-related DRs, that "it makes for a great comparison" and it's a "good example of a penis with this type of foreskin", which is why I generally stay away from them. Every little difference somehow qualifies the image as a fine golden example of whatever that penis has. We don't need to compare the penis of every race, and it would be foolish to attempt to do so considering every one is different. We don't need every penis in the world, we just need enough of them to meet our scope, and I'm not the only one that feels we're saturated already. What ever happened to "Commons does not need you to drop your pants and take a picture"? Fry1989 ^eh? 19:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass DRs are not a lot of work. You may wish to look at using Help:VisualFileChange.js in future to make it easier for you to do mass DRs. russavia (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989, my experience with Jews is quite extensive, with me growing up in a Jewish family and thankfully there being no shortage of interesting gay Jews in London in every type of gay venue. I can assure you that in every possible way the Jews are highly varied, being a great mix of people around the world. I have found that our penises vary in all sorts of ways as much as our ears, noses and dialects we speak. I would avoid stereotyping Jews as being homogeneous in any way, we are not. Personally I would name these files as "circumcised" rather than "Jewish". Thanks for acknowledging my expertise, I hope this satisfies your curiosity. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You completely twisted around my point in the opposite direction, perhaps you should read it again. I was saying that all penises DO vary! The fact they vary is why it's foolish to say "Here's my penis, I'm a Jew, this is a great example of what Jewish penises look like". One sample of a Jewish male's penis, or any other ethnic group for that matter, will never be an accurate example to use to compare the penises of all those people, because every penis is different even inside groups. It's like having one Brazilian man and one Icelandic man stand in the same room, drop their pants, and us say "This is a wonderful comparison between the penises in Brazil and in Iceland". But that's what the uploader was saying in his file descriptions, and that's the excuse I've seen used before in DRs relating to genitalia. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be making the case as for why we need a large diversity and variety of human body types of all kinds. As for what this uploader says about the photographs of his own body, that's not particularly important compared to how the images stand on their own merit and can be used and reused to help fulfil the scope of this project, possibly by superseding lesser quality images on this topic, in line with Nudity considering their high pixel resolution. However this is a matter best discussed in the DRs. --Fæ (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I really don't want to participete in this discussion but can't help asking a couple of candid questions: i) Anyone really believes that Commons is a puritan organization? ii) Is it because there is a much larger anatomical variability in penises that this organ is more represented in Commons than noses, ears and fingers? iii) Does anyone believes that this kind of uploader is interested in improving the educational value of Commons? Come on guys! I'm with Fry1989 on this one and consider that this kind "see my dick" uploads should be deleted on sight. Commons is not a personal genitalia warehouse. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• + 1. I think our collection is far much more than complete now.--Jebulon (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  This is getting off topic, however a key purpose of Commons is to have diversity and variety of educational images of all types. To debunk the myth that Commons is flooding with penises compared to every other part of the body, here are real statistics, calculated 10 minutes ago, based on the topics that Alvesgaspar mentioned, taking the main category and counting all unique images in child and grandchild categories:

  Human noses 865;

  Human ears 1608;

  Human penises 2358;

  Human fingers 2679. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I am kind of interested in how you work this out. I'm looking at Category:Human_ears and Category:Human penis and Category:Fingers and it isn't hard to spot which category is overflowing. And even if your stats are correct (and don't include fingerprints and rings as fingers for example), our hands are an extremely important from a visual social point of view (second only to faces I would reckon), where as our penises are essentially of negligible visual social importance. One sees hundreds of hands every day, whereas (unless one is particularly nosey when going to the gents), many of us will rarely see another person's penis. So I think Alvesgaspar's argument remains valid. Colin (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The above numbers were produced by finding 2 levels of categories from the main one (some are deliberately kept diffused), removing duplicates, finding all files in the list of categories of mime types 'image', removing duplicates and then counting the results. This is at least a consistent and accurate measure compared to the guesswork and reactions to particular problem cases made popular off-wiki that many viewpoints seem based on. Alternative unbiased statistics would be interesting, though not really a matter for this thread on AN/U. --Fæ (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I thought this was a discussion about a user's behavior, not about how many images of various body parts we have? But in principle, I don't think our collection of photos on any topic can ever be "complete". When I write Wikipedia articles, I'm always glad when there are many photos of the subject on Commons so that I can choose which one best shows the aspect I want to show (that's not just technical quality, the perspective it's viewed from can also play a role) - and it's good, in principle, that authors of articles on penises also have that choice. There should never be a point when we say "we already have n images of x, we don't need this n+1th" there's no limit on how many images we can have here. At the same time, it is not helpful if there are a lot of low-quality images of the subject on Commons, because then I have to dig for those that are of acceptable quality to illustrate the article. Which ones of the photos Daniel the duke uploaded are potentially useful, can be discussed in the deletion discussions that have been opened. darkweasel94 22:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah Ah Ah ! Are you kidding, or are you really serious ? In this case , this kind of patronizing is really funny ! Yes, our collection of human penisses is complete, far much more than our collection of chimp penisses, orang-utang penisses, gorilla penisses or other primates penisses. A shame, in my opinion ! But please, continue this hypocrite discussion without me, I have to continue uploading future valued or quality images in order to provide good illustrations for articles. Don't hesitate to chose what you need in my galleries ! Ah Ah Ah !--Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Darkweasel what this is, is that Fae made something personal out of nothing. He tried to make this look like I'm anti-nudity or had some other hidden reason to nominate this user's uploads. And now Fae is trying to weasel his way out of making this personal when it never was. I nominated some images for deletion on the basis that we have enough dick pics already and these new ones didn't add much. After nominating them, the uploader vandalised my comments and personally attacked me, which is why I reported it here. Fae, for some inexplicable reason, tried to completely twist this around and make me look bad, bring up my past history and block record, and make excuses for the behaviour of the uploader. Fae has been absolutely dishonest in his misrepresentation of how many nudity-related DRs I have initiated, and he knows it too. It's no wonder so many people have a problem with you Fae. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989 I had no idea you had been blocked before. As your past blocks had nothing to do with me, I don't know why you would imagine I would either know about them, were interested, or why you assume that everything here is about you and your past. As for your repeated claims that I am guilty of "dishonesty" and "misrepresentation", I quoted the simple unvarnished statistical fact that you had raised 25 DRs in the nudity and sexuality DRs category before the new DRs that were under discussion in this thread. It is an inescapable fact that this makes you the 4th leading creator of DRs as shown on the table available at Category talk:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests that was created before you chose to start this AN/U discussion. As to whether the 25 DRs (17 deletes, 5 keeps and 3 undeleted) is a good or bad thing is up to interpretation; in fact I have not even attempted to interpret this, you have just repeatedly assumed bad faith on my part. Anyone that checks my comments here can show that the only thing I am guilty of is quoting a statistic, which I pointedly called "trivial", just to provide some context for your statement "I myself have only nominated a few".

I feel this discussion has run its course. There seems little point in continuing to reply to your tangential allegations about me. --Fæ (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You deliberately listed how many nudity-related DRs I have initiated, using the wording "This makes them the fourth largest creator of such DRs", to make a point, a false point which doesn't take into account several factors. And yes, YOU made this about my past. Whether you knew about my previous blocks or not, you did say that you have observed me for some time and feel I'm confrontational. You made this about my past, not me. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You tried to find some way of sharing the blame on me, from the very beginning. You could have just easily voted to keep the images with whatever reasoning you see fit, such as image quality. Instead, you had to accuse me of a certain bad faith, of using confrontational language which caused this problem, and you have continued to try and find a way to levy the blame on to me. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close heated thread

I left "Daniel the duke" a message and repeated Hedwig in Washington's advice. This thread was initially about "Daniel the duke" and the defacement of deletion discussion comments. That behavior ended, and I hope that my message to David will encourage him or her to engage in discussions instead of defacement in the future. The above discussion is rapidly degrading into fighting, so can we please end it now that the dispute that this thread originally set out to settle is resolved? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thread closed. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

User:Penyulap

Once in a while I used to come here to participate in the on-going discussions whenever the people or the subject was related to my activity and/or I was directly involved in some dispute. I always assumed that this place was intended: first, to ask assistance from our administrators when we were in trouble; and second, to serve as a forum for those administrators to discuss and solve the problems. In some cases other users participated in the discussions either because they were part of the dispute or due to their closeness to the people or the subject being dealt with. As far as I know, this is still the model consensually accepted for AN/U. If that is indeed the case, why is this community still tolerating the systematic highjacking of this forum by a user who has nothing to do with the disputes and whose later contributions to Commons seem to be the flooding of the discussion with humorous, childish and often disruptive comments? After all the useless attempts made to solve the problem in a mellow and proportionate way, we have to admit that things are now worse than ever, with AN/U looking like a circus where a certain comic artist is omnipresent. Don’t you think it is time to face the problem and find a definitive solution? I see only two ways: to prevent Penyulap, for good, to participate in AN/U; or to restrict temporarily the page to administrators and to the users directly involved or invited to (maybe Penyulap wants to propose him/herself for admin?). For great evils strong remedies, we say in Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I oppose restricting any noticeboard to administrators. Administrators are not a special authority, they are supposed to apply community consensus - which can only be formed if everybody is allowed to participate here. But I agree with you that Penyulap's soapboxing and derailing is often disruptive and exhausting the patience of others, so a topic ban or something beyond is something that I'd support. darkweasel94 13:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose – I don't believe that Penyulap is being disruptive. We should become more tolerant of people such as Penyulap and learn how to engage in discussions where Penyulap is a participant. Throwing Penyulap out of discussions isn't a solution. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"Disruptive" does not necessarily mean "malicious". It refers to the results of, not the intent behind, an editing pattern. If somebody is unable, though not unwilling, to participate in a way that's in accord with community guidelines, then that is disruptive too. darkweasel94 14:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

So because Penyulap can't learn how to engage in discussion where everyone else is a participant, we all must learn to engage in discussions where he's a participant? I've got no impression that Penyulap is willing to be tolerant towards anyone else's behavior, except for other people who have got sanctioned.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have tried discussing the interpersonal problem with both Fae and Penyulap at User_talk:Russavia#Commons:Bureaucrats.2FRequests.2FRussavia_.28de-Bureaucrat.29 and User_talk:Fæ#User_talk:Russavia.23Commons:Bureaucrats.2FRequests.2FRussavia_.28de-Bureaucrat.29. Fae, it would seem, is trying to implement something whereby they can individually "mute" Penyulap, yet has taken the bait above again thrown out by Penyulap, who is, as evidenced by my talk page intent on continuing the same way as before. Instead of starting a thread on Fae here, he has instead continued to do what Alvesgaspar describes above. As this is something that is an ever-recurring problem, and because we can't restrict our noticeboards to administrators only (as per darkweasel94), I think a short-term restriction on Penyulap commenting on any AN board (say 3 months) unless it directly concerns him is in order. This restriction could then be looked at after the 3 months, and extended if the problematic behaviour Alvesgaspar describes is continued elsewhere, or lifted if there is an improvement. russavia (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

•  SupportI agree w the observation done by Alvesgaspar and I agree with a restriction on commenting on COM:AN for a time period of "few months" as proposed by russavia. --Slaunger (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Apparently, Pen had not been informed about this discussion, so I have left a note on his talk page. --Slaunger (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support the restriction proposed by russavia. I propose to clarify it in order to avoid wikilawyering: "directly concerns him" should mean "is a direct complaint against his editing". darkweasel94 14:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No, "directly concerns him", meaning if he is experiencing a problem with another user that needs admin attention/intervention, Penyulap would still be free to bring that issue here. We should not be restricting his ability if he experiencing issues with other editors. russavia (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with that too, though I'd also support my stricter version (especially given how another editor recently tried to wikilawyer even around that stricter version). darkweasel94 23:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't support a "stricter" version in that if Penyulap feels like he is being harassed, we can not and should not prevent him from raising those concerns publicly. That is just one example of why he might legitimately need to bring an issue for wider eyes/intervention from admins. I'm still open to other options as well, such as that offered by AFBorchert, and don't think this should be closed off too quickly; especially as we haven't heard from Penyulap. russavia (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment - 1) wasn't this very thing already implemented once a few months ago? 2) I don't think anybody is seriously proposing a restriction on this noticeboard to administrators; there's no point in even discussing it further. Let's let that one go. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The previous editing restriction was much weaker, restricting only the quantity of comments. darkweasel94 15:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support a restriction as proposed by Alvesgaspar and Russavia and as specified by Slaunger and Darkweasel94. Otherwise we should rename all COM:AN-boards into Penyulap's playground or similar. --Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support the proposed restrictions. This user is clearly disruptive (albeit probably not maliciously so). The previous temporary restrictions made communication on COM:AN boards much more tolerable to others, so it would be nice to see them broadened and extended. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - when I must not see this signature with its mostly dispensable and partisan comments in EVERY possible thread on AN, ANU and VP, it's already an incredible progress. If a full ban is - for whatever reason only known to God - not possible, then let it be at least a topic ban. Btw, Beta_M, a productive and mellow user, is still globally banned by Jimmy and his WMF; whereas the account "Penyulap", whose entire contribution to Commons seems to be to inflammate in every possible discussion, still has a carte blanche for trolling on Commons. I wonder, then - where is the justice? :(( --A.Savin 17:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support the restriction proposed by russavia.--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Pen is not a problem to many (Russavia, Michaeldsuarez, Fry1989, and me at least); but it is a fact that many others can’t understand what he says. It is not a problem of him; but we have to consider their concern too. My advice to Pen is to leave people who show intolerance to him; as he did in case of Jimmy. I’m not a ban/block fan; but let it your decision unless he doesn't neglect my advice. JKadavoor Jee 15:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment & voting based on what others have brought up  Oppose While I have noticed that Penyulap likes to stick his nose into stuff that doesn't involve him, when he does so, his comments are usually quite fair (if you look past the angry tone and sarcasm) to the point where his position is practically incomprehensible. I agree with what Michaeldsuarez says—we need to be more tolerant of and value Penyulap's questions and input.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 17:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Considering the amount of administrator´s misbehaviour and the amount of ass covering among them, Penyulap´s behaviour is necessary at times, and underneath all of his diatribe I find a lot of truth in his comments. Censuring someone because his opinion is uncomfortable is a plain no-no. On the contrary, why not look at the merit of his claims with a critical eye? The only reason that Penyulap is a pain in the ass and has been able to survive is because there are elements of truth in his interventions, long as they may be. If censure is the only way to keep him quiet, it means that no reasonable or logic arguments are u to the level of the claims. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose To me, Penyulap appears to be someone who loves to engage in defending others. This is a good thing in wiki culture and that is not something I would like to see suppressed. The problem is not that Penyulap comments at AN/U but that Penyulap tends at times to engage and engage by responding to nearly every other comment in a thread. Some comments and observations by Penyulap are, however, worth to be read. In my opinion, we need at AN/U a balanced approach, i.e. we solicite wide community input (everyone should be welcomed to comment even if they are not directly connected to a case) but we should also try to keep the threads in a state where some useful closure can be done without reading tons of text with off-topic material. In summary, I oppose a ban of Penyulap from the administrative boards as proposed but would suggest another approach: Penyulap should not comment more than once per thread at administrative boards per 24 hours except if it is a thread where Penyulap is involved. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment Commons:Editing restrictions&oldid=99746143 | Penyulap--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this pointer. I was not aware of this as this restriction fell into a time when I was inactive. In my opinion, we could also reinstate this restriction as it does not ban Penyulap from the administrative boards but just limits the amount of comments. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment -- I wouldn't support a specific measure until Penyulap reacts to this thread. Maybe this time he will acknowledge that his behavior is disruptive and some kind of agreement/commitment can be achived; or, on the contrary, he is not ready to compromise and we will have to impose some kind of ban or block. Please remember that the concept of 'punishment' does not exist in Commons; any sanction we apply should only aim protecting the project. @Jkadavoor: the problem is not so much the intolerance of some users to Penyulap style but the damage he actually makes to the normal functioning of the project. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose So we just silence those who bring up valid but inconvenient points? Fuck no. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. He is not a martyr, he is not bringing up inconvenient points. The information density and value of his abundant comments are rather low. It is the clogging up of discussions with hot air and pseudo-funny meme pictures that poses the inconvenience. --Dschwen (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support There was a time when Commons was mercifully free of the :en:WP dramahs. However as more and more of those with more interest in hooting their trap off at the uppercase boards than in contributing anything useful, then they wash up here – or else at Wikipediocracy (Hello Michaeldsuarez). As a result, Commons drowns under the waves and waves of Penyulap's pointless witterings. Enough is enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support From what I read here and in archives, this user's input into discussions can best be described with the word "busybody". Rarely is the input substantive or productive , it just tends to add more rancor. 3 months is a good time-out period, then see what the user has to say about how they would approach discussions differently before it is lifted. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support All of the discussions Penyulap participates in end in non-constructive ways. The reasons are manifold, with Penculaps comments ranging from direct offences over insults, subliminal insinuations, unnecessary sarsasm, doubtful jokes, hot air, to pure nonsense. The < 1% of comments containing a glimmer of useful information are nullified and canceled out by the > 99 % of comments being disruptive.
  By his childish and sulky decision to impose an embargo on file uploads his useful contributions to Commons are even close to zero now. --Patrick87 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Half the time I can't understand his point due to his use of obscure references and analogies. However, his rages against hypocrisy typically have merit and when he does use simple English he makes a valid argument (even if I disagree with many of them). In the end, I would rather hear his voice than have it silenced. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The only childish thing going on here is the third (at least?) attempt to silence a user because they point out incredibly hypocrisy and conflict of interest which is embarrassing to those targeted. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think many people are !voting here to silence anybody. I, at least, am not. The issue with Penyulap is not what he points out but how he points it out: with long rants without a lot of actually usable information, embedded in often barely comprehensible allusions (sometimes subtle attacks), often in places where they are simply off-topic. Often he repeats such rants exceedingly often, making discussions hard to read and distracting from the issues they are about. darkweasel94 23:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Question @Fry1989: would you kindly explain who is the hypocrit here and whose conflict of interests and embarrasement are you referring to? Since you seem to be able to interpret Penyulap's discourse better than any of us maybe you want to share that knowledge. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

When Penyulap links diffs in an AN/U of the behaviour of the user who initiated the AN/U, he is clearly pointing to what is often hypocritical or questionable. A simple example is the above one initiated by Fae regarding Ottava Rima. Penyulap has given 7 diffs of what he clearly feels is inappropriate behaviour on the part of Fae. In the case of [10], I absolutely 100% agree that it's inappropriate for an admin to shift around and section off another user's comments, and Penyulap's playful alteration of the sub-section's title highlights this. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

When someone brings up a person here, it's inappropriate to toss attacks around to try and obfuscate the subject of the thread.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out the actions of others (which they choose to make) are attacks now?? But of course, I'd expect such from you. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No, but pointing out the actions of others in a totally unrelated thread is disruptive no matter if one is right. As a side note, Fae is not an admin. darkweasel94 09:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Totally unrelated" is a matter of opinion. And the fact Fae is not an admin makes it even more inappropriate for him to mess around with another user's comments like that. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose For now. @ Alvesgaspar: Since you are not a regular here; you may have little knowledge about what is really going on here. From this comment you can easily understand the problem is not of Pen alone. If everybody is willing to behave properly and show some willingness to compromise; there is no problem at all. Attempting to silence one side alone will ruin the project ultimately. JKadavoor Jee 05:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Jee, be careful. To write that Alvesgaspar is not a "regular here" could sound a bit ridiculous, as he is one of the most famous contributors in "Commons"...--Jebulon (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support The user has some issues with civil discussion and when they believe they are in the right, will simply use battleground tactics such as moving discussions and even stating "Charge!" or something to that effect as a blatant battle cry. Constant cartoons with little to no relevance are very disruptive and I have had to ask recently that they stop disrupting !votes. I actually like Penyulap (even received one of their "Donuts of Doom" awards...still not sure what that is though), and watched them banned from Wikipedia. It looks to me that this has become their home and their activity here, seems to mirror that of Wikipedia in some ways. Frankly I think they should be blocked altogether. I don't see why we put up with someone who seems to have been blocked from uploading (at least, that is their claim) and is constantly disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Penyulap is not blocked from uploading, he refuses to upload anything as a protest. darkweasel94 09:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral: Penyulap is a troll, I felt that from the very 1st time I read a thread where he took part — a gut feeling I seldom have and which never faded. For every valuable thing he does (even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day), there’s a cartload of annoying noise that needlessly strains our attention and patience. However, I wont help in creating a martyr — but I wanted to express a clear no-voting statement. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap has points to make about proper process and the questionable actions of others. That's not the course of a troll and you know it. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We all have points to be made, yet Penyulap makes s/his in a trollish way — which is even worse than a “pure” troll who’d disrupt just for fun, as what Penyulap says cannot be dismissed as content-free nonsense. That’s what annoys me, and I suppose many share this view. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So when a user starts an AN/U, we are not allowed in any way to scrutinize their actions as well, but must strictly stick to discussing the user being reported as the main topic??? I've never seen that rule being observed, but somehow when Penyulap is the one raising eyebrows at the reporter it's not ok. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The thread above was about Ottava Rima. The diffs Penyulap gave were related only to interactions between Penyulap and Fae; I believe at least some of them even preceded any participation by Ottava Rima in that de-bureaucrat discussion. If Penyulap had given examples of Fae interacting badly with Ottava Rima, in some way that's related to Fae's complaint, that would have been ok. Sorry, but I don't think we should tolerate disruptive behavior because the same user sometimes makes points that may have some validity (not expressing an opinion on that). If you reported me to AN/U, would you want some totally uninvolved user to link to diffs how you've been rude to that uninvolved user, or would you consider it disruptive behavior no matter if they're right? darkweasel94 20:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And where did I say it has to be interactions between the reporter and reportee???? Penyualp was pointing out the hypocrisy of Fae, in that he is complaining of Ottava Rima being disruptive while doing disruptive behaviour himself. Screwing around with another user's comments is never a good thing even when you're an admin, but the fact that Fae isn't an admin but still felt it was okay to section off another user's comments is unacceptable behaviour. And YES, that's exactly what's happened to me many many times here. I don't like it, but it happens and I've never seen any of the people who did it to me being sanctioned for it. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

While Penyulap often plays the White Knight who "stops people from messing with other peoples contributions", he is not a whit better himself. I witnessed many occasions where Penyulap found it appropriate to completely remove unsigned comments, collapsed content that annoyed him in a hidden section, removed comments from his talk page he didn't like without answer, or copied around fragments of discussions across talk pages (divorcing them from their context, often adding one-sided POV-headings of his choice, giving a proper link to the source only sporadically and probably purposely presenting an outdated version of a fixed point in time).

At other times this "White Knight" felt being attacked by people accidentally adding a comment somewhere in between his overly long comments, with constantly bad indention (at varying levels inside one single comment) and excessive use of new paragraphs (visually splintering his comments, making them look as if they were multiple answers — often they even were, but Penyualp preferred to put them all in one section instead of bothering to create split answers to different comments as everybody else does). Penyulap's nicest reaction then often was to move such comments to the end of the discussion (something he blamed others for who did it in a structured way), at other times he (you guessed it) deleted those comments.

Besides these disruptions, Penyulap also always likes to add his answers directly below the comment he is refering to – above answers that were already posted before (probably thinking his answer was more important or not liking the other answer and therefore shifting it down). Whatever the reason was: Highly inappropriate!

Now I have added three paragraphs full of examples of Penyulap screwing around with other people's comments – which you Fry1989 want sanctioned, right? Whatever anyone wants to assure me: Penyulap never protects the comments of anybody – except those of his own... --Patrick87 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I never said that it should be sanctioned, I said that I consider it unacceptable behaviour. Two very different things and you know it! I don't think anybody, including admins, shoujld screw around with other people's comments without a very very VERY good reason, and if Fae is starting an AN/U about another user, his actions are just as much open to scrutiny as the person he is reporting. That is what I have had to face, and Fae should not be excluded from the same treatment. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support While there are a few times I agree with what Pen says (on the rare occasion when I can fathom what that is), his behaviour is not helpful to achieve resolution, but just reminds both sides why they should continue to hate each other so much. This isn't a game. If people are uncomfortable with the idea of silencing a critic, then I suggest that Pen is allowed to post only one short paragraph in one edit on any given topic, and the community try its best to not take any bait laid. Colin (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - I concur that while Penyulap does occasionally bring something useful to a thread, it's more often just noise (which I have now learned to just skip past when reading threads). I don't really see the purpose in their being here, and I wouldn't mind seeing them given the boot, however given my past conflicts with Penyulap it would be inappropriate for me to vote in support of such a ban. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment As stated above, even native English speakers do often not really understand what Penyulap says. For non-native English speakers trying to understand it is thus quite often a real pain. COM:AN is not only a place for native English admins. So I would like to ask Penyulap to be as short and concise as possible. --Leyo 21:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support the three month restriction proposed by Russavia. While it is admirable to offer help to the underdog, Penyulap's postings more often than not do that in a most disruptive manner, typically by attacking the editor who disagrees with whoever Penyulap considers to be in need of help. This is the second recent AN/U thread in which Penyulap has attempted to help Ottava Rima by attacking Fae. Admittedly, Fae has not helped by twice rising to the bait. The end result is that the section above has been totally diverted, and any sensible discussion stifled, again. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- A three month restriction of posting in the AN noticeboards, after which the issue should be re-assessed. This is a long enough period for Penyulap to make a serious introspection and to convince all of us (and himself perhaps) that he is willing to change. It was not my intention to start this poll and I was still waiting for Penyulap's reaction before registering my vote. A pity that he is did not show up. I hope that those who have first reacted negatively against this thread have already realized that it has nothing to do with the on-going bilateral or miltilateral conflicts between the regulars here, about which I know nothing. As explained above, I was driven by the realization that the effectiveness of this board in resolving conflicts was seriously affected.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Often Penyulap's comments just seem to be because they like to input. The amount of comments made are completely overboard (90 alone in Russavia's de-crat discussion) replying to every single comment is absurd and just pushes others out of discussions. The final reason that I'm supporting is by looking through the comments of those who oppose their ban: in Penyulap's supporters words they are an incomprehensible pain in the arse who can't help but comment on everything to the nth degree - with friends like that who needs enemies. Liamdavies (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think Penyulap is malicious, and I do believe that he acts in good faith. However, his participation in discussions more often than not seems disruptive - when he inserts himself, it becomes impossible to have a substantive discussion. I don't mind that he jumps in and shares his thoughts, but I do think he needs to change how he approaches his interactions with other contributors. Mattbuck said it quite well when he stated "I concur that while Penyulap does occasionally bring something useful to a thread, it's more often just noise (which I have now learned to just skip past when reading threads)". I'd like to think that this restriction, accompanied with some friendly advice, will be helpful to Penyulap. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So not malicious and not acting in bad faith. Then WHY are you trying to punish this user when by your own words they've done nothing wrong? Might as well scream "WITCH!". Fry1989 ^eh? 02:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, Fry, calm down and try reading my comment. I did not say Pen did nothing wrong. I said quite the opposite. Your knee-jerk reactions and exaggerations are not helping him, and just make it a lot harder to take you seriously. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocks and edit restrictions are not about punishing, but about preventing harm to the project and the community. Here the harm is a lot of wasted volunteer time. --Dschwen (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Except claiming that a user isn't being malicious and is acting in good faith completely contradicts the claim of them causing a harm. This is an attempt to punish and silence someone for essentially "talking too much". Penyulap has broken no rules, caused no harm. Fry1989 ^eh? 08:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, that is not a contradiction: one can cause harm without having the intention to cause harm (in fact I don't pretend to be able to read Penyulap's intentions at all). See also en:WP:CIR. darkweasel94 10:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion and the opinion of many users here Penyulap has been causing considerable harm with his highjackying of the AN noticeboards: by forcing the other users to waste their precious time (it is precious for me, at least) and by diverting the subject of the discussions to lateral issues (to himself, in short), thus preventing consensus to be reached. Once again, we are not punishing Penyulap for his actions but trying to protect the AN boards. Is this so difficult to understand? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  Inconvenience isn't harm. You can't have discussions under complete control. Discussions that are open to the masses invites unpredictability and a little chaos, and I don't see unpredictability and chaos as things that must be squashed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• In all human actvities we need a proper balance between individual and collective interest, whenever they are conflicting. Of course it is a subjective matter to define how that balance should be achieved. That is why we are having this discussion! Please check the link given above by Darkweasel94 (en:WP:CIR), where the various forms of wiki-incompetence are described. This article describes much better than me the kind of problem we are facing now and its solution. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support a three month restriction of posting in the AN noticeboards unless it directly concerns him. I would expect restrictions on the number of posts per thread and the use of non-pertinent illustrations to continue beyond that time. Our community has displayed considerable restraint and patience with regard to this matter. Penyulap has had ample opportunities to modify his/her behavior so as to be compatible with the uses of the noticeboards. This restriction allows Penyulap to comment on his/her talk page on matters under discussion here. Since many of us are watching that page, Penyulap's voice will still be heard. But, this restriction will lead to a more coherent, concise and succinct discussion of the issues brought here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Kanguroo court justice. There are no guideliness or policy to determine a punishment for over collaboration. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"Over collaboration" isn't the problem. By the way, it isn't "kangaroo court justice" for people to express their concerns in a free and open discussion. You are entitled to disagree, of course, but impugning the motives of others if not helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I don't want the community to be limiting Penyulap's participation on this project, as they too have a right to be heard. Yes, I know that he can be over the top at times in some people's eyes, but he also hits the mark on many an occasion in a way that can make it hard for someone who doesn't get Penyulap to understand. I get penyulap. Although I've suggested a 3 month restriction above from posting to AN and associated pages, I would actually prefer a less restrictive approach which will still allow Penyulap to be heard. In aid of this, I propose that we also suggest implementing something along the lines of what AFBorchert has suggested...that being a restriction allowing Penyulap to comment on AN threads once in every 24 hour period, unless it is concerning Penyulap. Such a restriction, I suggest, would be "indefinite", which could be looked at for community review after a minimum of a 3 month period upon 3 admins agreeing to bring it for review for relaxation or lifting. This way we ensure that Penyulap still has his voice heard, and those with concerns as raised above have those addressed too. This would be my preferable restriction, and I hope Penyulap will agree with this solution too otherwise I feel the community will want the more draconian solution, and we should avoid that. russavia (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Support If this option is chosen, I suggest it includes a restriction to limit including images to those which are being reviewed. Discussion after the Carlos Latuff incident (11 Aug) indicated that Penyulap did not appear to understand why these may offend minority groups if used out of context. --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is similar to what I proposed, though I considered once-only and short posting (for a limited period) rather than every-day (indefinitely). However, I still think it would be healthy for Penyulap to take a break from all discussions about other users (or diverting discussions to become personal) to reorient himself as to why he is here and to find a way to offer his opinions without escalating drama or looking like he is playing some game with us. Whatever is done, Penyulap needs to change because his behaviour is unacceptable and highly disruptive. Colin (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose -- It was premature to start this poll without first listening to what Penyulap had to say. That was our first mistake. The second mistake was to close the discussion with no action, against the consensus of the community. Are we going now to start everything over again, forcing the users to asses this new proposal, just because one of them changed his opinion? That would show some desrespect for the present consensus and for the time and patience of the editors: our third mistake, in short. If no reaction from Penyulap occurs during the next one or two days, the correct action is to close this thread according to the present consensus. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Another solution may be to ask Pen to make any comment over 25-50 words collapsible. This way some readers could ignore it and others could open and read it. A time limit I would also be in agreement with but 24hr seems a little long. Three comments in 24hr may be better in case responses are needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support as before and I also support Fæ's suggested amendment in regard to the posting of possibly offending images out of context within discussions. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment – I would support this proposal if it were four or five comments per thread per 24 hours rather than one comment per 24 hours. Personally, I would prefer not restricting Penyulap at all. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Closure

• This thread has been mute for several days. It seems obvious by now that Penyulap does not intend to be heard. I ask some non-involved administrator to interpret and close the discussion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Although the !votes seem clear, I'd be uncomfortable closing this, because alternatives like restoring the old restrictions longer term have not been fully discussed. If they worked last time, why are we stepping up to a full noticeboard ban? --99of9 (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we can get more people discussing alternatives if the discussions were started afresh. I feel that only a minority of participants is discussing alternatives because alternatives to Alvesgaspar's proposal and Russavia's initial proposal weren't discussed from the onset. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal -- Penyulap has been mute for almost two weeks. What I propose is to suspend this discussion until he/shows up again or, alternatively, after 3 months of silence. Then, the thread would be closed with no action. If Penyulap has decided to accept the advice of some users and take a long break, that will be the best possible solution! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yup I agree. Penyulap stopped doing anything when this discussion started, so there isn't really a preventative aspect anymore unless they start being active again. darkweasel94 14:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree. Due to Penyulap's absence, I don't see any urgent need to take drastic measures. We can always return to this topic at a later date. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• It seems Pen is retired or in a long vacation. I'm disappointed to see he was attacked by somebody on last month too. JKadavoor Jee 09:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you actually read the page that was deleted in that DR? darkweasel94 14:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
    • No; I was on vacation then. All I see is AFBorchert's opinion that "it can also be seen as an attack page". I'm not blaming any; only trying to find why he retired (if true). Of course; you too can help me. :) JKadavoor Jee 14:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
      • He became inactive pretty much exactly in the moment this ANU section was started. While I can't read people's minds, I think he started to notice that there's broad consensus that he's annoying, which isn't only coming from people he dislikes anyway. The page deleted in that DR was a parody of a de-bureaucrat discussion: Penyulap had previously stated somewhere else that he's "the mascot of Commons", and mattbuck stated as a "de-mascot rationale" that "he's nothing but a troll so all mascotship should be revoked". Hope this helps. darkweasel94 15:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the info. JKadavoor Jee 15:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts, abuse, sockpuppet

Hello. I have problems with one person, which I am sure, uses three different accounts to offend and harass people on ethnic background. He (they) destroy the NPOV of 3-4 files. In other words, in three files (I know of) he deletes the name "Republic of Macedonia", and adds "FYROM" (highly offensive and sensible). In one file names the country Republic of Macedonia as Vardarska (FYROM), extremely offensive and Greek nationalist phrase. The files are these:

• File:Crete_location_map.png
• File:Macedonia_greece_overview.png
• File:Gr-map.png
• File:Greece linguistic minorities.svg

The accounts are:

• User:Makedonski Mak - the third that appeared
• User:MacedonianMk - the second that appeared
• User:Ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος - the first that appeared

If you take a look at the file about linguistic minorities in Greece, you'll notice that one very problematic (nationalistically motivated) User:Meliniki did the same thing as these accounts. I suspect it's the same one. I do not want to be involved in edit-warring, I tried to revert him twice, but of no use. Since he opens several accounts, I thought it would be better to ask your assistance in solving this issue by reverting those edits and taking appropriate sanctions. Thanks--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 11:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly a strong issue. Is there any Commons/Wikipedia policy on this. I do wonder wheter FYROM and Vardarska are really extremely offensive. I remember that the republic was considering adding Vardar to the official name, and FYROM is how many countries (including mine), and the U.N., address the republic. I assume both sides of the conflict find the naming of the others offensive. This is clearly sockpuppet abuse, but a clear policy on the naming (if there isn't one yet) could be useful. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

They are offensive, especially Vardarska. Which country is that? Would it be acceptable to the English people England to be called Thames Republic? Or Amstelian Republic for Holland? I did not know that I need to explain here what the norms are. Take a look at ARBMAC on Wikipedia, it would be quite useful. Vardarska is only used by nationalist Greeks (referring to the Yugoslav province of Vardarska Banovina, which includes South Serbia as well). Vardar Macedonia is something else, not the country and no one, especially not in English and Macedonian the country is called like that. I assume Yunania/ Yunanustan would not be offensive to the Greeks it I use it, would be?--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 13:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're downplaying the issue. The examples you give aren't actual issues, at best the Netherlands (not Holland). But Belgium, my country, doesn't lay any claim on still being the Southern Netherlands. The way I understand it, Northern Greek people feel strongly about their Macedonian heritage, and a large part of ancient Macedonia did in fact situate itself there. The Republic of Macedonia also lays claim to that heritage. Both sides of the conflict thus seem to show nationalistic and ethnic tendencies, and have strong feelings about it. FYROM is used by the UN (and Eurosong :-p), and quite a lot of academics, neither parties having any nationalist concerns. I'm not taking any sides in the issue, but I do urge you to try and view the issue from another point of view. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I know the issue quite well, and frankly speaking I don't care about the ancient history. I just care not to harass me and the country by using imaginary names (Vardarska). So you dislike Holland, hm? :)--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 15:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

My professor in Ancient Greek history really hammered at that point, which I found rather quaint. I guess the naming and the Elgin Marbles are the only political issues of relevance to such professors. :D And I suppose Dutchmen would not like "Holland", as it is a pars pro toto. The Netherlands were known as the w:Kingdom of Holland during the Napoleonic period, however. And of course, as a Belgian, Holland is how we often refer to the Netherlands, especially in our corny jokes. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

MacedonianBoy -- "Vardarska" comes from the 1930s terminology of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, so it isn't as off the wall as "Thames Republic" would be (though of course not official or internationally accepted terminology)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a Commons policy on it, except for COM:NPOV - which says that there can be one file that says "Macedonia" and one that says "FYROM". Has somebody already suggested to MacedonianMk uploading the file with FYROM to another filename, if they need a map with that name in their home project? darkweasel94 13:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, since I doubt he has an account on Greek Wikipedia because his user name is in Macedonian and it's a sock-puppet. However, we had discussion with one Greek user about two files in Greek (used on Greek Wikipedia) and he said that in Greek the most common name is FYR of Macedonia, where as in English it is Republic of Macedonia. That's why the article on EN WIKI is Republic of Macedonia (most common English name is used) and Vardarska is out of discussion, no sane person uses it (we would call our country Vardarska if so, right?). And don't forget the sock-puppetry, it's against all policies on every Wikimedia projects. Checkuser may be another option?--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 14:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The user reverted user:Tuvalkin as well.--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 16:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Info I protected the mentioned files (infinite). GR-map.png updated to latest version of CIA-WF. After this issue is resolved, they need to be unprotected again. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Russavia asked me to look at this. I performed a CU on all three and I can say that they are definitely Confirmed. Trijnstel_talk 20:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    •  Info User:Makedonski Mak and User:MacedonianMk marked as sockpuppets. I did not active any blocks, since I am a (small) part of this discussion. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:MacedonianMk needs a little time out. [11] --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

And removing warnings [12] --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've indeffed MacedonianMK and Makedonski Mak, and have blocked Ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος for one week. russavia (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:The Big Bad Wolfowitz

Extended content

Should I be concerned that User:The Big Bad Wolfowitz's only edits for the last two weeks (ie. single purpose edits,) have been to tag my uploaded images for deletion? Special:Contributions/The_Big_Bad_Wolfowitz If yes, how do I respond? Is this tantamount to harassment? --Light show (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC) These edits seem all valid, you uploaded images under a specific US copyright exception without providing sufficient details to prove this as valid. --Denniss (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you. However, that does not respond to my questions. --Light show (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC) If somebody is noticing that a certain user has uploaded many copyright-infringing files, I don't think we should assume bad faith or harassment. darkweasel94 23:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Is there any indication or evidence that Light show has uploaded any copyright-infringing files? I can see six nominations, one already deleted, and all are on the basis of a refusal to AGF as to the copyright state of the images, as claimed by Light show. AIUI, if Light show's claim is true, then these images are in the US PD. This is a credible claim. No evidence has been presented to raise doubts about it (e.g. samples of other similar promotional images that did clearly claim copyright). Big Bad Wolfowitz is demanding that Light show prove a negative, then raising deletion requests because this hasn't been done. We do not (or used to not!) work on such a basis. We also have admins (and inevitably it's Fastily who rises to the bait) who enjoy an opportunity for deletion so much that they do zero checking of their own and will act to delete on the flimsiest of requests. There is a lot of outright trolling happening of late, where shouting "copyvio" is a great way to destroy a GF editors work, for zero effort by the troll. I don't accuse Wolfowitz of being especially Big or Bad here, but this is a growing problem at Commons and a lot more care needs to be taken in our haste to delete everything in sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC) The growing problem is actually a shrinking problem. We have only a handful of administrators who close deletion requests, and only a small number of editors in general who participate in them. This means that the few admins doing closes either close DRs after a quick review, or they sit in a backlog for a while, and then are deleted without much more of a review. I do a large number of deletions here, and I can assure you that I don't enjoy it quite so much, and wish I had far fewer opportunities. I don't think Fastily would be sad to share more of the closing burden either. The solution is more participation by admins and editors in the deletion request process. This would allow more time and attention to be spent on each individual DR, and less chance of mistakes. INeverCry 03:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC) If you think it's a "burden" clicking a "closing" button to delete an image, try uploading some. You have to find articles that really need one, typically for a lead image. Then you have to find one somewhere that's PD based on all the evidence. Clean it up of defects and crop it. Then upload it and add it to an article that needs it. That's a lot more of a burden, but also a great benefit to WP. --Light show (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC) I've uploaded over 1000 images, and done 1000+ reuploads to remove spots, brighten images, etc. I've also categorized thousands of images and spread thousands of images of writers, actors, and tennis players to articles on all the major wikis. As for deletion, I've deleted over 100000 images, and closed 10000+ DRs, which is really alot of work, and very much worthy of being called a burden. Tasks need to be done. Images need to be deleted, or Commons would be burried in copyvio lawsuits, and/or we'd have a mountain of facebook selfies and low-res vacation pics. The point I make above about the need for more participation is very valid. Every task is important BTW; image uploaders aren't more important than "cleanup" editors, or anybody else. It takes all kinds. INeverCry 05:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC) In this rush to delete every image possible, there is zero indication that admins (OK, Fastily) are paying the slightest attention to deleting "facebook selfies" in preference to useful images in use at GAs, even to the extent that they would meet NFCC. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC) NFCC, or any other Exemption Doctrine Policy of a certain local wiki, is totally irrelevant to Commons. No Commons admin is obliged to know local wikis' Exemption Doctrine Policies - if you see a DR for an image that you think is ok on your particular home wiki, you can upload it there yourself, but don't expect Commons admins to know or check each and every wiki's EDP. I'm not saying Fastily always closes DRs right (e.g. I criticized him when he deleted a file that was still in use on eswiki because of "no educational value"), but I don't think it's fair to expect him to be familiar with enwiki fair use policies. darkweasel94 10:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC) What is the scope of Commons? Per a recent op ed piece in the Signpost, Commons is apparently not a repository for general content, but is only here to support 'educationally distinct' media in support of WP articles. Now personally I think that's bollocks too, but it's a reminder that an important role for Commons is to support the WP articles. Particularly where images are in use, and where images are in use at GA or FA articles (which will have also had their media content specifically reviewed). It is not acceptable practice for an admin to speedily bulk delete sets of 100+ images because an off-wiki troll has a personal grudge against their uploader without any sort of check for them being so in-use, or without any sort of discussion with the Commons editor community. This is the sort of slapdash admin work that is a regular feature of Fastily's actions in particular. The scope of Commons is not to give otherwise powerless teenagers a place to gain the admin bit and status as a result, then to bask in their powers without any thought for the real end goal. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Would you say the same when the file is in use on an article on eowiki, where fewer Commons admins will be aware of the local policies and practices? If no, why do you think enwiki should be treated differently? It would indeed be good to have a bot post notifications of Commons DRs to article talk pages, but the absence of such a bot doesn't mean we shouldn't delete copyvios when we see them. BTW I'm going to notify Fastily of this discussion - it's not fair not to have him participate here if you're criticizing his behavior. darkweasel94 12:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Commons already lists an image's across all WP projects and displays this on the image page. Of course each WP should be treated equally. We might well make some value judgement (like Valued Images) for when a resource is particularly useful or otherwise hard to replace, but that's difficult. However what we can clearly tell is when images are in-use. Some admins make zero effort to work with this – a file is just a file and a burden, never a resource and part of the key role of the encyclopedia project. I've tried to engage Fastily previously and simply been ignored. He doesn't even use an edit summary on these deletions (he's Too Busy), just the same boilerplate statement on everything regardless of context. This is the root of the trouble: some editors see files here as a resource, others see them merely as a chore and best got rid of ASAP. If you place no value on a resource here, especially not a resource that's in some degree of valuable use elsewhere, then you just shouldn't be an admin. I'm also particularly tired of being told how over-worked our poor admins are, with all those buttons to click. Yet at the same time, as Light show notes above, those who contribute content are considered worthless. I have a substantial library of pre-war engineering books. Some cost hundreds of £. I used to scan and upload these (most are old enough to be PD). I used to process these scans, cleaning up etc. This takes hours and days of effort. Yet when it comes to deleting them, whole sets are removed with a couple of clicks and not even a look at or discussion of the case for doing so. Then admins whine about how hard the clicking is. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "a great benefit to WP." That's just not seen as important. As an uploader, you are a creator of more admin workload, nothing more. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC) We have 1000+ deletion requests per week affecting several thousand images. We have 3 or 4 admins who close these. Fastily and I close atleast 90% of them. Think about the logistics. How can a few admins give the needed attention to several thousand images? Leaving the DRs open just means they'll sit in a backlog that nobody but me, Fastily, and a couple others pay attention to. We need more admins and others participating in the DR process. It's as simple as that. As for creators, I personally have spent 100s of hours working on images and spreading them to global wikis as I say above. I value image uploaders highly, and I'd rather do many other things than deletions, but somebody has to do deletions, and those somebodies are too few. INeverCry 16:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC) This is a ridiculous complaint, and it is very hard to maintain any assumption of good faith with regard to the user who brings it. Light show, aka Wikiwatcher1 (as acknowledged on their user page) is a longterm abuser. They were blocked for one month just a year ago for "Uploading unfree files after warnings".[13] The Wikiwatcher1 talk page and its extensive list of past deletions shows that many users here have found fault with the complainant's lax attitude toward evidence of PD status. Over at en-wiki, no users defended Wikiwatcher1 in a user Request for Comment raising many of the same issues I raise in my deletion nominations, as well as suggesting that Light show/Wikiwatcher1 was attempting to evade scrutiny (which led to their block here) by uploading images to en-wiki rather than Commons. They were also the subject of an extensive contributor copyright investigation on en-wiki, which led to the deletion of scores of their uploads. The en-wiki investigation also involved consultation with WMF attorneys, who reported that "We need to know the specific details of these releases" -- specific details that this uploader often fails or refuses to provide. There can hardly be a clearer demonstration of Light show/Wikiwatcher1's refusal to comply with the most basic requirements for establishing PD status than their repeated uploads of images (found on ebay) from the "Frank Driggs Collection." Although the seller stated that "Most of the photos have never been published" -- a point also made in a New York Times piece [14] cited in the en-wiki biography of Driggs -- and the photos involved, like File:Richard Todd - 1959.jpg and File:Betty Grable 1940s.JPG, show no evidence of prior publication or distribution, the uploader asserted, in defiance of the available evidence, that they had actually been published without copyright notices. I think it is evident that Light show/Wikiwatcher1's behavior falls well below community expectations and that their uploads merit -- no, demand -- special scrutiny. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC) For the record, some of those links don't work because you've left out the WP namespace. The actual pages are: en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1 en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1 Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC) First of all, this was not a complaint, but a question, a very logical one I would hope. Since your links didn't work for me, here are some other ones: Request for Comment and Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1. Both of those matters were initiated by User:We hope, with the requested help of User:Moonriddengirl. In any case, I assume that by bringing up all those other issues you're simply implying that you have a right to target an editor. However, almost everything you wrote is either wrong or misleading. For instance, the block, as you probably know, was a sham. User:Fæ proposed a "test case" to see if anyone could support We Hope's DR of six photos I uploaded. No one did, since they were obviously not copyvios and likely PD. Yet they remained deleted. User:PierreSelim merely took advantage of the topic to create a unilateral, unrequested, and purely punitive block based on We Hope's DRs. I'm not going to counter all your other misleading comments unless others request it. But in general all of your comments reek of ABF. Like We Hope and MRG once did, you ignore and can't believe that publicity stills were "traditionally" not copyrighted (see film still). This was why We Hope and Moonriddengirl opened an investigation and RfC. However, they at least took the time to eventually do their own research, to confirm and even edit the "Film still" article. Some other initially disbelieving editors, also reviewed and edited that article, including (en/wp) User:WickerGuy, User:Cresix, User:TheFeds, and even User:George Ho. The result, after having hundreds of images deleted over the years, was that even We Hope began using the same rationales as mine for his images. In addition, We Hope was able to delete most of the images listed on the investigation page based on the now discredited fact that stock houses like Corbis, which had a copyright notice on their web pages, owned the copyrights to their 40 million images (they only own a few hundred.) I'd upload a photo from an original still without a copyright notice, and We Hope would immediately do a search and find a site like Corbis that was "selling" stock photos, then tag mine for deletion, and it naturally got deleted. But I was finally able to apparently convince him and a number of others that a notice by a stock house was merely a form of "copyfraud", (read Jimmy Wales's review) and that the notices had no legal effect. The good news is that We Hope and Moonriddengirl have not tagged any uploads for a very long time. You, however, have now been tagging my images for deletion based on irrelevant or incorrect rationales, ie. File:Kim Novak - still.jpg. In many cases, such as for File:Streisand - agency photo.jpg, your comments are downright rude, besides being wrong, hence my undeletion request. --Light show (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Addendum: Since you're using the Frank Driggs Collection as evidence that an image may not have been published, note that the images in his collection actually prove the opposite. The fact that he had a photo in his personal collection, means it was published (see File:Kim Novak - still.jpg DR discussion.) When the seller says that most have not been published, he obviously means that they were never published in books, newspapers or magazines. That's the case with many publicity photos, which studios sent out to the media hoping to get free publicity (like these). The very printing and distribution of those stills, even to fans, was the publication. BTW, if you look at File:Richard Todd - 1959.jpg, which you linked above, you'll see the date printed on the back, 1959. I'll also add that another erroneous reason many of the stills were deleted was an editor called them "derivative works." And they remained deleted even after supplying evidence that they weren't. --Light show (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC) @Light show/Wikiwatcher1-If you're going to discuss others here, it would be nice to notify them. Pierre, for one, might appreciate knowing his block of you was a "sham". Just because someone hasn't tagged something, that doesn't mean it's without fault. I'm going on record here to say that I DO NOT ascribe to your ideas about film stills and I resent the thought that you can try making others think so because I haven't tagged material of yours lately. It would be nice if you would provide a current link to your photo "example" because I had spent quite a bit of time removing useless text from my uploads. the dif showing the text was removed almost one year ago, yet you present this as if it was current. The file could have been linked like this File:Susan Strasberg 1950s.JPG, but that wouldn't have allowed you to skew this to your possible advantage. All of the deletions, both here and on en:wiki have passed through quite a few hands. There have been quite a few different admins both here and there who made the decision that your assertions didn't hold up, yet here we all are, going through them once more. It's just amazing that your take is that all of these people are wrong and you alone are right. We hope (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC) User:Light show's statements above seems to suggest that I have become satisfied with his work or in some way changed my opinion. I have not; I have not tagged images in a long time because I am generally quite busy elsewhere and haven't looked in a long time. They may be fine; they may not be. The way that he states that "took the time to eventually do [my] own research" (emphasis added) suggests an evolution of my opinion that simply isn't there. The first connection I recall having with this was when a copyright clerk on Wikipedia asked me to evaluate the open request for contributor copyright investigation, as an administrator who works in the area. I wrote to our attorneys and edited the article at that first encounter. At that first encounter (CCI here, for convenience), I explained that the issue was that he was failing to document details of publication such that we can verify that images were public domain; our attorney's feedback emphasized that he must provide this information (for an excerpt "It is essential to confirm that the exact image uploaded to Common was released without a copyright notice" and that "Finally, prior to 1978, if released in a limited publication, a work would be published to a limited audience without a copyright notice without entering the public domain. The Ninth Circuit defining a limited publication as a distribution (1) to a definitely selected class of persons, (2) for a limited purpose, (3) without the right of reproduction, distribution, or sale. See White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744, 746-47 (9th Cir.1952). While this might seem to encapsulate promotional materials, courts have held that the widespread distribution of promotional materials with the mere statement that they must be returned or destroyed is very unlikely to satisfy this definition. As such, a plaintiff is not likely to succeed with the argument that promotional materials were a limited publication. However, this determination will depend on the specific facts of the publication.") My primary concern on the RFC (Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1), which followed close to a year later, was his continuing failure " to present adequate evidence that the copyright status he asserts is correct". (There are several examples in that RFC where it was easily proven that the copyright status he asserted was not correct...I disproved one in a matter of seconds.) The issue has always been a readiness to assume and assert that something is public domain in the absence of real research, which - although quite often images seem to be fine - has also often left us facing images about which we cannot be sure and occasionally images where we can be sure he was wrong. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC) @We Hope, I'm not sure what "example" you're referring to for a link. As for "skewing" a link to my advantage, you might also want to mention that you removed your original rationale immediately after I mentioned it on another post. I can understand why you did that, however, after you invested so much time skewering an uploader with a CCI and RfC. You should feel glad, though, since none of the hundreds of images you got removed for erroneous reasons ever got restored, nor did I even ask to have them restored (knowing enough not to waste my time.) And when you suggested, on my talk page, that adding an image of the reverse side is a good idea, even if not required, I complied without making a major hullabaloo over the extra work. Note that I try to add it even after another uploader said that they "uploaded some 30,000 photos here, and this is the first time [they've] heard of the idea." --Light show (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC) This is the interaction had with you re: a DR started by someone else on September 16, 2012. Here is where I started removing the information from my uploads-because someone advised me it wasn't needed--September 17, 2012. The suggestion was made to try to help you, but it certainly looks like it was wasted time. If you look at what the person with 30,000+ uploads has, it appears to be photos he/she has taken--not entertainment photos taken by others. I believe that the issues re: the CCI and RfC were valid at the time and they remain so. The decisions for deletion weren't made by me but by non-involved admins here and at en:wiki. If you had enough valid evidence for restoration, it's a misstatement that you don't ask for that. This is just an example of it. Again, claiming to be right, doesn't make you right. We hope (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC) It's not a misstatement, since I was referring to your hundreds of DRs, along with those from some other editors, such as the many machine gun tagged and deleted. The response I got after contacting forums, or from a deleting admin about restoring an image, should give a clue why I felt future efforts would be a waste of time. The few undeletion requests made a few days ago may be my first ones.--Light show (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC) And it ought to give you a clue that the DRs were not incorrect. We hope (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I am inclined to close this section. I think we have adequately shown that there was good reason for TBW to have concern about several of Light show's uploads, and that his intentions were likely in good faith. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I have no problem with closing it if no one else does. We hope (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Fine with me. That was one heck of a long non-answer to a yes or no question, it seems. --Light show (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The answer is no, you should not be concerned. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Closed Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

JJEBlack

After being altered to an odd mobile upload, now raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sound Shore Medical Center 03.jpeg, I went on to sample a few more listed under Special:ListFiles/JJEBlack. All uploads appear to be taken from other sources without credit and being apparent copyright violations. In the DR raised I have seen some digital manipulation which might be in order to obscure the source and claim credit for the photograph. Based on one of the photographs being a re-upload (I am not an admin, but this was still possible to spot) it appears this account was created by Jvolkblum (talk · contribs). I would appreciate an admin investigating deleted uploads for comparison and taking appropriate action or advising if a bundle DR is needed here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've found other copyvios in their uploads, many are from the same panoramio author:

• File:Sound Shore Medical Center.jpeg is from here
• File:Zion Church New Rochelle NY.jpg is from here
• File:Holy Family Church New Rochelle NY 01.jpg is from here
• File:Blessed Sacrament New Rochelle NY.jpg is from here
• File:Trinity Church New Rochelle NY 01.jpg is form here
• File:Saint Gabriels Church New Rochelle NY.jpg is from here
• File:Glen Island Castle 3.jpg is from here
• File:NRRC BOATHOUSE.jpg is from here

I don't think we need a DR and would instead request an admin to nuke the uploads per COM:PRP and ban the user. Liamdavies (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 18:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts and copyright violations

For some time we have a user that is dedicated to upload photos related to the Buenos Aires Metro, the vast majority taken from various internet sites, in violation of copyright, in many cases very little low resolution and quality, using an outrageous amount of accounts. Despite the warnings, his attitude has not changed. The following is a list of the accounts involved:

• Milanopablo390
• Milano.pablo.javier44
• Milanopablo.71‎
• Milano.pablogulmilano
• Milanopablo
• Milanopablo 43121269
• Milanopablo javier1269
• Milanopablo390
• Milanopablo421
• Milanopablo69
• Milanopablojavier24
• Pablo.javier.milano.413
• Pablo.javier.milano.414
• Pablo.javiermilano.416

I would appreciate an administrator to take action on the matter. Thank you. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 14:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, it looks like I was already almost done with these when you posted. I'll have to indicate "in progress" next time. ;) INeverCry 16:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked and tagged all the above accounts. INeverCry 16:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

user:Conformaccokey

looks like a sock puppet of User:Kay Körner, same camera like with his most recent account user:Jizurp, stuff like "I have no time for bothering talks with Westgerman, paid agents here.", Dynamo Dresden fan, wrong licenses (almost all of Category:Ultras Dynamo will have to go because of CC-noncommercial), ... --X-Weinzar (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked INeverCry 00:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, so far, so good. Now who wants to take a closer look at the contributions? For example, almost all pictures (all of them except for the first 2, I think) in Category:Ultras Dynamo have to be deleted. Do I need to file deletion requests for that? I'm also wondering whether we have to keep the usual absurd statements in category talk pages. --X-Weinzar (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Conformaccokey --Anika (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

another one

• UHU UNO (talk · contribs)

• 
  uploaded by Conformaccokey
• 
  uploaded by UHU UNO

Multiple uploads of "WLM"-pictures that sometimes show, sometimes do not show Kulturdenkmale. Some are pure nonsense, like:

• 
  a garage?

What shall we do?

1. Is it possible to move all Kai-Körner pictures in a maintenance category and remove WLM-template and -category to sort things out?
2. Should be pics like the flowers be deleted?
3. What shall we do with pictures clearly taken on private ground?
4. What shall we do with pictures maybe taken on private ground?

--Anika (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks/Bullying by TheMostAmazingTechnik

Hi can you please reprimand or deal with User:TheMostAmazingTechnik as he keeps on insisting that the following images are mislicensed:

• File:Galaxy Note II.png
• File:G Pad 8.3.jpg
• File:Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition.png
• File:Galaxy Note 10.1.png
• File:Galaxy Tab 2 10.1.png
• File:Galaxy Tab 3 10.1.png
• File:Galaxy Tab 2 7.0.png
• File:Galaxy Tab 3 7.0.png
• File:GALAXY Tab 3 8.0.jpg
• File:LG Optimus Pad.jpg

even if moderators like User:Fastily and Flickrbot found it to be licensed properly. He even uploaded an image similar to mine which is File:Samsung Galaxy Note 3 white.png only that he removed some details from my version which is File:Galaxy Note 3.png and licensed it the same way I did it. The apparent cause of his bullying is his argument on File:Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Logo.svg in which I requested for deletion due to being sloppily described and due to my uploading of a better version in File:Galaxy Note 3 logo.svg.

Please block him if possible if found out that he is already bullying. Jeromesandilanico (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is simply, that these images contained copyrighted software (in this case the TouchWiz UI). And as I know it - you can't relicense a "copyrighted object" to a "Creative Commons object".

And because of the Galaxy Note 3 Logo - I don't know what his problem is. I don't know why he want's to delete my logo. It's actually described nearly the same way and the logo from jerome... has the same quality. That's my opinion on that. --TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Jeromesandilanico; You have provided no evidence of bullying or any misbehavior that is covered by our Commons:blocking policy, in my opinion. My advice is to ignore TheMostAmazingTechnik. If the files are properly licensed, they will not be deleted. Consequently, you have no reason for concern. In the future, please attempt to resolve problems with other users before coming here. Your only posts to each other's talk pages have been deletion request notices.[15][16] Please note: I've replaced the inline images with links in your message to make it easier to read. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Vacio (talk · contribs)

Hi. Please take a look at this warning by user Vacio on my talk page - [17]. He blames me in edit war, because he thinks that the deletion of the flag of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic from the list of participating countries of WLM 2013 [18] is something extraordinary. NKR is not a country, it's an internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenia and nowadays it's a disputed area between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Using the flag of occupied territory in such kind of non-political projects is something new for me, but it seems that not for Vacio. Please explain him that this flag cannot be used as official attribute. Wertuose (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've both earned yourself a free trip to one of the lamest edit wars in Wikimedia history. In all seriousness, I see this has been going on for a while. The next person who edit wars over this on any page gets blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe for you it's not important, because you live somewhere in America and don't think about the lives of people at the other end of the world. But for the people living there it makes a sense. So it would be better to stop ironic.--Wertuose (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who doesn’t live in America, and indeed at a stonethrow distance of three or five places with potential for and history of situations not unlike those of NKR, I have to say that Wertuose and Vacio should understand that make pretend in Wikipedia doesn’t change reality. Opposing your childish edit wars doen’t mean indifference to the delicate issues of the local situation. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Just this one, single ridiculous edit says a lot about what's going on, who violates very essential rules and spirit of projects, disturbs progress of WLM and tries to bring political propaganda into creative contest at free knowledge project, at any cost. Please, follow fundamental rules and etiquette of project, stop vandalizing and wasting time of those who actually add something to this world. Your political statements are not only false, but are irrelevant here, thus I better save everyone's time.--Xelgen (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre @Tuvalkin. There must be a confusion here. I am one of the organizers of Wiki Loves Monuments in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh (together with u:Xelgen and u:Beko). This is an event, not a Wikipedia article, and an event which only aims to bring free-linced monument photos to Wikimedia Commons (no, it has no aim to pretend anything).

It seems to me logical that any essential change in an event page should be discussed with local and international organizers (at least I have requested Wertuouse to do so 2 weeks ago). Wertuouse has failed to engage in any constructive discussion in any discussion page of WLM, instead he continued to make essential changes ([19][20][21][22][23] -- most of this edits are marked as "minor")

I hope you can imagine what kind of hard work it is to be a local organize of WLM, and how disruptive it is when an event page is reverted over and over again while the contest is running. I was at the point to report Wertouse here... So, I just now ask to take one more look at this case (and discriminate an event organizer from an "edit warrior") and keep an eye on the edits of Wertuouse as far as they are linked to WLM. Thank you. --vacio 10:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me add just few words. Xelgen says that I'm violating rules and spirit of project, disturbing progress of WLM and trying to bring political propaganda into contest. All of this words are true, but just in that case if you mean not me, but that users who use this project as a tool of political propaganda in their own country and community. The project named "WLM 2013 in Armenia & Nagorno-Karabakh" has as its purpose not to contribute but to demonstrate the political views of organizers. If they had no political goals, they agreed to add Nagorno-Karabkh to the project "WLM 2013 in Azerbaijan". Because as I said many times, this is an internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan Republic until its status is not defined during peace talks. Let me ask sysops: whether they will be so friendly to the Turkish users, if they create the project "WLM in Turkey and Northern Cyprus" or if the Moroccan users create "WLM in Marocco and Western Sahara"?--Wertuose (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Commons admins are not those who decide which WLM contests actually exist. The WLM organizers are. You have to talk to them about your problems. Commons will host whatever they have decided, and that is good. darkweasel94 20:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wertruose, we would absolutely be as friendly to those other claims. And you're doing yourself no favors with your zero sum reasoning. So knock it off with the political posturing, and start trying to create or improve Commons content; otherwise you will seriously get blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

---

This needs to stop. I'll issue this warning to get this over with: Any user caught removing templates Armenia and/or Azerbaijan will get blocked. I'll issue a warning to all the users who seem to be involved in this lamest editwar. Multichill (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Dman41689 (talk · contribs)

Hi. User:Dman41689 has requested many files for deletion by adding {{No permission since}} tags since the beginning of September, please check out his contribs. Some of those requests may not be good. It seems that he wants every uploader, who claims the authorship of the uploaded work, to send mail to OTRS to confirm the authorship.

3 points why he's doing wrong:

• COM:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary: I took the image myself and it hasn't been previously published (and there is no other copyright involved). Just follow the instructions found on the Commons:Upload page, unless the image is of outstanding quality or there is some other reason your authorship may be doubted.
• {{No permission since}} is for those files whose permission tag is missing, or the permission and the authorship are strongly doubted due to some strong and clear evidences to the contrary. User:Dman41689 keeps adding {{No permission since}} to files whose uploaders claimed the authorship without citing any evidence to prove his doubt.
• He didn't assume good faith: Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Sending mail to OTRS is not required for every uploader who claims authorship. If the uploader said it's his own work, we should probably believe him, unless we have very strong evidence to doubt that.

I told him similar things on his talk page, and asked him to use regular deletion request if he really suspects those uploaders' authorship, but my suggestion was soon unreasonably deleted by him.

Meanwhile, something on his talk page written by Hotcop2 (talk · contribs), an uploader and self-claimed author of six files requested for deletion by Dman41689, was also deleted. According to the discussion on talk page, it seems Hotcop2 has sent mail to OTRS (actually he doesn't have to), but 7 days given by {{No permission since}} is too short, three of his files was already deleted.

(Related guideline: COM:ARCHIVE: Archive rather than delete [...]; COM:TALK#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?: Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile [...]) --Tomchen1989 (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if it seems like I'm causing any problems. I'm really not. I'm just trying to make Wiki commons to be as reliable as possible. I know that OTRS is not required but two photos that were deleted looked like they were scanned from a publication their is no proof that Hotcop2 (talk · contribs) took the photos that's why I tag those images. he didn't send the email right away otherwise those images wouldn't have been deleted. I only do that to photos that are too professional looking or if the uploader only uploads one or two photos claiming that its their "own work" with no proof (again only if its too professional looking). I figured that would be a better thing to do instead of just stamping a Delete tag or nominating it for deletion. that way the editor has time to send one email and not have to go crazy trying to prove themselves. that would be it. if I did as speedy deletion how would that be good faith? I think that by asking for the author to send permission to OTRS that is a way of showing good faith instead of just nominating it for deletion.

Also I only removed Hotcop2 (talk · contribs) second and third messages because he already posted on my page and I responded on that one (I wasn't gonna respond to each message he sent) I figured it be less clutter on my talk page. and I'm sorry I didn't know I had to respond to your message before removing it even though when Tomchen1989 (talk · contribs) messaged me they only seemed to be giving me advice and I read it and deleted it I didn't think that was a big deal I hope we can get this issue resolved and be able to come out of this with a better understanding. Dman41689 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the compliment that my photos look too be good to be taken by someone who posts on Wiki. But as the p.r. rep for both Mr. Winfield and Mr. Willis, I have good access and always use good quality cameras. Hotcop2 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Raincrowd

I recently discovered that this user was on en.wp writing articles about themselves and how great they are. Some of those articles are now nominated for deletion and in an apparent attempt to provide references for those articles they have uploaded screenshots and scans of newspaper articles here. This person doesn't seem to want to listen to me so maybe someone with more experience here at commons could try and explain things to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Copyvio uploads nuked, user warned. INeverCry 19:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

New puppet of Pablo Milano

Good night, in relation to the complaint here, I have to inform that we have a new account with the same characteristics as the above: Pablojavier.milano418. Is it possible, in addition to taking the appropriate administrative action, delete the photos he have uploaded?. Thank you very much. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 01:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blocked this and another new sock, and nuked the uploads of both. INeverCry 01:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ignored warning

Dear admins, user Interfase continues to remove content from WLM images even after this last warning. Here is the link.--Lilitik22 (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't lie. The warning was not remove templates. But I've removed inappropriate category. Because this category is not HIDDEN and gives incorrect information. --Interfase (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I quote: "Feel free to add templates, translations, categories, etc, but don't remove things from the other country." [24] --Lilitik22 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I will give you a choice: I will block both of you for edit warring and bringing your nationalist nonsense to Commons, or I will block neither of you and you can get back to coming up with an agreement in a cordial manner, like gentlemen instead of rabble-rousers. What's your choice? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Magog the Ogre, there is one thing you maybe did not notice: user:Multichill asked everyone not to move anything from WLM images on 16 September and we started a discussion on how to solve this issue in the mailing list of WLM. User Lilitik22 didn't move things or revert edits in WLM images after this. User:Interfase however continued to do so, and he even continues right now, after he has been reported (just some examples of the many: [25], [26], [27]).

Please consider giving him a final warning or temporary blocking him. I am very sorry I have to make this request, but moving tool-generated data (categories & templates) from WLM files can be very disrupting for the contest at this moment. --vacio 19:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Vacio, stop this. In reference N 22 I reverted edit of anonim vandal who replaced "Azerbaijan" to "Armenia" in the template with Azerbaijani ID. In the references 23 and 24 I gave a description in Azeri and English languages of this monument and added a template with Azerbaijani ID. This is acceptable (feel free adding templates, categories...). Note, that I didn't remove template with Armenian ID. I also created a category "House of Natavan" and "Ganja Gates of Shusha" (these monuments are on the photos) which are in the category "Monuments in Shusha". So we don't need it in the pages. I don't see here some actions which need some warning. Vacio the correct name of this town is Shusha not Shushi. Look here. The name of the article is Shusha. So stop creating categories with an incorrect name. --Interfase (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that's really getting stupid... Interfase was warned by an admin: Any user caught removing templates related to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan will get blocked. And then he did this, which is clearly against the warning, as he replaced {{Cultural Heritage Armenia}} by {{Cultural Heritage Azerbaijan}}. That's a very clear breach in regard to the warning. If there is any consistency in here, this user has to be blocked. Sardur (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Interfase for 48 hours. Please do not take this as an endorsement of his position. Anyone continuing to bicker and call for blocks out of the gate instead of trying to find a way to fix the situation is liable to be blocked. No one in the community wants to see Wikipedia's edit wars end up on Commons, least of all for incredibly childish bullshit like whose flag shows up where. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sardur, that wasn't a breach. I replaced {{Cultural Heritage Armenia}} by {{Cultural Heritage Azerbaijan}} because there was {{Cultural Heritage Azerbaijan}} before edit of anonim who just replaced "Azerbaijan" to "Armenia", but the number were the same. The number was the number of Cultural Heritage of Azerbaijan. 358 is the number of this church in the list of Azerbaijan. Is 358 the ID number of this monument on the list of Armenia? --Interfase (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't block your account for reverting an anonymous meatpuppet. I blocked your account for continuing to remove categories after being asked (nicely and not nicely) to cease and desist by multiple users. This is de facto edit warring, even if it is across multiple pages. I would have blocked anyone else for the same thing, whether that person was Armenian, Azeri, Nagorno-Karabakhian, or a little green man who was born on Mars. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Taran10

Could an administrator have a word with User:Taran10 about copying images of NFL players into Commons? I've blocked them on enwiki for copyright violations after warnings and inappropriate article creation; I'm assuming they're young, enthusiastic and hazy on copyrights. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't uploaded since his most recent warning. Let's give him some w:WP:ROPE. Let me know if he goes back at it, and I'll pull the trigger. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, I left him a message here and another on his enwiki page, outlining what he needs to acknowledge about copyrights. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Taran10's uploaded two more copyvio photos, both reported for deletion. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Jcb's conduct

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

I'd like to request a third opinion on the conduct of a commons admin (also an OTRS member).

Issue revolves around Template:Attribution-TRGov-Military license which was closed with an OTRS verified about a year ago. It stayed this way for about a year.

During a discussion on a COM:DEL, I asked an OTRS member to review the ticket 2012071110005537 which he informed me through google translate that it probably wasn't valid and suggested that the template should be converted to an {{OTRS received}}.

While I was trying to get until a native speaker to verify a discussion was posted on the OTRS noticeboard. Rather than consulting a native speaker Jcb decided that google translate was sufficient to speedy close the discussion which only lasted about 3 hours. He then went ahead and speedy deleted the license along with all the files that used it.

I honestly am not sure if the license actually has problems since I do not have OTRS access but the license probably is inadequate. The license probably gave permission to use the files but not commercial use, derivatives, free distribution rights from what I can gather based on how people interpreted google translate. I strongly feel native speaker input is needed.

While I think Jcb jumped the gun and mass deleted files prematurely, I am not contesting the deletions at this point.

I however request the license itself and either the file description pages be undeleted or I be provided with the information on each of them with a list of the files. I ask this information so I can work with tr.wikipedia community in an attempt to try to get a free license permission to TRGov-Military related files.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a little confusing chain of events here:

• At some point User:Takabeg created Template:Attribution-TRGov-Military license claiming that "The copyright holder of this image, Turkish Armed Forces allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. The Turkish Armed Forces stated that all the images from their website are free for use provided the source is cited.
  To the uploader: Please provide a link to the original file and the authorship information if available.". This template might or might not have been valid.
• A year ago とある白い猫 (who is not OTRS member) added {{PermissionOTRS|Taysin|id=2012071110005537}}, probably based on this discussion with User:Takabeg who also is not OTRS member. ticket:2012071110005537 does not have hardly any information: it only says "yes you can use it" but since it is a a reply to some unprovided request, it is hard to see what can be used and I do not think there is any discussion of license in those couple sentences.
• On Sep 2 the problem was corrected by user:Tiptoety (who is OTRS member) who removed the bogus template.
• However corrected version only lasted for 2 minutes since soon after {{OTRS received|id=2012071110005537|Taysin|year=2012|month=July|day=17}} was added.
• On Sep 13 template was deleted with explanation here that "OTRS received for more than a year doesn't need a DR". However {{OTRS received}} was there only for 11 days and as far as I can tell nobody related to this ticket, like User:Taysin or User:Takabeg, was notified that there is any problem.

I think that any mass deletion of images that have been around for over a year would warrant a regular deletion request. Same with Template:Attribution-TRGov-Military which was deleted without notifying its creators. By the way, very similar template Template:Attribution-TRGov-Military-Navy seems to have (most likely) OK OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want to clarify, I merely carried out janitor task of prettifying the template. I had no actual involvement in the communication with the copyright holder or with the OTRS members beyond that. At the time I was cleaning up a number of license templates. I notified Russavia and Tiptoety through an IRC discussion asking if the OTRS ticket is really valid and they both concluded it probably wasn't and I was in the process of trying to get the local community to seek the necessary permissions. I suppose I should have done so a year ago but I didn't question it much back then. Maybe wishful thinking blinded me. Thank you for clarifying the time-frame the template {{OTRS received}} was placed on the page. I remembered 2-3 days but I was clearly wrong. Still I don't think 11 days is reasonable to communicate with an entire military to sort out licensing issues. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed User talk:Takabeg/Archive2012#.7B.7BAttribution-TRGov-Military.7D.7D. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

White Cat, just concentrate on getting the permission from the Turkish military. As I told you on IRC all of the Turkish military templates are not suffice in terms of OTRS permission. If you get the permission, the files can easily be undeleted. russavia (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to get the FILES undeleted. It was I who asked you to verify the OTRS license remember? To seek permission from tsk.tr I wanted to comply a list of files that used to be on commons and let them decide if they really didn't wanted such files widely available (with a license compatible to us). Jcb sabotaged my ability to show actual usage to that end but this isn't something that can be fixed at this point. However the metadata (the license template itself, individual file description pages without the files) would salvage what I intend to demonstrate to tsk.tr. I also don't want to do this all by myself but instead with members of the tr.wikipedia community. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think Jcb's comments here is also very inappropriate. See this. The deletion of his files and the block are done by different admins for different reasons. I expect a better behavior from admins, not motivated by their wild feelings. See how gentle Avenue's (third) decline is. JKadavoor Jee 16:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for highlighting Jcb's inappropriate comment Jkadavoor. I have not investigated the ins and outs of this case, but that comment alone from Jcb when acting as an admin, makes me feel this thread should not be closed by another admin until Jcb has commented here, put forward a rationalization for their behaviour, and explained if they would handle a similar situation differently in the future. Hopefully this is not part of a pattern. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  This user released files into a free license, but later revoked the non revocable license, using his age to convince Jimbo that he was not legally competent to release his files into a free license. Doing so, he managed to get the pictures deleted. This causes a high risk for our reusers. Imagine that at some point Arctic Kangaroo sells the images to GettyImages. If such happens, our reusers run the risk of getting a very high bill from GettyImages, although they did nothing wrong. If our irrevocable license turns out to be in fact revocable, we have a huge problem. Therefore, as long as Arctic Kangaroo seems to be able to revoke licenses, his presence is not compatible with our licenses and he will need to remain blocked. And where you admit not to know the ins and outs of this case, I did follow it from the beginning. Jcb (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply. Aside from the license issues, do you understand why Jkadavoor and myself (often at different sides of discussion) are both surprised by seeing an admin express views in the way you did here and why this does not appear in line with working constructively with others in the context of COM:Admins? --Fæ (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  This user failed to get the point when I used better wordings, he even removed them. That's the reason why I tried to say the same in other words. Everybody can check in my contributions that the word 'ass' does not belong to my normal vocabulary. Jcb (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  Our concern (yes; Fae and me are mostly in opposite sides in discussions) is on the tone of the language you used; very different from that you can see from other admins there. See the first unblock rejection by O: "Maybe try to let your blood pressure settle down for a longer period of time, at least a month or so, before you change your mind about this project." So AK made his second request after one month even though O clearly advised to make a note; not a request. From his talk page, I assume O knows Chinese, and he may have a better understanding on Singapore too. You closed the second request saying "User is legally incompetent to contribute". See WMF is not cleared its stand so far. He made one more request which is closed by Avenue. I think both of you can consult O before making any decision. That’s up to you; but your comment here is too inappropriate; especially as an admin to a minor. I request (yes; humbly request) you to retract that comment. JKadavoor Jee 15:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  I didn't see my unblock decline as overturning another admin's decision in this case (not O's, nor Jcb's, nor A.Savin's, nor Russavia's), but as essentially agreeing with the substance of their decisions (especially A.Savin's). So I don't think I needed to consult them about it. If I had seen my action as overturning their decision, I would have tried to consult them before acting. --Avenue (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  Its OK; and up to you (as I said earlier). The only thing I didn't understand is why O suggested him to retry after one month. JKadavoor Jee 13:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  I can appreciate that language problems are frustrating on all sides when there is seemingly wilful misunderstanding. I am happy to think of this as a one-off and in general I would like to see the community try a bit harder to provide non-English explanations and support for contributors where language or cultural differences might be behind persistent unacceptable use of Commons (I am glad to say that I do see this happen from time to time, and each time I feel good about our diversity of outreach). As Jkadavoor suggests, it's not too late to go back and strike out the 'ass' comment or replace it with something else. You might think about how to make a point strongly without crossing the line. Anyway, we all have bad days, I'm happy to move on and leave this to your judgement. --Fæ (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  I have changed the wording. Jcb (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks Jcb; it is highly appreciated. Thanks Fæ too. :) JKadavoor Jee 16:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  Instead of "you abused your age to/you used your age to", I think that "you pretended being under-age" is more conform to what is really known, and may be safer. Pldx1 (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Huyme

This user has continually edit warred on flag files and insisting in uploading non-SVG formatted versions over SVGs files. The user has received repeated warnings from myself and AnonMoos but will not stop. I believe there is a language barrier of some sort, however these actions need to stop. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The user has continued even after my notifying them of this report. I do believe the time has come for a temporary block. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If Huyme needs help with English or SVG editing, then he should ask, but instead he repeatedly overwrites true (i.e. vector) SVG files with bogus SVG files (containing an embedded raster and no vector data), which is not acceptable. However, he seems to have stopped overwriting File:Hoa Hao flag.svg and File:Flag of BAJARAKA.svg, which were my main personal points of friction with him (of course, he forked the first off to File:Flag of Hoahaoism.svg...). AnonMoos (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes they stopped on those two and moved on to edit warring on File:Burma Socialist Programme Party flag.svg and File:FLHP drapeau.png. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So is anybody going to do something considering this user is continuing to edit war? Fry1989 ^eh? 19:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Was hoping to see him take part in the discussion but he didn't. Now he has a break for one week and faces more if behaviour doesn't change. --Denniss (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Stefan4...

See also: COM:LT#Stefan4 tiene una actitud un tanto discutible..

User Vagharsh

We already have a consensus in issue on the pictures of the monuments in Nagorno-Karabakh participating in WLM. According to recent decision it is possible to add monument identifiers templates anytime to the pictures, since this actually depends on the fact that the given monument is officially recognized as cultural heritage by country X or Y. Also users can remove the WLM template (not Monument identifiers template) from their own images. User Vagharsh removed {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2013|az}} from his own images. That is OK. But he removed also Monument identifiers template given by Azerbaijan government. He also removed description and categories [31] [32] [33]. Even after my warning he says that he will continue to do this [34]. --Interfase (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Blocked indefinitely. Threatening to sue people is not OK. If the user tries to sock, let me know. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User:(dwt).

(dwt). (talk · contribs) missing categorisation at all images; no reaction on discussion; no reaction on requests or offered help; wrong filetitles; wrong file description; blocking him on de-WP had no effect.
I tried to talk to him at commons and de-WP; no reaction. I have massive work and waste of time in correcting his mistakes. Blocking hin at de-WP also brought no reaction. Please help. -- Lord van Tasm @ de:WP (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

While annoys me a great deal that habit of so many uploaders and photographers of not adding any meaningful categories to their contribuitons (often copious), I’m horrified that such behaviour could be grounds for blocking. Let him take pictures, upload them with funny names, and forget about categories. Others can come after and do the necessary renaming and categorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem may be solved. They are mailing now.[35] --Anika (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor inclination to get into categorization of the photos I upload. When I do, bots come along and change them anyway or some zealot (see above) does it for me. When I don't, my descriptions are sufficient for some other bot to do it anyway. However, if you prefer I not upload photos just let me know. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, categories are nice and it sure helps other users. BUT: Categories are NOT mandatory. If uploader(s) don't want the hassle with cat-trees, fine. At least we have the image on Commons. Saffron Blaze: Your uploads are more than welcome! Please continue your great work! This thread can be speedy-closed. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Categorizations are not necessarily absolutely mandatory, but they're extremely highly recommended, and sometimes it can be difficult to understand what an uncategorized image is, or whether it's worth keeping on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hedwig in Washington. It is better to have a file uncategorized, or only in relatively few or relatively general categories, than not to have it at all. darkweasel94 21:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Liza Hachard

Liza Hachard (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Vandalism only-account: uploading porn images and inserting it in ru-wiki user talk pages with sockpuppets. See also ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Толпа вандалов. — Stas1995 (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Indef'ed + all uploads deleted. --A.Savin 12:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — Stas1995 (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Also blocked the following sock account: User:Flak155. INeverCry 18:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO, this user is rather helpless regarding correct licensing, but the edits have absolutely nothing in common with those by "Liza Hachard". --A.Savin 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC) That's OK, just had a look at the RfCU on Russian wiki... --A.Savin 19:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, I blocked this account after running checkuser here on Commons and confirming the connection. INeverCry 19:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Lev. Anthony

• Lev. Anthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been uploading a lot of images from http://www.shipspotting.com. The terms and conditions of this site are clear: " Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved ", "Third Party has the right do display the thumbnail only. ", "Third Party has no right to re-distribute, resell or in any other way transfer or display content delivered through the Service to any other party. ", see [36].

He's French, born in 1997 and probably didn't understant correctly the copyright issue. I explained him on his talk page. Peter17 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a language barrier issue here. I am willing to give him one more chance in case he responds to your latest message. I have him watchlisted; if he uploads any more copyright violations and doesn't respond to your message, I will block him for an extended period of time. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

NordNordWest

This user has been engaged in a multiyear edit war at File:Israel location map.svg. The user continually reverts without explanation or posting any sources which back his edits. I have brought numerous sources to his attention just incase he was unaware of the mainstream position and how it differs from the Israeli extreme nationalist POV which he keeps editing into the map. If the map stays this way in can not be used in en:wiki per wp:V and wp:npov. Is it acceptable on commons to ignore sources over original research and edit warring? The user also slighted me by reporting me as a vandal, because we all know that vandals are those evil editors who bring sources and try to discuss their edits. Sepsis II (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I posted as ANV as a noob mistake, I've deleted it, moved it here as it's more approriate. Sepsis II (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - This is a content dispute. Reporter has posted in multiple locations; please make one report per incident. Regardless, reporter is just as guilty as reportee. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989 again

• Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I ask him to stop an edit war here and he says in my talkpage that the other user is a troll, this user has a long number of blocks because disrupting edits so I ask a long block for him (1 month minimum). Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 22:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done two things. Firstly, I've protected the file for 2 weeks, so that discuss can be forced on the talk page. I have also blocked Fry1989 for 3 days, for refusing to use the talk page to discuss the issue after Bernard noted the sources on the talk page. Fry1989's use of "no source, no edit warring" in one of the subsequent reverts indicates that he is intent on edit warring on this issue and will refuse to use the talk page to discuss. After his block expires in 3 days, perhaps all parties will use the talk page to discuss the issue. Any edit warring by any party once the protection expires will also likely result in blocks too. russavia (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ezarate and Russavia, thanks for the work. Fry1989 look like to be an aggressive user. Regards, -Bernard (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a bad block and tainted because it comes from russavia, who has a long history against Fry. Fry was blocked less than 20 minutes after this was first posted, with no opportunity to speak for or defend his actions, which he has now fully done on his talkpage. this is really over the top.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I’m appalled. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The current issue aside, I think this shows an interesting aspect of Fry's behavior. I should initially note, that I was also recently on the receiving end, of what I perceive as Fry's permanently poor behavior; being aggressive and quick to throw the arrogance-card towards others. This is the eighth block of Fry (see block log link above, not counting the indef-block that was quickly undone) in a little more than two years. These blocks has been given, by a number of admins (User:99of9, User:Axpde, User:MichaelMaggs, User:Rd232, User:Russavia & User:Wsiegmund) mainly for edit warring. While Fry is indisputably the source of an incredible large number of valuable contributions, he does suffer from an extreme lack of cultural sensitivity and - what I guess could be termed - gentleman behavior. Given that Commons is - probably more than most Wikipedias - a very multicultural project, a higher degree of cultural sensitivity and mannered behavior is far more often required here, than in real life. While we don't - per se - have a policy for this specifically, the COM:AGF is a pretty good alternative. Unfortunately I don't see much of that either, neither in this case nor in my little dispute with Fry. He even went as far as stating that he "quite frankly don't care how [I] find [Fry] to be", after I stated that I found him to be "somewhat offensive and rude". I suspect that Fry in general care very little about, how he comes across with other people, and therein lies the source of his multiple blocks. Also I would like to note, that I find that compared to my experiences on Danish and English Wikipedia, three days is a rather short block for an eight block. As I am quite confident that there will also be a ninth block at some point, I am going to suggest it being a far longer one (two months), so that Fry, may have some time to reflect and look a bit inward towards his overall behavior. --heb [T C E] 08:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I like Fry and I think his work has been a tremendous benefit to the project. I am at a loss to understand, therefore, why he is so consistently insulting to, and disrespectful of, other users. We all have our days when we are a little short, but Fry is constantly engaged in battle. Surely he too would better enjoy his work on the Commons if he wasn't always immersed in conflict. I'd hate to eventually lose his ongoing contributions to the project, but he is simply headed to more (and longer) blocks if he keeps up as is. I'm not sure how to address this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. This response seems to show that Fry doesn't get it. I'm tempted to walk away and to just let him continue to self-destruct. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That response by Fry shows only that his blood is red and that he has a spine. This whole thing is outrageous. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What is outrageous? That I expressed concern that a valuable user is engaged in negative behaviour? Fry says he is nice to people that are nice to him, but I find this kind of comment is way too commonly that manner in which he interacts with others (I say that knowing that he can be nice too, and that everyone here can be discourteous at times). On his talk page he blames everyone else for his problems, but the fact remains that he is the one that always to be in conflict. And, frankly, nonsensical threats on his talk page (stuff like "I don't forgive, and I won't forget") make me tune out and lose interest in the issues he is concerned about (after trying to follow the issue on his talk page, I lost interest in whether this block was legitimate or not because I couldn't plough through any more rants). I can't think of another user who produces such consistently high caliber work on this project, yet is also so routinely at the heart of one dispute or another. I don't expect him to roll over, I do expect him to stand up for his views, and I don't want him blocked. But he needs to figure out a different approach. I'm sorry that you find that to be so outrageous. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Skeezix1000 asks me «What is outrageous?» and then goes on a self-centered rant assuming this is all about his own take on the matter. Well, it is not. Like I said, «this whole thing is outrageous.» Namely that for this kind of “crimes” an one-month ban is proposed, and it is not immediately dismissed as trolling. We have in Commons a handful of users whose activity is harassment, 100% of the time (a handful down from half a dozen, to be true…): They don’t upload, they don’t categorize, they don’t clean-up — they just do anything and its contrary to forward their petty vengeances. Yet they are left alone, enjoying bogus tolerance from misplaced COM:AGF. Fry1989, on the other hand, may be short-tempered but the value of his work should trump that — as Skeezix says, «consistently high caliber work». (This reminds me the of the also appaling witch hunt earlier this month, against Mattbuck.) See here and here Fry replying politely to some clueless hack who cannot even find a file by name and thinks pixels inside an SVG is a good thing. Other users in his place, such as Fastily, would simply ignore it, or reply rudely that «the closing admin doesn’t have to present a justification». Now I’m not saying that Fastily should be blocked for any amount of time, but surely anyone who thinks Fry’s “rudeness” is good for an one-month ban is willing to ban others for even longer — and again I agree with Skeezix that «I don't want him blocked». As for Fry’s block history, it is interesting to see Axpde as one of the enforcers — an admin infamous among the BSicon community for abuse of power and utter inability to dialogue with other users. So, this is what I think is outrageous. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The one month (minimum) block suggestion was based on profiling and Ezarate even admits to it, completely ignoring of course the fact that the last time I was blocked for edit warring had been over a year ago. It's not like I just did this last week and am doing it again, a year is a really long time on Commons. Had I been a new user or someone without a "history", I can promise with absolute certainty that 2 reverts would not be called an "edit war" (because it's not!), and that I wouldn't get anything more than a warning for a single off-hand "troll". Then of course there's also the questionable stance that Ezarate took in the first place. A Spanish user immediately taking the side of another Spanish user who comes crying to them, it's not the first time I've seen it happen. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In defens

I'm not "self-destructing" as Skeezix1000 put it, I'm defending myself from this nonsense by stating the actual truth! The truth is there as no edit war, I reverted the file the first time because there was an unexplained revision of a recent change it was was reasonable to assume this was a dispute of preference. Ironically, I was trying to protect the file from a content war. I reverted it a second time because Bernard claimed there were sources on the talk page, but that user had not posted any of their own, and the sources that are there and which are questionable, are from a user who has yet to appear in this matter at all. As far as I'm concerned, this didn't constitute an edit war and I'm willing to bet that if most people take a moment to breathe and actually look at it, they would agree. The other truth is that I wasn't intending on edit warring. Russavia can delude himself if he wishes and claim there was "indication that he[Fry] is intent on edit warring on this issue and will refuse to use the talk page to discuss", but there was no such indication. In fact, I hadn't touched the file in over 4 hours, had stated that I would not consider discussing the matter until I was spoken to without the snark that Bernard gave me in his edit summary, and I was in the midst or working on files of my own. Indeed, I had uploaded a file only minutes before Russavia hit the block button. I had no intention whatsoever of continuing in the matter, there was no edit war, there was no potential of an edit war, and even if you thought there might be because my statements were somehow difficult to understand, I had clarified on my talk page at which point this block should be immediately lifted.

This block is merely a punishment. It prevents nothing related to edit warring or attacks or a real harm to this project, which is what a block is supposed to do. The only thing this block prevented was an established user who has remained out of trouble for a significant amount of time from continuing in their own personal work. I tell you all now that if you think this somehow taught me a lesson, that it did not. There was no lesson to learn because I was blocked for the potential of something that never (would have) arose. I say again, there was no lesson to learn because I was blocked for something that could have happened, not something that did happen.

I also tell you Russavia that the day will come where more members of the Community will hold the same level of distrust with you as I now do, and they will demand your powers be removed. It may take 5 years, but I will see the day. You use the block as a form of punishment instead of it's intended purpose of preventing harm, because you blocked me after the fact for not using the talk page for an issue I had already walked away from. You hypocritically preached to me about good faith in others while at the same time exercising a massive level of bad faith yourself by assuming that I had the intent of edit warring on this file for as long as it takes, even after I had clearly stated otherwise without confusion. I will never trust you again and if there's anything gained from this fruitless block it is perhaps that (at least) two other users see what I see.

Lastly, Skeezix1000 or anyone else who may actually be interested in helping to find a different path, let me tell you how. You have to engage me. You need to acknowledge that there are always two sides and that I might have grievances too even if you disagree with them, instead of just accusing me of "blaming all my problems on others" and putting all the blame for the issue on me just because my more colourful nature makes me the easier target. Most importantly, don't be a hypocrite. Don't tell me to do something when you do the very opposite. That is the one thing I can't tolerate and I don't learn from hypocrites. If you find my work here valuable but at the same time would like to see me change something about how I conduct myself, don't treat the block button like it's the magic wand that teaches lessons. That's how you will succeed in making me change something you want me to change, and if you're truly interested, then you would consider that as an alternative to just hitting the block all the time. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

And of course none of you will ever read this with any consideration of the truth, but instead just walk on pretending the block succeeded in a valid purpose and that it's the only way. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said, truth no longer matters. All that does is finding someone to punish and preferably whoever is the easiest target. Shame. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)