Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 58

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Beyond My Ken

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

This is Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia. If you have problems on another wiki, don't bring them here, we have plenty of our own to worry about. This is going nowhere. Also personal attacks are not acceptable. I left a message about that. Multichill (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

He referred to me saying "Were I you, I'd slink away back to whatever hole you came from" merely for noting that HJ Mitchell, along with Beyond My Ken, are responsible for my still being banned from <enwiki>. My explanation for why I believe bmk was more guilty of disruptive editing than myself on <enwiki> laid out in my talk page. But of concern here, I will differ to admin judgment for how a "personal attack" on wikimedia is typically handled. I have carefully focused exclusively on the issues at hand.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Three admins blocked Ferociouslettuce on en.wiki for disruptive editing (Block log), ending up in an indef block, no TP access, etc. Now FL comes here and makes his first edit on Commons in the HJ Mitchell de-sysop case [1] and to continue blaming HJM and myself for problems entirely of his own making. (Contributions list). He's clearly not here to contribute to Commons.

I don't plan on commenting here again, as this complaint lacks any merit, and FL any credibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Ferociouslettuce seems to be on Commons simply to advanced a vendetta against a couple of users who they feel are responsible for their block on ENWP. They clearly aren't here to aid in the scope of the project, and are socking at HJ Mitchell's RfDA ([2] [3]). This is clearly unacceptable behaviour, and I suggest administrative intervention against Ferociouslettuce if they don't cease immediately. ColonialGrid (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Stas1995 and his speedy tags and harassment

I found several files tagged for Speedy by this user today. Yann already warned him, but continued to make these speedy tags for invalid reasons. Therefore, I changed to DR all of them, and I just warned again, but he answered with go away, treating to report me to the AN (when he violated the Deletion Policy), and even trying to tell Yann the reasons for deletion, where them are defined in the Deletion Policy and the Criteria for Speedy deletion, not in a MediaWiki interface. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently he does not care and mocks instead of assuming good faith, enough reason to block, I guess. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's strange to see an experienced editor like Stas1995 speedy tagging files that're simple out of scope unused personal images. As an admin, I deleted hundreds of proper DRs by Stas, so he's certainly familiar with deletion policy. I don't see why he'd suddenly start speedy tagging them instead. These have always been treated with a standard 7+ day DR. The speedy tagging is certainly a problem, as it wastes the time of editors/admins who have to convert to DR. INeverCry 01:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  - +1. Out of scope images should be in DRs instead of speedy tagging them. This should be the chance for an user to show that the images they made are in scope. For example, A.Savin nominated almost all of my images for deletion, because they were out of scope. Then I defended some of my files that they are in scope. Then Alan kept the files I defended (but one of the files I defended was deleted, but I am fine of it), while deleted the others ones which I don't defended (and I even requested to delete them). So DR is best for controversial ones, where out of scope is there too. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious. I recommend further research to confirm if the person who tagged these files for deletion and left these messages to Yann and Me is actually or not Stas1995. The account should be blocked to ensure if it was not compromised, but if the person is actually Stas1995, a longer block should be applied. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I let a message on Stas1995's talk page. I don't think blocking is needed yet, but I expect an answer. Stas1995, please properly answer to requests, either here or on your talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So, I don't think that tagging for Speedy these file regardless your previous warning could be considered as good faith action, but the go away and the attempt to tell you the reasons for deletion, IMHO, is assuming bad faith. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I am disturbed by a now series of complaints against various administrators from user Amitie 10g. I recall in a prior one that the complainant was suggested to go find something constructive to do. I would reiterate that suggestion and recommend the complainant examine their recent behavior to understand why they were told to go away by Stas1995. Anyone reading the thread in order[4] is in no doubt why Stas1995 could be that frustrated. That statement did not arise from thin air. I do not think a block against Stas1995 is warranted at this time. I suggest to the complainant to let at least a week go between these complaints about administrators and other users lest the apparently endless string of complaints be viewed as in the fairy-tale The Boy Who Cried Wolf and subsequently ignored. These actions produce a lot of stress for the person who is on the receiving end and are not consistent with working together on the project. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your comment, but the thread should start from the warning left by Yann, and Stas1995 just ignored it. I'm also frustrated, specially due the Copyright paranoia in Commons (and specially your Copyright paranoia). I could just ignore this incident, but the violations of the Commons Policies should not be ignored, specially the Deletion Policy. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please avoid pathologising fellow contributors and misusing medical terms as invectives. It's offensive. And when you're told to give it a rest, maybe consider actually giving it a rest instead of always having to get the final word. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Munusamyanbu (talk · contribs) seems blocked user's (Anbumunusamy (talk · contribs)) new account. --Antan O 02:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The user has another account (முனுசாமிஅன்பு (talk · contribs)), which is blocked in ta.wiki. --Antan O 02:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing relating to now closed Administrators/Requests/HJ Mitchell (de-adminship)

I'm not a regular here so I don't quite understand if this is an issue but to me anyway it seems like it is. From en.wikipedia, I noticed a report of what appears to be an editor who engaged in Commons:Offsite discussion in particular canvassing by email relating to now closed (not during the email) Commons:Administrators/Requests/HJ Mitchell (de-adminship). Since it's closed and I don't know if people will monitor the discussion page, I'm reporting it here. You can see the report here en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Odd email. In the end, I'm not sure if it affected the outcome since the editor apparently canvassing supported the de-admin which didn't happen. However, while the editor didn't ask for a vote in a particular way, the fact this was sent by email apparently to someone who apparently didn't really know either the sender or the editor the de-admin was about, and the unsolicited email asked for it to remain confidential and it related to a request to remove admin permissions strongly suggests suspect behaviour to me, but again I don't know the standards at commons. P.S. I'm assuming the report at en is accurate, I obviously have no way to know myself but it seems a weird accusation to make up. Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. (see here for the report which has been archived in the meantime) Given the blocklog of the editor in question at en-wiki I doubt that he mailed the HJ-fan club so I tend to agree that this probably didn't affect the outcome. While I do expect that RFA's, de-RFA's and everything in between are discussed off site via venue's like IRC or even Facebook this is different. A banned/blocked user who is mailing people regarding the de-RFA of (one of) the person(s) who blocked him is unacceptable and creates a unsafe working environment. If this is true I do support a long block for the person who canvassed. Editors who have left the project but return to vote against people who they dislike are creating a toxic working environment. Especially when they start canvassing. Natuur12 (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

So you weren't privy to the email HJ sent to his friends on enwiki to 'save him'?....I doubt this was a one way street since most of the 'keep' voters on commons for his de-adminship were barely from commons ppl..if at all..the outcome was one I expected anyways--Ste moc 09:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Without speaking to the merits of the accusation, I will say that: a) according to Steinsplitter, we don't even have an anti-canvassing policy here at commons [5], b) in his OP to An/I, KoshVorlon stated that the email wasn't canvassing [6], and c) posting a private email to enWiki without permission violates Wikipedia:Emailing users#Abuse handling, as well as ArbCom's position on Wikipedia:Harassment#Private correspondence. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Emailing users, "The contents of emails between users are private". Wikipedia:Emailing users#Privacy says, "emails sent this way are private – they are sent as written, as a private communication between willing parties who have agreed to send and receive emails." Wikipedia:Emailing users#Abuse handling states: "Do not post the email on-wiki without permission - You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows). This is partly due to copyright concerns, given that Wikipedia pages can be re-used by anyone."

Wikipedia:Harassment#Private correspondence says, “The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee once stated as an editing principle that 'In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki'". Rationalobserver (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Come on now RO, you know as well as I do that those policies and rules are only there for admins to use against editors, they do not apply to the admins. That would just be silly to expect the admins on the project to actually follow the same rules and policies as the users they are enforcing those policies on. Reguyla (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry; is KoshVorlon an admin? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No I don't think so, just saying that the only way that a policy or rule like that will be enforced is if there is an admin that wants to use it to do something. Reguyla (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree with you on that aspect. I was just reminding everyone here that Commons does not have an anti-canvassing policy like enWiki, which does have some very strong policy against posting private emails onWiki without permission. I mean, wasn't this whole kerfuffel based on the fact that HJ falsely accused someone of posting private material? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right they do...when they enforce it...which is fairly uncommon. For example, it's common for issues to be discussed offline on IRC, via emails and other sites or even by posting it on Wikipediocracy. In reality, it's actually beneficial in most cases to post a neutral notification about a discussion as long as they aren't trying sway the vote, which judging by the email that was posted by KV, you weren't. You just told them about the discussion. They could have just as easily supported him keeping the tools. Also, it was mentioned above about EnWP folks showing up here who rarely edit commons! Almost all of those EnWP folks participate at Wikipediocracy and it's my guess most came here after seeing it there. So blocking email on ENWP while might make them feel vindicated and be able to say they did something, it really doesn't do or mean anything. Especially since you are already blocked there anyway...which also is no reflection on your character or intentions. It just means you got blocked. Reguyla (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Strange spam?

Noticed that Seline Hackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) added a strange category this is basically a message with an email (not going to repeat what it states). I've reverted all the edits. Bidgee (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked the account indef. We can always unblock it if Seline Hackson turns out to be human and not a robot of course. (Though this would require an explanation for his/her behaviour) Natuur12 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Norsketalenter8000

User:Norsketalenter8000 is uploading screen shots of logos and fictional characters from copyrighted television shows. Releasing them into the public domain asif they hold the copyright. They probably need their Contribs deleting.Raintheone (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have marked most of them for speedy deletion, and for one or two unclear/non-blatant copyvios, I've opened COM:DRs. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

resolving issues

This is Robert Palmer / RSVPalmer . As a new member I'm trying to establish some good protocol, habits and learn and use good procedures while using your website. As you probably are aware that there is a lot of things to learn about your website initially. I read(and deciphered) most of the descriptive articles on topics regarding do's and don'ts. Things for me started out real well and the process of joining and making my own 'page' was a success. While looking around at some of the opportunities I may have made some mistakes and quite frankly I'm not sure what I did wrong but whatever it was, was not my intention to step on any toes or get off on the wrong foot with the Association/Administration. Once I noticed that I did something wrong I couldn't figure out how to resurrect it, change it or get back on track without leaving a large footprint. I'm hoping that I chose the right page/ location or people to contact with this apology/question letter. Since I'm not familiar enough with the communication/responses that

I'm looking to receive I need some advice on what I'm looking for next in trying to resolve this issue that I've created.

Thank you for your help/advice in fixing this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSVPalmer (talk • contribs)

Done Have left message on user's talkpage offering assistance. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:LatvianCulture, User:International Festivals, User:ArtistsColumbia

LatvianCulture (talk · contribs), International Festivals (talk · contribs), ArtistsColumbia (talk · contribs)

During the last week or so this user has uploaded a lot of (mostly very similar) images, to Category:Matthias Manasi and other, random categories with multiple accounts. I left notices on the talk page of the last two uploads about the use of multiple users, the random categories, and the upload of a big amount of very similar images. At the moment, no action is required, but I would like others to watch this user as well to make sure, it does not get out of hand. --Sebari (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This user now made two new accounts and still mass uploading nearly identical pictures with bad categories: Konzerthaus (talk · contribs) and DenKoncerthuset (talk · contribs). This is getting out of hand to cleanup. --Sebari (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I opened deletion requests for most of the identical images. Nevertheless, forbidding to create new accounts would be helpful. --Sebari (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Srittau: Blocked all indef for abusing multiple accounts. -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Problematic user with multiple accounts

Hello,
I wanted to bring to your attention a problematic user that uses multiple accounts to upload pictures (on which he sometimes appears):

Special:Contributions/Kerkenie: all pictures have been deleted and account blocked (refer to talk page).
Special:Contributions/Abdelfattahe: lot of pictures have been deleted (refer to talk page) but account is still active and new pictures (either from suspect origin or out of project scope) continue to be uploaded.
Special:Contributions/عبد_الفتّاح_القرقني: account is active and pictures (either from suspect origin or out of project scope) continue to be uploaded.

Would it be possible to review this case and take the necessary actions? Moumou82 (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Moumou82: Blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts. -- Cirt (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hpyounes

User is violating NPOV rules with File:Flag-map of Morocco.svg. I warned them on their talk page and gave a link to an alternative file with their preference, but they responded on my talk page that they will continue to revert the file. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a violation1 i'm just using another map that already exist! but he does not like it! and you don't have to warn me! i'm not doing a crime! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpyounes (talk • contribs)

Comment I just want to note that NPOV is not needed for media files. See COM:NPOV. Can you two please stop upload warring, and discuss with the file instead? Please read COM:OVERWRITE before reverting a file to a previous version. I reverted the file to the version before the upload war. Regards, --★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not upload warring, I am simply reverting it to how it has been since the file's first upload in 2008. There are alternative versions with the different territory, and therefore Hpyounes should use those if they so desire. There is previous consensus on this matter for similar maps for countries like Serbia both with and without Kosovo or Russia with and without Crimea. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Since basically all relevant possibilities are available in Category:Flag_maps_of_Morocco, there's no need to change the meaning of existing images. Where there's a real dispute in the real world, Wikimedia Commons allows images expressing the views of the different sides to be uploaded, and leaves it up to the individual Wikipedias to decide which images to use. AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The user has overwrited more files. They are warned. Ankry (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

They have continued to edit war on File:Flag-map of Morocco.svg. Is an admin going to do something or not? Fry1989 ^eh? 16:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Done blocked 3 days Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Insidema obvious sock blocked indef. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I increased the block of Hpyounes to 1 week, and semi-protected the files. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Socking

The user has now created at least 2 sockpuppets and has continued to personally attack me based on their nationalistic and homophobic POV. I have detailed this in a sockpuppet investigation report on Wikipedia so I won't double it here, but they have also created the second puppet here on Commons as well, so I believe the user should now be permanently blocked. I don't believe they will be able to contribute usefully. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, admins? Seriously.... Fry1989 ^eh? 18:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fry1989: Blocked sockmaster and sock indef. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tuskina

Repeatedly removing DR tag from File:Canada - Stop sign old.svg, a sign that never existed in Canada. Please delete the file and block the user. Please do not delete their other upload however, it has a proper source. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a Jermboy27 sock. Blocked. Эlcobbola _talk 20:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Bad user name

User:Dank Shit - inappropriate user name that violates policy. Can someone action? Gbawden (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Uploads are copyvios & the name isn't related to German either. –Davey2010^Talk 10:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Gbawden and Davey2010, blocked and deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

inappropriate username: NeoTheNazi (talk · contribs)

A moment ago a new account calling himself NeoTheNazi has been created and 1 likely copyvio has been uploaded and used to vandalize an article on :en wikipedia.[7] Notwithstanding that hardly anything good can be expected from this user, IMO this username is inacceptable and should be blocked. Objections/Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Blocked user, deleted file. -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Another Russavia sock

ResolvedDone.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 23:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Venezuelanmaraca Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Globally locked. Next time, please do not report again another sock of Russavia here, it is entirely useless. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Hey, just one note, the more you revert, the more I patrol. ;) ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for offending you. I know Russavia has friends in high places, but this is still disruptive vandalism and needs dealing with. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't offend me. Just a note for you. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 13:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Paulwest and Victoria uploads

Resolved

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

User apparently has no idea about copyright.

Images of a person in a magazine or advertisement are not copyrighted by that person, they are copyrighted by the photographer or the magazine.

Literally every single upload by this user should be deleted as copyvio.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep File:Victoria Now.jpg, subject to OTRS confirmation from the photographer, her husband.

Otherwise though,

Delete the commercial advertising work has no indication that the copyright holder (probably the product owner commissioning the ad, maybe the ad agency, rarely the magazine) are likely to release these with the free licence they'd need.

Note also en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Nixon. It would have been better if this was a deletion request, not a user problem, if the involvement at en:WP had been noted. and if the uploading editor had been notified. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. User was indeed notified. File:Victoria Now.jpg was originally uploaded by someone who is not the author of the photo, with zero proof of permission for having done so. -- Cirt (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Files deleted. Right now I don't see any reason for more admin action. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Hedwig in Washington. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Admin intervention

Admin intervention is needed for எஸ். பி. கிருஷ்ணமூர்த்தி (talk · contribs) in regards to copyvios, FOP and Fair-use. --Antan O 04:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I gave them a last warning. Next time they upload another copyright violation again, they should be blocked by an administrator. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: congratulations regarding your RFA. Apperantly I missed it. Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Tuvalkin

When I asked User:Tuvalkin to please explain why he/she had reverted an edit I made, I got a very snippy answer. Aside from the rudeness, I believe the edit I made was valid. If I am missing something, I'd appreciate someone explaining it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I think that except the message you are pointing out here, you got a detailed explanation of the revert 4 minutes before you write here. What admin action do you expect? Ankry (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I had not seen the reply before I wrote this post. It seemed that I wasn't going to get any further explanation. I will address the revert there. The main thing I was looking for was an admonishment for the rudeness. If you don't feel that's appropriate, I guess I have to leave it at that. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Admonishment, heh? What about an admonishment for uncategorization done by you under the assumption everybody else is a fool and that obviously Lisbon horse trams could’t possible have anything to the with the good old U.S.A.? To such extent that even my undoing of the uncategorization, with a remark in the edit summary, was not enough and it was necessary to come to my talk page do demand more details — how rude is that? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ankry, in all fairness, my subsequent explanation was both detailed and snippy. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done I am closing this report as invalid as no admin action is required. As the categorization of trams is not obvious for an average user and the response considered here may be considered not to be very polite, I do not think that it is above any threshold that an admin action should be required. So also reporting it here was not the right way. Let's concentrate on working "for Commons good" but definitely not here. Ankry (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Jan Arkesteijn and file overwrites

The conclusion three weeks ago on 8th March of ANU#Jan Arkesteijn was that

Jan Arkesteijn must not overwrite any file on Commons that is not their own original upload, until they are prepared to comply with the official guideline Commons:Overwriting existing files. In particular they are forbidden to overwrite any photographs or derivatives of artworks, these will be considered controversial changes. They remain free to create new files and to create separate derivatives of existing files. Should Jan continue to overwrite files uploaded by others they will be subject to an escalating series of blocks due to their edits being disruptive, in accordance with COM:BP.

Refreshing the related Quarry report, I note that two days ago rather than creating a derivative as a new file, Jan overwrote File:Brush holder with Dutchmen, Japan, Arita ware, late 18th to early 19th century, underglaze blue on porcelain - Östasiatiska museet, Stockholm - DSC09171.JPG with the comment "adjusted colours". The file is in use on 2 Wikipedia articles. I have checked for related discussions, and there appears none on Jan's or the original uploader's talk page, nor on the image talk page, nor on the talk pages of the Wikipedia articles. The "adjusted" image is strongly shifted to a blue cast, presumably attempting to shift the apparent filament lighting to a hard white, turning the brown/sepia background a grey/blue and turning the white of the glazed cup an unrealistic blue cast. The EXIF data is unchanged, making this appear an original file were it to be reused elsewhere.

I propose that the image is reverted (I have avoided doing this myself) and Jan admonished for returning so quickly to the disruptive behaviour. As Jan was blocked for a day for related revert warring on 8th March, this case may be sufficient grounds for a second block based on the above community agreed proposal.

Riley Huntley

Riley Huntley has gone on a renaming spree. While some of those renaming seems valid, most are, imo, out of place. Removing information like the place of the speaker is not a good thing. Could I have your opinion on this matter ?

Pleclown (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Could I suggest that before bringing an issue to the User problems noticeboard you discuss it with him on his talk page? So far as I can see, you've not raised your concerns there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with MichaelMaggs, and left a message for Riley Huntley. -- Cirt (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Их отец

Их отец (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
The user goes on to upload files without any evidence of free license after warnings.--Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, blocked one week, deleted file, posted notice to user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

New sock of Hpyounes

Rocthek is the new sock. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Done blocked indefinitely Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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

No further action needed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Photo problem with Claudia Molina Wikipedia Profile

Hi i am having problems uploading a photo of my own to Claudia Molina Wikipedia Page it keeps deleting me the photo can you explain to me how to post it? Thanks

All images that you have uploaded have been deleted as copyright violations or as missing permission as stated on your talk page. - Takeaway (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User:DannyLongSCH

Only uploading troll images. --Laber□^T 17:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done Last edit 2015. Last remaining upload nuked. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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

No admin action needed at present, I think. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Civility and tone

Having problems with an uploading editor at a file talkpage. I'm pretty sure civility guidelines are in place here at Commons as they are at en.wp? Any assistance at the talk page(s) he's been posting uncivil comments toward me that detract from the issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Link to one talk page here. Winkelvi (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the user in question has focused comments on other contributors instead of on the matter at hand itself. Let's all focus on the copyright concerns, and the fact that we should use precaution and defer to the COM:OTRS process to help with this. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

More eyes requested at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Dealt with a week ago by Ellin Beltz --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Harassment, badgering, personal attacks

The continuing discourse and tone by MaverickLittle seen here needs to be stopped. Harassment, badgering, personal attacks -- all unnecessary and now being egged on by an editor who's been around long enough to know better. This isn't en.wikipedia where ugly free-for-alls are often tolerated and excused, it's Wikimedia Commons and contributors here are, in my opinion, better than all this. Can an administrator please intervene? Winkelvi (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Best to cite individual DIFF links with quoted portions, rather than just a link to a discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Will start compiling them now. Winkelvi (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs and specific examples from those diffs:

Not all quoted comments below are personal attacks, some are examples of badgering and harassment.

The first comments on the copyvio question from MaverickLittle are:

[8]

"everyone that sees your version finds it horrendous and you can't stand that criticism."

"You did not give a notice did you? Of course not. That's how you roll."

[9]

"You are not him and you are not an admin. You should not lecture people. You should stop it."

The contributor's comments escalated quickly and then only deteriorated further and further:

[10]

"You drop the attitude. That's why you are in ANI. You lecture and hector people."

"Your lecturing attitude is the problem. That is the problem, you attitude."

[11]

"If you feel like your long-winded lectures are clogging up the talk page then why don't you stop"

"You can't stop yourself. That's why. You are in ANI because you lecture and hector people non-stop. It is unbelievable."

[12]

"How does Cirt see into the future this way? This is a conclusory statement that is not based upon any facts whatsoever. If Cirt has any facts to support that ability to see into the future then Cirt should please provide those facts. This is a railroad situation."

[13]

"those FACTS have nothing to do with admin Cirt claiming that he knows what the future will hold and that he knows that "the likelihood that the claim by the uploader" (which is me) will not be borne out by facts. That is magical talk. How does he know this? Is he a genie? Where is his neutrality? Doesn't he see that comment reeks of conflict of interest? Why is admin Cirt wanting to spoil the fairness of the COM:OTRS process? Why is he making premature judgements?"

"and I somehow lifted the pictures from a website then what website is he referring to? What website id Winkelvi referring to? Neither of them have provide any evidence of this mythical website. What is the website that I supposedly took the pictures from? Please tell me. What is it? Please provide evidence to support your conclusory statements. Neither admin Cirt or Winkelvi have provide the name of the website they suspect I took them from and why because they don't know of one."

"What is the website from which I have been accused of taking pictures that do not belong to me? Where? These two editors, one of whom is an admin, are accusing me taking something that does not belong to me but they have no website to support their allegation. That's all they have a serious allegation and they have NO support to back it up"

[14]

"This is what Winkelvi does."

"admin Cirt, who as an admin should know better, stated that he knows that "the likelihood that the claim by the uploader"...That comment smells of conflict of interest."

"neither of you have provided the name of the website from which website I took these pictures. Winkelvi, what is the website you claim I took the picture from?? What is it, Winkevi? What is it? You and the admin should give the name of that website right now since your both have made that accusation. What is it?"

"You provide the name. Put up or shut up."

"Admin Cirt is seriously conflicted in this situation."

[15]

"Houston, we have an admin problem."

"Since you have not been able to provide that website then you don't have one, which indicates that there isn't one. The Google search should take 30 minutes, right? Where is it?"

"As an admin, you know your behavior has been less than kosher. Shouldn't you get another admin to take your place?"

[16]

"Now, where is that website that you said I stole the picture from? What is it? I keep asking the question, looking for an answer from you, but all we get is dancing around by you... Why don't you just answer the question? Why don't you just admit that you don't have a website, do you? That's not hard or difficult. Just produce the website."

"You can review Winkelvi's spectacular failure to have Heidi Cruz completely removed from Wikipedia"

"It should be pointed that Winkelvi's motion was crushed by a 19-2 margin, it was a landslide defeat, calling to mind Alf Landon's landslide lost to FDR in the 1936 Presidential election."

"you will get a notion of Winkelvi's history of being involved in "flame-fest(s)"."

The following is MaverickLittle's response after being egged on to continue by another contributor:

[17]

"It is priceless, isn't it? Winkelvi tried to get the whole article removed from Wikipedia and when he failed in a landslide to get that done he started trying to take the article apart one piece"

"POV issues are definitely here that's why he keeps telling me stop talking."

I am filing this report because I just don't see the merit or the point of these unwarranted personal attacks or the tone and egging on being employed. I also don't see the point in them being allowed to continue -- this is why I am asking for administrator intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Winkelvi (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi: That's a great compilation of all of the questions that I have asked. I have been accused by you and the Admin Cirt of stealing two pictures from a website. I have asked both of you, as you see, repeatedly what is the name of the website from which you both claim that I stole the pictures from and neither of you can provide the name of that website. I'm not angry at you for putting together this compilation. I am greatful because it demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that even though both of you have accused me of being a theft neither of you have any proof to back up your monstrous claim. What you have done here is a public service and for that I thank you. Now, I will ask one more time to both you and Cirt please, for heaven to Betsy, please provide the name of the website from which you accuse me of stealing? If neither of you can put up the name then stop making the accusation that I stole the pictures because both of you have ZERO evidence of my alleged theft. Also, you are both supposed to Assume Good Faith but neither of you have done that from the beginning of this process. You both have accused me of stealing. AND neither of you have even hedged your claims. When write in Wikipedia articles about criminal acts that have been done by notable subjects we are supposed to use the phrase "alleged" but here you are accusing me, an editor, of stealing and neither of you have even once said the phrase "alleged" but both have stated as if it is FACT. This is violation not only Assume Good Faith but it borders on other more serious issues. Please stop it.--MaverickLittle (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment -- I agree with Winkelvi that the behavior of MaverickLittle is quite troubling, focusing on individual editors rather than on the copyright discussion at hand. With regard to the copyright issue -- I've taken zero admin actions with regards to this case. Instead, I'll respectfully defer to the respondents to the COM:OTRS process. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course you think my comments are troubling because I have complained about you, yes you, of calling me a thief without providing any real evidence you have for calling me a theft. It is amazing that you are focused on my behavior when you are accusing me a committing a crime and you will not either provide the name of the website that you claim I stole from or withdraw your accusation that I am theif. You have not assumed good faith, you have not used the word "allegedly", and you have not provided any evidence for your allegation. And now you focus on my words to defend myself. And now want me to shut up. This is the essence of a kangaroo court. Why don't you, Admin Cirt, just provide the name of the website fromf which you think I stole. You are calling me a thief and then you turnaround and tell me to shut up and stop defending myself. It is a Star Chamber mentality. Do you even realize that you accused me a crime? And if are aware of the size of your accusation why are you telling me to stop defending myself? Is defending myself another crime for which I can be held accountable? The crime of Free Speech.--MaverickLittle (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@MaverickLittle: , I'm quite sorry you are hurt by this copyright investigation, but our project's Precautionary Principle dictates that where there is doubt of copyright claims, we should err on the side of caution. Unfortunately I think your feelings may have been hurt by exaggerating some of the comments about copyright investigation and the benefit of using the COM:OTRS confirmation process, and I'm sorry about that. -- Cirt (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will wait (quietly unless WV starts in again and I will not sit by quietly and let him call me a thief) for the results of the OTRS.--MaverickLittle (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No one has called you a thief. Winkelvi (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an example of how you will not stop. You are the one making this move forward. It is you, no one else. Now, when you accuse me of taking something from someone else's website and taking it to Wikipedia and telling everyone at Wikipedia that I created the pictures when I did not then you calling me a thief. You, that is you, are accusing me of stealing someone else's intellectual property. No, you did not use the word "thief" but that is irrelevant to this discussion. You making an accusation. It is an untrue accusation but it is an accusation of a crime. You did not use the word "alleged". You just flat out stated (incorrectly) that no one has called me a thief, but that statement is wrong. It is untrue. It is not based in fact. You stated I took pictures (intellectual property) that does not belong to me and told other people that I created, thereby, stealing intellectual property. Stop making untrue statements. You called me a thief and so did Admin Cirt. Now I followed up with a series of questions that both of you took as harassment. I have a right to know from where you believe that I stole the intellectual property. I have a right to defend myself. Now you might not like what I am currently writing but I have a right to defend myself. Now, I ask you once again from which website do you accuse me of committing the crime of theft of intellectual property? If you don't have the name of the website then just say so. It is not difficult.--MaverickLittle (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"I have a right to defend myself. Now you might not like what I am currently writing but I have a right to defend myself." You are allowed the privilege of defending yourself, you don't have a right to do it in a manner that allows you to continue disparaging other editors and abusing them with your comments. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia and Commons are not a democracy - "rights" here may be perceived but they aren't guaranteed. You have been allowed the privilege to edit in both areas but you don't have the right to edit - a right and a privilege are not the same. Also keep in mind that privileges can be revoked or limited based on certain behaviors and dismissal of policy and guidelines. Winkelvi (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This is now the seventh separate discussion that has been opened to try and delete these two images. Do you have some larger agenda at work here? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This last comment is just getting ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

But now you're hounding me right over to an unrelated thread at WP:ANI [18]. Classy. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: , et alia: Problem solved, I closed the DN. Civility is required at all times. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Non-admin closure Open a request in accordance with Commons:Administrators/De-adminship if you must, this noticeboard is not the right place. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

De-admin of Jcb

Bringing discussion from Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Russavia_-_deletion_of_old_uploads in accordance with the Commons:Administrators/De-adminship policy.

At User_talk:Odder#Problems_with_Jcb serious concerns have been raised about the use of admin tools by Jcb. These concerns include:

Acting as a "lone wolf" by deleting hundreds of files which were validly licensed out of process
Engaging in a personal vendetta
Accusing someone of acting in a "fraudulous" manner without any type of evidence
Accusing an individual of trolling, when that was not the case.
Accusing a non-Wikimedia individual of engaging in fraud
Refusing to undelete files which had a valid licensing and a proper OTRS permission
Re-inserting possibly libelous comments against an external individual
Feigning ignorance of accusing another person of fraud even though he did say such a thing

In 2011, Jcb was de-adminned as a result of Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2), and was re-adminned in 2013 as a result of Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin). The above demonstrates that nothing has really changed.

I have uploaded File:Kastrup Bornholmerflyet (23672821813).jpg, and have recreated Category:Files from News Øresund Flickr stream (albeit as a redirect). I want to use this image, but I can not be sure that it will be stable here on Commons so long as Jcb has access to advanced tools.

His continued access to OTRS also needs to be questioned, given that he escalated accusations in the face of numerous OTRS agents stating that there was nothing wrong with that permission.

It is evident that Jcb thinks that he is a law unto himself, has demonstrated that his behavior from 2011 has returned, and has brought this project and it's stability into disrepute.

I reject Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal.

He has lost my trust in holding the admin tools any longer, therefore I am proposing that a de-admin procedure take place. Dura-Ace (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please close this? We are already discussing this at three places, no need to start a duplicate of the discussion at com:AN here. If you disagree with the proposal you can voice your opinion there. (Though, you cannot reject it, you can only oppose it) Natuur12 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

No admin action needed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:PlatonPskov

User:PlatonPskov keep overwrite File:Historical districts of Goergia - ru.svg. Could someone can Russian speaker admin restore the previous version and explain to him to made a new file with his own version. -- Geagea (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

While my Russian isn't clean, I left a comment in both English and Russian. Hopefully this does the job. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion going on elsewhere has been noted. No further admin action seems to be called for. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing de-admin discussion

Please see Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3).

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The "ongoing discussion" is at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Russavia - deletion of old uploads. The above page linked by Cirt is an out-of-process lynching. Cirt, please do not spam the noticeboards with postings about other noticeboards. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Three (3) neutrally worded posts is all I made. Using words like lynching to describe something that is not actual physical violence in the real world is inflammatory and inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't cross-post generally. Otherwise the noticeboards would be full of spam. The de-admin page is not itself "neutrally worded", which is what you link to. Look up "lynching" and you'll find "an extrajudicial punishment by an informal group" which is exactly what the de-admin is. It is not permitted at this stage per policy precisely to prevent this kind of mob reaction to a single issue, particularly one that involves you-know-who. We all know why you are spamming. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In practice in language use of the word "lynching" betrays one's failure to converse in a more polite dialogue. -- Cirt (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a perfectly "polite" term. But it is a strong word. You seem upset about it. That's the point. What you are doing is wrong. You should feel uncomfortable. Go around spamming the noticeboards and you only make yourself look a bit desperate. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, three (3) total notices were posted. I see you yourself posted another at User talk:Odder, so thank you for that. -- Cirt (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I'm closing this, as it's utterly counterproductive to start or contribute to yet more side-threads threads on the admin board whenever one editor says something that another objects to. I can see the potential for at least another four spin-off threads just from this thread alone. It must end somewhere, and here is as good a place as any. Please remain constructive, everyone, and focussed on the job in hand (hint: it's to do with working together to release free content). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and trolling - Colin and Yann

I made a thoroughly civil, constructive proposal and User:Colin and User:Yann have personally attacked me for doing so:

With this revert with only the stock edit summary, no explanation Yann calls on others to treat me as a troll, by restoring what Colin said: "I suggest Jcb continues to ignore this much the same way we ignore trolls." The "this" is my proposal to resolve the issues 'round Jcb and Russavia, as an alternative to a RfDA of Jcb - a RfDA that had considerable support - from User:PierreSelim, User:A.Savin, User:Tm, User:Reguyla, User:Cirt and arguably several others - User:Platonides User:INeverCry User:Pokéfan95 . I object to way the words "devious," and "trolls" are used, terming my good faith proposal "ridiculous", the sarcastic comment "Nice try." and the accusation that I'm intending to inflame things. Colin attacks Cirt above; the hostility (accusations of lynching and spamming) seems entirely inappropriate and unnecessary. --Elvey (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the way forward is to topic ban folks who have demonstrated that they cannot handle issues with Russavia without remaining civil, on multiple occasions, including one after this proposal was made. Hopefully a deterrent effect will mean it won't need to be enforced.--Elvey (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. The inflammatory rhetoric is wholly in violation of COM:MELLOW. Specifically: "ignore this much the same way we ignore trolls." Saying that asking for a comment on a website is "is like negotiating while holding a knife to someone's throat", and Use of phrases such as "negotiating with a gun to the head". As well as describing a discussion on a website akin to physical violence as a "lynching". If such users display an inability to communicate with others in our community in a COM:MELLOW fashion, then they should refrain from such communications in the future. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid that all that Elvey and Cirt demonstrate here is their bad faith, and Cirt seems to have some difficulty understanding idioms and metaphors, and the real meaning of the word "lynching". Hint: violence need not be physical. There's plenty emotional violence in the rants by Russavia et al. It seems that one cannot be criticised without it being labelled an "attack". There was nothing "good faith" about Elvey's requirement that the apology be made public. And there was nothing mellow about Cirt tone trolling on the de-admin page. Cirt, if you have nothing useful to say about the de-admin process or the subject of the de-admin, then don't say anything. As for this proposal, as I said before: Nice try. It's pretty obvious the de-adminship has been a failure, so now you want to pick on someone else. Let's try Colin and Yann. Pathetic. Please, go and "sort some images" or whatever floats your boat. As I noted before, trying for "topic bans" / "interaction bans" are "are at best a cop out, and at worst a devious attempt to evade further scrutiny". Do you really think the way to deal with people you disagree with is to censor them? The way to respond to criticism (and I most certainly do criticise both of you harshly) is to claim you are "attacked". This is game playing at its most juvenile. There's absolutely nothing COM:MELLOW about this de-adminship, which has now an overwhelming response that it was "premature" and the only thing "vindictive" here is the behaviour of those who initiated and were over-keen to support it. Now, it would greatly help if some moratorium was placed on anybody trying to post inflammatory complaints about someone on Commons in order to see them neutered in some way. Could we just put the "user problems" and "de-admin" pages away in a cupboard for a few weeks and get on with something constructive? Is that too much to ask? -- Colin (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Pot -> kettle -> black. Cirt and Elvey really should find something else to do instead off pulling the "look they are rude"-card and ignoring the actual arguments. Btw, I am surprised that two native English speakers have so much trouble with understanding figures of speech. Natuur12 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Looking again at the diffs above, it seems like Elvey tried to censor my criticism, and Yann justifiably restored it. Elvey's edit, labelled "remove personal attacks and worse", is quite unjustified. Any competent reader of English will understand the effect of "much like" in a sentence on "trolls" and so just throwing the word "trolls" into an accusation in order to try to characterise it as a "personal attack" is, well, it's either "devious" or as Naturr12 suggests, perhaps you have problems understanding idioms and metaphors. If the latter, then you should take more care not to take offence when you misunderstand. What I was suggesting Jcb do is en:Wikipedia:Shunning. When a proposal is beneath contempt, it isn't something any reasonable person should be expected to argue against. Does it surprise me at all that Elvey has just got himself community banned on Wikipedia for three months? -- Colin (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Support as proposer; Colin defends his accusations of lynching and spamming, though they are as obviously inappropriate and unnecessary as ever; the above posts constitute Colin failing to handle issues with Russavia while remaining civil. Certainly one can criticize me without me feeling attacked; Natuur asked some critical questions regarding my proposal that didn't attack me. (I didn't reply because I feel the first line of my proposal ("I see multiple admins calling out lone-wolf and vendetta behavior. Both need to end. Non-impartial behavior is not appropriate from any admin, and based on past performance and the lack of an apology, may well recur. To that end, I offer this proposal...") had already answered the questions by providing the motivation for the proposal, and I felt it less than urgent that I repeat or reiterate when people who don't listen ask questions already answered like that.) So it's actually Natuur who is ignoring the actual arguments. Here we have Colin again accusing me of picking on him and Yann, of bad faith, and accusing Cirt of trolling, and telling us to shut up and go away. No, I'm not picking on you two. I'm asking that you be held to ~~COM:MELLOW~~COM:PG, in light of the evidence Cirt has added to that which I've given. --Elvey (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You do realise that COM:MELLOW is an essay, not a policy? You can't actually topic ban someone for being harshly critical. If you behave deplorably, as both you and Cirt have, then harsh words are expected. For example, you haven't justified your outrageous proposal that the apology email be made public. It's clearly a bad-faith demand (you don't believe it will be sent, or is grovelling enough) and clearly an attempt at humiliation. Or do you have a good-faith rationale? Nope. Shame on you. -- Colin (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Another smoking gun is here where Colin actually admits that he intended to upset Cirt and make Cirt uncomfortable by using the word lynching. That's clearly unacceptable. There's a total lack of recognition of or remorse for any of the misbehavior brought up in this thread. What do we do about that? You really think you've done nothing wrong, Colin? --Elvey (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I am not a native English speaker, but I do not interprete the quoted phrases like "is like negotiating while holding a knife to someone's throat" and "lynching" literally but figures of speech or metaphors. It is strong criticism, and harsher words than I would personally use, but as I see it a reaction to a very un-mellow, vindictive and overly hasty de-admin request, which appears to have its main purpose in publicly humiliating Jcb as the demand to make the 'apology' email public. I do not see any point in this. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment I don't support any action against Yann (although we have disagreements and that he is trolling at IRC, but I can't report him here because Natuur12 said IRC has to be resolved in IRC, and that posting of IRC logs is not allowed). because I believe his revert was made in good faith. Although Yann is really bias here (he and Colin oppose any Russavia), I still believe his action was in good faith, because he don't like to censor the discussion (although he censor Russavia's comments, because he is globally banned by the WMF) (Oppose). For Colin, I am not sure, maybe because I am not a native English speaker. It is up to the community whether an action against Colin should be made or not (Abstain). ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Question: Who will restore the files deleted out of process? I can't belive that the main issue that caused the de-adminship request against Jcb (unilateral deletion of files) is not still resolved. I don't have a good history of COM:MELLOW, I admit, but I repudiate any action against the Community (like deleting files or banning users unilatery).

I support any actions to any Admin or OTRS members who aren't doing their job, in good faith and for the Community. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: Jcb already restored all of the files deleted "out of process". And I think your comment doesn't belong here, it belongs to Jcb's third de-adminship request. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That's good. Anyway, I don't like the favoritisms from some users, forgetting the main purpose of the Admins. I prefer to ~~stay Neutral until users calm down~~ vote

Support, this Witch hunt should stop and admins should focus in their job, serve the Community, not the otherwise. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah wait, if this is about a topic ban from any Russavia-related topic, I Support for both Colin and Yann. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
All I see is Elvey vandalized AN by removing two comments from an intended discussion, making it difficult to read and so Yann rollbacked it. I didn't see any "Personal attacks and trolling" than I see in Odder's talk page nowadays. Elvey need tosanctioned for vandalizing discussions if repeated. He can voluntary refrain from discussions if not matured enough to face some strong arguments. The Proposal 2 at AN doesn't deserve any comment. I agree with Pete there. (Out of context: Elvey should know this is a multilingual project, and language is merely for communication here. So your comment like this is somewhat annoying.) Jee 04:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- +1. Although I agree with his proposal, I think he needs to stay calm when dealing with personal attacks. If Colin really meant his messages to be a personal attack, Elvey should ignore it instead of removing it. He should not defend himself, others should (Who like meatballs?). As I said above, Yann's rollback was made in good faith. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Harassment

From what I can tell, User:The Avengers is here only to harass a fellow editor. Your attention is appreciated. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Blocked one week. Left a note at User talk:The Avengers. If behavior continues after that, (or if user talk page posts become more of same), can block indef later. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:CaptainLenovo

Username contains the name Lenovo, which is copyrighted and may cause users to think that he is affiliated to Lenovo. Gbawden (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Verbiage like that can't be copyrighted, but may be trademarked. There is a difference. Josve05a (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2016‎ (UTC)

This is no violation of Commons or Wikimedia's username policy. While I am no admin, through my experience creating over 3000 accounts with controversial usernames; I've yet to see a username blocked for trademark reasons unless they are more promotional in nature and generally even then, the deciding factor may come down to their edits because we want to assume good faith. Riley Huntley (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Riley. Just because the username contains "Lenovo", it means they are advertising Lenovo. However, it isn't. We should wait if this user will advertise Lenovo or not. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought this was a violation. Request withdrawn Gbawden (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Habeyouseendaalien

Habeyouseendaalien (talk · contribs)

Please can we block this user? Sole upload was then used to vandalise WP Gbawden (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a block is not necessary yet. The user has to be warned instead at enwiki. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 13:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, warned user, both here at Commons and at en.wikipedia. Subsequent activity by user may result in a block. -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

ArturDanthasOficial

ArturDanthasOficial (talk · contribs), multiples copyvios after warnings. Fabiano ^msg 23:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible duck of ArthurRebelnatico (talk · contribs). Fabiano ^msg 00:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

New evidences. Fabiano ^msg 04:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Case now being handled at Request for Checkuser. Please add that evidence to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ArturDanthasOficial. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Reguyla

Need user Reguyla blocked. Community ban on EN-WP. Using Commons as a way to message me. Per ajr, there is currently an ongoing private discussion regarding him. User talk:TJH2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJH2018 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

DIFFs and links to evidence at en.wikipedia and Commons, please? -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

en:User:Reguyla and User talk:TJH2018 --TJH2018 talk 21:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevant documentation of community ban; en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Reguyla-Kumioko community ban. Riley Huntley (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@TJH2018: This is not the most polite or constructive response on your part. Please don't do that again. -- Cirt (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my fault. This guy just gets under my skin. Sorry. --TJH2018 talk 21:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, for now. Warned both accounts. Further personal attacks from the filer, or further harassment from the other party in question, may result in a block. -- Cirt (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a bad play on my part. --TJH2018 talk 22:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@TJH2018: Hey, if you improve your behavior in the future on that front, no worries. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: Sir, we've got Stormtroopers, incoming! Diff --TJH2018 talk 22:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a permalink, not a DIFF. Please read w:Help:Diff. But also, that comment isn't really strong enough or disruptive enough to be actionable with a block, yet. I'd say try to ignore him for now. -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I usually use Twinkle for reports and other stuff when on the ENWP. Sorry for the trouble there. --TJH2018 talk 23:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I just responded to the current discussion. I won't bother him anymore. Since he is new he doesn't know the history and obviously doesn't care. Also for what its worth the link above by Riley is only the most current bullshit. It's not the original ban that was submitted over and over until they got one to stick, it doesn't show the community discussion to unban me or the three people that opposed it changing that outcome and it doesn't show the agreement for unblock from Worm That Turned that was ignored by the community/admins/arbcom. If you want links which I am sure you don't then I would be happy to provide. But link Riley left is just a couple people who do not represent a community consensus and I am going to continue to ignore it and edit constructively regardless of any bullshit abusive ban that never should have existed. Reguyla (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the dynamic of Cirt posting "Please stop importing conflicts from other sites...Further repetition of such behavior patterns may result in a block" and Regulya replying "I commented here because I couldn't comment there and I knew they would see it. But I will refrain from posting comments about my bullshit abusive ban here". Then follow several posts on TJH2018's talk page about Reguyla's en:wp activity/ban, and the a conversation on Reguyla's talk page with Cirt about Reguyla's en:wp activity/ban. And then the above long paragraph, again about their en:wp activity/ban. Did Cirt or Reguyla mean any of what they said? As Regulya openly admits, he is constantly using this site as a platform to air grievances about en:wp and their ban there, and to message people from en:wp via their Commons account, and to generally boast about how much socking they do. Is Reguyla capable of agreeing to stop, without following on with yet another paragraph about their "bullshit abusive ban". You promised to refrain and Cirt threatened to block. That should be sufficient. Not another word. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing for you to understand and I have no need or desire to explain things to you Colin. You should have been blocked from Commons yourself long ago and the fact you haven't been for your constant trolling is an example of the leniency of the admins on Commons. You need not involve yourself in the discussions because they do not pertain to you at all. You're not an admin and even if you were I have no interest in your opinion on the matter and I don't have any faith in your value to this project. You're just trolling this discussion, as usual, and offering no useful input so why don't you go find something useful to do. Better still, remove my talk page from your Watchlist and ignore me completely. I'll most likely be WMF banned in the next few days anyway. The WMF doesn't want people advocating admins follow the rules so they are almost certainly going to show support for the corrupt and abusive admins on the WMF projects I have been criticizing that are allowed to bully and threaten editors. Because they sure as hell aren't going to do anything about those admins themselves. That would require moral courage and leadership that the completely lack although I hope they prove me wrong. So you won't be needing to worry about me anyway. Reguyla (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

A user protested that you were using Commons to evade your en:wp ban and message an en:wp user here. Several users have asked you to stop bitching about your en:wp ban here. Admins are expected to take community feeling into account when deciding what action to take. As long as I'm part of the community here, my opinion is valid. The above rant is just yet more evidence that you should be blocked for simply using Commons as a soapbox to complain about en:wp and your terrible ban and boast of your widespread socking. -- Colin (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually comments on Commons to an ENWP user are not evading a ban because I am not banned here. At least not yet. If you want to block me Colin go ahead. Oh that's right, you're not an admin. So I am done talking to you. So stop trolling this discussion. The situation was already involved without you and before you even commented here and you are showing why you should be blocked here yourself. All you are doing is antagonizing the situation needlessly. Move on, go away, piss off! Reguyla (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, Reguyla (talk · contribs) blocked, two weeks. For behavior including this very last comment, directly above at DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

FastilyClone

Could someone please take a look at @FastilyClone: ? This seems to be an unauthorised botaccount importing images from en-wiki without proper checking or a checking mechanism. This way the bot uploads a lot of copyright violations given the talkpage of @Fastily: the bot? owner of this account. It is kinda confusing to see an account behaving like a bot and still making "normal edits" while the bot owner still seems to be retired so I am not sure what to do. Natuur12 (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Fastily is retired here on Commons, but still editing at enwiki. I asked them there. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's my alternate account, which I'm using to transfer images I've reviewed on enwp. I'm not perfect, but I try to fix any issues as soon as I catch them. -FASTILY 08:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay but you are still using an automated script and the number of errors is pretty high for manual checked uploads. A lot of the mistakes are pretty silly and mostly newbie errors. Perhaps you have an idea on how to improve the process? The current construction is imho unsustainable and has too much collateral. Natuur12 (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Supervised Semi-Automated script, yes. Going through my talk page history since February of this year (when I started), I count ~30 notifications for files deleted as mistaken transfers. Not too shabby for 14.5k in transfers huh. -FASTILY 08:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I briefly checked the last 100 uploads so I might have missed something but I nominated 7 files for deletion, three have copyright concerns (though we disagree on the question if this is DM or not) and I had to fix the licensing tagg of three files. Well, that's a 9-10% bad upload ratio assuming the DR's will be closed as delete. My sampel is a bit on the small size but I hope my point is clear. Natuur12 (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I rather dislike how you're twisting and exaggerating the facts in an attempt to portray my work in the worst way possible. Please refrain from doing that thanks. I agree with two of the copyright concerns, those were definitely mistakes; I usually find bad transfers and fix broken templates when doing a post-transfer review, but I did not yet today because you initiated this thread before I could start. I also disagree that what you think are 'out of scope' crops qualify as bad uploads; that's your opinion, not a fact, so please do not mix the two. Well, that's a (pre-post-transfer review) 2% bad upload ratio. I agree, your sample size is small, but I do hope that my point is clear as well. Kind regards, FASTILY 09:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

So I can take this as a "you are not willing to change your methods" than? Honestly Fastily, this is not about making you look bad but it is about finding a more sustainable method to do those transfers without making the situation look like a giant cluserfuck. Natuur12 (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. How many times must I politely ask you to refrain from doing this? I'm happy to adjust my workflow, but you have thus far tried and failed to demonstrate substantial issues with it. That said, I'm not interested in butting heads with you here. There's a good reason I'm minimally involved with Commons now. If you truly (in good faith) want my help in designing a system that improves the transfer process, then please come talk to me at enwp. Otherwise, I think I'm done here. Regards, FASTILY 10:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want I can come up with a proposal but I will only do so at Commons because it is the Commons community who has to judge this and not the en-wiki community. Natuur12 (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Xuân Thảo Đường

User is a new sockpuppet of Namkhanh02. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

DIFFs and evidence links, please? -- Cirt (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Uploading bloated PNG versions on SVG Vietnamese flags like File:Flag of Vietnamese Revolutionary Army.svg, which was a hallmark of Huyme. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I should also add removing this report twice ([19], [20]), and while I thank Pokéfan95 for reverting it back the first time it is a shame nobody caught it the second time. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Done blocked the sock. Thank you for reporting it. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Russavia bulk socks and {{Check categories}}

Russavia is persistently running socks to make bulks changes like this [21]

Category:Files uploaded by Russavia is removed
The edit summary is "making required fixes - Doing 4 replacements. Using VisualFileChange."
{{Check categories}} is added

I don't care what Russavia does generally, but this {{Check categories}} tag is being blanket-applied to a huge number of files, making a massive backlog for other editors. There is no justification for it.

These accounts seem to be getting globally blocked slowly, but there's no rollback on their edits and other editors are being attacked by Russavia's friends and useful idiots if they do so themselves. Nor is it practical to do this, without bulk scripting it. (40k edits/sock/day)

So what are we doing here? I would encourage Russavia to simply stop tagging these for checking. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you talked to him and asked for the reasons behind the actions (and maybe even trying to convince him to stop)? Threads here regarding the user's actions usually go nowhere. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This situation = http://www.ictgames.com/whackAMole/ Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I expect that Russavia is watching this page. Perhaps he'd like to comment? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Zhuyifei1999: He replied. His reply has been deleted by Colin and missed or ignored by Andy Dingley. Please don't attack each other. Seek a way to work together.--Elvey (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Side discussion, having nothing to do with the {{Check categories}} tag, in which editors attack one another

It would be jolly nice if SPI requests for accounts that may be Russavia socks were raised without them becoming a soapbox to slag off anyone who ever asked questions about WMF's actions or had doubts about the evidence supporting the WMF block. Please don't use this noticeboard to make inflammatory attacks, it only causes disruption. If you present the facts, you will find that WMF employees are watching this page and are eager to manage this project themselves by blocking accounts that look like Russavia. Fortunately this means that unpaid volunteer administrator time need not get eaten up, which is a bit of luck as the opinions of administrators are not required.

By the way, please do not encourage Russavia to write here, the WMF have threatened to WMF office block anyone that facilitates his edits and this would count. As there is no process for appeal, you really don't want that. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with Andy. I don't personally mind him contributing regardless of his ban as long as his edits are positive, but I know that is not what some want to hear. I don't think this Check categories template is necessary though. Not encouraging him to comment myself because that would just create drama for all of us including him, but if he is watching, which I think we all know he does, can you please remove the Check categories templates in the future. As for the WMF office blocking accounts. Commons does not have as large of an active editing population as some other wiki's, so if the WMF wants to start office blocking accounts for trying to minimize drama, when they obviously can't do anything to stop Russavia contributing, then they need to be prepared to step up and help with getting stuff done around here. Otherwise they need to focus on their job so we can focus on ours. Reguyla (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Fae, take your soapbox and (Personal attack removed)

I don't give a flying Corbett about Russavia, but when he bulk tags tens of thousands of articles for manual category checking, that's a problem. If Russavia is office blocked and yet there is no technical means to stop him bulk editing (just since his ban alone he'd have become one of the most prolific editors on Commons) then we have to decide whether he's de facto allowed to make these bulk edits (at present he is) or if they are to be bulk-reverted by machine. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

For those that may have difficulty comprehending Andy's offensive language, "shove it" means to have something brutally forced up your anus, and "Corbett" is a reference to the vulgar use of "cunt" when it was used on the English Wikipedia in "Jimbo Wales is a dishonest cunt of the highest order"[22]. Andy is deliberately using this noticeboard to be as offensive as possible, without quite being blocked for harassment. There is nothing clever about this language, it is simply disruptive. --Fæ (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually I use "Corbett" as a reference to his preferred insult, with an f. You can shove whatever you like, wherever you would prefer. But don't take a complaint against Russavia's bulk socking and then use it as claimed support for some personal agenda of yours, as if I was one of Russavia's (many) supporters here.

Yet again you have been so quick to jump on your soapbox that you don't realise when you might have some common ground with the person you complain of, and so vociferous in your condemnation of them that you alienate yet another editor. Nice dogwhistle with the passing insult to Jimbo too - nothing like slandering other editors by association while you're about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have never been a "Russavia supporter". This project is not a war where you have to fight for a side. The insults here are entirely yours. --Fæ (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Fae, wrt your claim to have never been a "Russavia supporter", I feel this should be challenged but can't remember the exact word to use. It is a term meaning "a rebuking response to communication or actions viewed as deceiving, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false", but I have a vague feeling the word also refers to the faecal matter excreted from the anus of a male cow. Since you seem to be an expert on such language, perhaps you can remind me? It's on the tip of my tongue :-). Alternatively, you could respect that a genuine query has been made about the bulk addition of a template, and that Pokefan has kindly engaged with the user in question in an effort to resolve the matter. -- Colin (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This on-topic comment has been copied out from the collapsed section above, so that it doesn't get hidden. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC) I generally agree with Andy. I don't personally mind him contributing regardless of his ban as long as his edits are positive, but I know that is not what some want to hear. I don't think this Check categories template is necessary though. Not encouraging him to comment myself because that would just create drama for all of us including him, but if he is watching, which I think we all know he does, can you please remove the Check categories templates in the future. As for the WMF office blocking accounts. Commons does not have as large of an active editing population as some other wiki's, so if the WMF wants to start office blocking accounts for trying to minimize drama, when they obviously can't do anything to stop Russavia contributing, then they need to be prepared to step up and help with getting stuff done around here. Otherwise they need to focus on their job so we can focus on ours. Reguyla (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I agree the socking is, unfortunately, a problem. The best way our Commons community has to deal with this is at: -----> Commons:Requests for checkuser. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually asked him in IRC what are those 4 replacements, and he said that he forgot what are those replacements. I haven't asked him yet about the {{Check categories}} one, but I will ask him later. Also, after he performed that massive replacement of Category:Files uploaded by Russavia with {{Check categories}} he check the categories of each file. There are actually many uploads of Russavia that requires category cleanup, so maybe he thinks massive adding of that check categories template would be good, for him. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We all know Scott hasn't "forgot".. He has explained on and offwiki that he has no intention to stick around or so he claims, he certainly is not going to get around to checking all these files. Many of these files do indeed need to be checked, but this is certainly not the right way to go about it. I am going to be opening a BRFA in relation to files that now have multiple {{Check categories}} templates on them. [23] Riley Huntley (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course he didn't check those categories, and he never will check those categories. Checking those categories is a human task, not a machine task. He has created tens of thousands of those tags each day with these 'bot runs. No-one will ever get round to checking more than a fraction of those. Nor were they categories that were any more uncertain than any other images.

All he has done here is to break the check categories tag and make it useless hereonafter. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Riley Huntley and Andy Dingley: But he is actually checking the categories, and he was also checking categories before. And Andy, you haven't answered Fæ's question below. If you won't answer Fæ's question, you should strike the "other editors are being attacked by Russavia's friends and useful idiots" part. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to ask for evidence to support the statement in the opening of this thread "other editors are being attacked by Russavia's friends and useful idiots". @Andy Dingley: please supply a list of diffs for the attacks so that action can be taken against the "friends" and "idiots" mentioned and administrators can understand who is being attacked and who the alleged attackers are. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's not do that. The wording you've quoted does not require a response. We should just leave it as simply one person's personal opinion that others disagree with. Getting into yet more divisive and ill-tempered threads about who is Russavia's 'friend' and who is a 'foe' is not going to encourage the community to work together on our free content aims. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Reports of attacks against project contributors made on an Administrators' noticeboard should not be swept under the carpet, or collapsed so it gets ignored. Let the evidence be presented or give at least a day for this part of the request to be reconsidered and if necessary passed to WMF legal if it should not be dealt with here. --Fæ (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: If you think I attacked you, you're wrong. I just said to you that reporting Russavia's socks are pointless. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

And for the "the more you revert, the more I patrol" thing, it is just a taunt, not a personal attack. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if the statement was ~~struck~~, Michael? Perhaps that would encourage the community to work together on our free content aims... @Andy Dingley: ?--Elvey (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

i would like to deactivate my account please do it and confirm it in email

i would like to deactivate my account please do it and confirm it in email — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajnhrr (talk • contribs)

There isn't really such a thing as deactivating an account. I believe the closest there is is a Courtesy vanishing. Is that what you want? - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done Accounts are not deleted in Wikipedia. You can simply never use your account. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Mrtanveer01

Mrtanveer01 (talk · contribs) is uploading CC-licensed photos from Flickr and adding spam/advertising links to the photo descriptions--examine the description in any of the user's uploads. Choess (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is how spammers are working these days. Maybe we need to start filtering?

See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cjones934

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Jacques680

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Hughvic8

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I blocked Mrtanveer01 for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I fixed descriptions of some of his/her uploads and simply deleted some as out of scope. Taivo (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: For the filtering thing, not now, because we are already running out of abuse filter conditions. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, I extended the block of User:Mrtanveer01 to indef per member of spam gang, see also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cjones934. Thanks to Choess for notifying. --Achim (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Senate106 revert-warring at File:2016 20대 총선 지역구.svg

Senate106 has been rapidly reverting the somewhat high-visibility file File:2016 20대 총선 지역구.svg (currently a main image on an article featured on the English and Korean Wikipedia front page) in short bursts with no consensus. Two attempts to contact the user by myself and HanSangYoon on their talk page failed, including one message copied to the file talk page. Nizolan (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I protected the file for one week. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 south korea map

Hello Fellows, Please forgive me for responding so late. I am new to wikipedia and are unfamiliar with how to respond..... As for the versions of the maps, I researched http://news.naver.com/main/election/index.nhn and http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/politics_general/732532.html. Those pages all show maps that are more in line with the version I was trying to promote. In Seoul and South Jeolla, the version I prefer is more in line with those sites which I believe to be accurate. So unless those sites are wrong I believe that my favorite version is more accurate. But I would very much like to hear your viewpoints as well. Thanks Joe

By the way I, Joe, am Senate106

@Senate106: As I have already mentioned, the map that you prefer has drastically different borders than the one that they show on Naver. In fact, right above this comment did @Nizolan: already state that your map had inaccuracies, and should the map be maintained under the newer one. Your map for instance has inaccuracies in Busan, eastern part of South Gyeongsang, lots in South Jeolla, and etc. Please do not revert the image anymore as the newer one has been shown correctly as it is. Here is a proof image of comparison for you to see: http://imgur.com/o8YNqpt Ⓗ Ⓢ Ⓨ 20:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio of User:DMG139

All the images uploaded by User:DMG139 are copyvio since banknotes and coins from Argentina are not in PD, according to Commons:Currency#Argentina. The user was warned here and in Spanish Wikipedia, but he continued uploading copyrighted material. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 13:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Info I see no further uploads after a warning. The uploads should be nucked, but not able to delete yet. Ankry (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Uploades nuked. Ankry (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Impersonation accounts

The following accounts attempt to impersonate Russian child model Kristina Pimenova:

There is also

User:Buratinolabs

which likely impersonates the game company Buratino Labs that produced the game Kristina Dress Up. The account violated Kristina's copyright. Regards, The Jolly Bard (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, The Jolly Bard, Commons and Wikimedia's policy on usernames does not include copyright. While these accounts may be considered inappropriate, the username itself often does not warrant action unless it is promotional in nature (often falls down to the edits as well). A similar discussion was held at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_58#User:CaptainLenovo. While I cannot see deleted contributions, these accounts are old. Riley Huntley (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know which policies you've read, but attempting to impersonate another individual or misrepresenting one's affiliation with any individual or entity is a violation of the terms of use, and editing under a name that falsely implies that one is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person or that one represents a specific organisation is a violation of Commons:Username policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid Pimenova is a quite common last name. So we cannot assume that using this name means automatically impersonation. I think there are many people named Kristina Pimenova or Maria Pimenova. Why should we forbid them using their own names? Ankry (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Allow me to expand, LX. Violating someone's copyright (using the same username) and impersonating are separate, I expanded more on the copyright aspect. Kristina Pimenova was brought to the attention of enwiki administrators (who have much stricter policies) and no action was taken. Like Ankry said, it is also a common name (we need to assume good faith), Kristina Pimenova is an old account with no edits. Considering all those factors, it cannot be argued that it is an "attempt to impersonate Russian child model Kristina Pimenova" as the original discussion states. User:Maria Pimenova could be argued as impersonating, based on one edit five years ago (a block being unwarranted, imoh). Riley Huntley (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No, but we should forbid people who are not named that from pretending to be. You might want to have a look at Special:Permalink/53437497. And is Buratinolabs also a common last name? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Kristina Pimenova is not a very common name. For comparison, there are about 5 people named thus on Facebook, versus thousands of impersonation accounts (easily recognizable as they all use the model's pictures). The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
LX Clearly neither I nor Ankry commented on Buratinolabs, an account that has a promotional username and implies shared use. I can go back and find a dozen impersonating accounts, does it really mean we should we spending our time on accounts that are stale? As I said above, Special:Permalink/53437497 is five years old and as for Kristina, the account has never edited (therefore not impersonated, because we assume good faith) and is four years old. Riley Huntley (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Sanjeevkentertainments

Sanjeevkentertainments (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user possibly don't know about copyrights and its violations. He had uploaded several copyrighted works. I had requested two pdfs for deletion recently and after watching her contribution, there are many works out of scope of Commons and violation of copyrights. The works are mostly deal with a spiritual leader, Amiya Roy Chaudhary aka Dadaji from India. Please check each of his uploads and delete copyrighted and out of scope contents. Inform him about copyrights again. -Nizil Shah (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, looking at contribution it is likely an inapropriate username (advertising) Ankry (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

More Russavia

106.68.139.26 (talk · contribs) Being disruptive in DRs

In this one he asks his friend Fae to assist.

Also:

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Andy, drop the "you are either a friend or an enemy of Russavia" rubbish, it is deliberate disruption. This project is not a place for you to play war games, especially when issues of copyright must be open to discussion, not censored, or blighted by threats, as soon as someone claims an IP might be Russavia. --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What does this have to do with copyright? I'm just clearing duplicates when I get jumped on by an obvious sock of Russavia. It's him who brings your name up, not me. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

In the above linked DR where you call me a "friend" of Russavia, you are suppressing a legitimate question with regard to copyright releases that has an impact on 14,000 other public domain images. Stop your disruptive campaign, you are damaging the project and wasting limited free volunteer time that could be spent fixing real problems. --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This is an obvious fact. Why do you deny being called a friend of Russavia when you support him in all and every case? Yann (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop trolling me Yann. This has been answered several times. Your personal hostile campaign is unacceptable for a project administrator. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yann isn't trolling. It's a genuine query. Why are you so determined to distance yourself from him in your words, when your deeds tell a different story. Previously you have told us you "worked happily and collegiately with Russavia for around 3 years" and "shared on-wiki and in private correspondence". You attack the reputation of anyone who claims he might actually be a bully, whereas pretty much everyone else admits he's no angel. You turn up at every hint of a spark of Russavia-related issues with some gasoline and matches. Its very clear you are BFF and I am happy for you both. I hardly think WMF are going to globally ban you for merely being "friends" with a banned user, so there seems little purpose to this game you keep playing. -- Colin (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Andy, what is actually "disruptive" here, beyond the basic fact that Russavia should not be participating in DRs? The community remains divided on what to do about that, so I don't see what the purpose of posting here is. Unless he's doing something that a standard, legitimate, user would get into trouble for, I suggest you just report it to WMF and we close this section. -- Colin (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Russavia has long expressed the view that all of my edits here need to be "reviewed" as I am not a fit person to be part of Commons. This week I've been tidying up a large undiffused category and found that it contained a number of dupes. So I've nominated the poorest of the copies for deletion. Russavia's comment on this is, "Good thing I am here hey Andy Dingley -- please consider such things in future rather than outright deletion. Unfortunately I am now going to have to go through your deletion requests to comment to save these files from deletion." I don't believe I (or anyone) should have to edit here under the restriction of being subject to review by an editor who's globally banned. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well none of us should have to put up with editors who have globally banned. But is he actually doing something that "a standard, legitimate, user would get into trouble for"? If you think he's trolling you with these comments then just ignore them. Create the DRs like you would for any image. Remove/strike text if a banned user comments/votes if you wish, but just do so with a neutral comment. Don't let him bug you. Hopefully the community/admins will delete/keep the image based on solid policy reasons, but if not then that's their problem not yours. I think if you expect the community to do anything stronger, then you need to present something a bit more serious than a disagreement over deleting a few aircraft images. -- Colin (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree a lot with Colin, but I can't +1 the above comment enough. Josve05a (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Me too, I agree with Colin. Just ignore if he is actually "trolling". Andy, if you will just continue to report WMF globally banned users here, you're just going to create more drama. And can an admin close this thread please (@MichaelMaggs: Can you close this)? This discussion is not constructive. It is like a "solution finding for a problem". ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Deception by another user

It involves the following, User:Gunnex is apparently searchin Commons for copyright violations. Fine. Good thing you'll think at first impression. But digging deeper yields a different picture. He did placed yesterday a template on an (old account of me) with a threatening template it acts to file File:Amsterdam sights.jpg. I left yesterday a response on his TP, but received no reply. While he was active. Only today I did noticed that he puts a wellknown template ({{No source since | month = | day = | = 2016}} on the file itself, but placed the looming template on the TP contained a personal written communication within the template, it involves the following compulsory order "For each part of a mounting an internal source / author / license is needed. Please take a look at the file:. Vitória ES.jpg as an example how to do it See Commons:.. Collages for details Because of the misleading content, I was convinced that it was a new directive. Today I clicked the link to Commons:Collages, where I see at the top: This page is an essay; it contains the advice and / or opinions of one or more Commons contributors it's not a Commons policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it" which makes clear to me that there is no obligation to complie on such demand, while user GunneX indeed make suggestions! I call it deception. Its also a strong example of violation of assuming good faith. I have placed thousands of files, sometimes I forgot something to fill in. I will not be the only one. The usual notification wich I'm I'm used to it, is not a problem at all, I fill it in, ready. By explicitly forcing users with such an example "how it should be" shot me in the wrong way. I assumed that this was another new directive, which I decided yesterday never to do an upload again, the proverbial "bridge too far". This is not a social behavior? These kind of messages chases users away. Someone doing an upload for the first time doesnt understand those hocus pocus, and thinks "Bye! So long!". Greetings, --Arch (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Did either of you look at File:Vitória ES.jpg, as suggested?

I'm sorry if you, or Henk Boelens (talk · contribs) have been discouraged by this, but Gunnex's actions and advice is broadly right. A collage needs sourcing and crediting for each part. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be honest, I can't see anything threatening in the behaviour of User:Gunnex. The note was friendly and professional. File:Amsterdam sights.jpg is missing proper licensing, though, since CC-BY licenses require the author to be attributed in derivative works. This has not happened, which means that the collage will be deleted if it is not done in a timely manner. I restored the template. --Sebari (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with how Gunnex handled this situation. "Collages are considered derivative works of the images contained within, so they must comply with any binding attribution or copyleft requirements." Therefore each image in a collage must be properly sourced and licensed. If the images were indeed those of the uploader, it would be no problem to do this. BTW, uploader and their sock have left discourteous messages on talk pages and claim to be inactive. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The intire collage is own work, I've taken all the pictures myself, Commons:Collages say: This page is an essay; it contains the advice and / or opinions of one or more Commons contributors it's not a Commons policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it Where does it say that Collages are considered derivative work⁇ If I take 5 pictures, combine them to 1, where is the derivative? It seems very absurd to me, to mention under a collage that each file is my own work. I can Imagine that someone whoe use material from other photographers than theirself should. So yes, I did look at File:Vitória ES.jpg, its ridiculous to post a lot of pictures in that space as it happened there. Why does the Collage page say: it's not a Commons policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it That means that I dont have to follow it. Dont you understand how confusing this is for someone who is not speaking english? --Arch (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The root cause of the confusion was that it was not obvious that all source images were made by you. User:Natuur12 made this more clear in the description now. Therefore everything is fine now. --Sebari (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Three principles we have to follow here: things have to be freely licensed, things have to be labelled as freely licensed and (if it's an attribution licence) we have to credit the component authors. Maybe they're your images (they don't have to be) and you know what the licensing is, but other editors also need to be able to find this. So we list the source images and their licences on the derivative's description page. If authors of the components need to be credited (a CC-by licence etc) then that has to be shown too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Done (by User:Natuur12) --Sebari (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Native Eye

Uploads files without permission, reuploads them. --Laber□^T 10:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Done User warned. One more copyvio, and they will be blocked by an administrator. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC) (non-admin action)

Deleted 1 uploaded file per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Red Willow Circle Dream Catcher with Turtle.jpg --Achim (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Advice.TV images

Do the uploads from this user have an accurate copyright description? Mix of professional shots, but the sources are dead.

Advice.TV (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

--Bali Makmur (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I just tagged all their files as "no permission". --★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

copyvio

merci de voir https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Dulcetesinfronteras --Chatsam (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Nuked. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Falscher Cat Eintrag

Bitte den neuen Eintrag "Kölner Decke" in Category:Kölner Decke umwandeln. Danke, --HOWI (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Das ist zwar die falsche Seite für solche Anfragen, ausserdem hättest du das auch selbst machen können, trotzdem

Done. --Didym (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

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

This thread has runs its course, and there is nothing here that requires admin action. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Jinotega93 (talk · contribs)

Another sockpuppet of Heraldcenteno93 (talk · contribs) (see also here). AxeEffect (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Done I blocked the sock indefinitely and deleted all his uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Question @Taivo: Why isn't the master acct, Heraldcenteno93, blocked? INeverCry 03:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The sockmaster is also never blocked too… Maybe the sockmaster should be blocked now. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Done I blocked him now. Taivo (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hódmezővásárhely

Resolved

User Hódmezővásárhely is uploading stills from Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Much as I enjoy these, they're all obviously copyright violations. I got File:Starkiller Base.png deleted but there are a load more. Can someone send him some advice please? Not sure what the correct warning procedure is. See Special:Contributions/Hódmezővásárhely Thanks Cnbrb (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Done User warned, one more copyvio and they will be blocked by an administrator. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC) (non-admin action)

Thank you! I'll go through the Star Wars movie stills and mark them with Copyvio tags, so they'll be sorted one by one. Probably just a new user who doesn't understand the rules. Cnbrb (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

All his Star Trek related uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Unconstructive editions from User:Unfitlouie

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

There can be found some arguments in contract law why such a release is problematic in country's where a license is a contract. A DR is the proper forum to discuss them so there is nothing actionable here. Move on please. Natuur12 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Did some investigation, Unfitlouie turned out to be an IAC-sock so blocked the account indef. Natuur12 (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The short history of Unfitlouie (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user includes only unconstructive editions like DRs and trolling (here and the English Wikipedia), and even, this user was already blocked at the English Wikipedia due his disruptive editions, and also to be a (suspected) sockpuppet of other account, already blocked at the English Wikipedia (but with no editions at Commons, but by his suspected sockpuppet). Disruptive editions cannot be justified with more disruptive editions, and them should not be allowed here. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Amitie 10g I have found several of Unfitlouie's comments on Deletion Nominations helpful and not disruptive. Could you be more specific in your unfounded accusations? Diffs are always recommended for personal accusations of this sort. Also, Amitie 10g, did you read the comment by another user on your user talk page about being less confrontational? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Could be this DR a good reason? What about the block at English Wikipedia? --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply to nom: I have been called upon here to account for my actions. Until 48 hours back I didn't know who this Russavia was. For eg. yesterday I also did this DR diff. It was an aircraft file uploaded by Russavia, where incidentally I voted to keep with a rationale. So the nominator is wrong that I have problems with Russavia per se or that I am disruptive. Until 48 hours back I was quietly making edits and improving this project. Now I am being targeted and harassed by this Russavia's self proclaimed defence committee to make me feel unwelcome here and even my factual edits are being improperly reverted just to edit war. Ref: my English Wikipedia block, Once your hero Russavia block log replies on-wiki so shall I ? Unfitlouie (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This thread is not about Russavia or his post-ban editions, is about your editions. Please stop your childish like hero Russavia (envy?) and justifying your unconstructive editions. The main purpose of Commons is create a "Free repository for Media Files that everyone can reuse", and the attitude from the WMF (or at least some employees) and user like you put the Project in serious danger. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this thread should be moved to AN/U, as a single DR is not a reason for this user to be blocked. @Unfitlouie: If you didn't know who Russavia is, how did you know that Aviation Commons is Russavia? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, I thing that Unfitlouie is the tipical Everybody hates Russavia and his contributions. I just wanted to be popular. Talking seriously, if someone already released his/her works under a free license and someone uploaded to Commons, then, no valid reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

1) I do not "hate" Russavia. 2) I (and the whole world) directly "know" Aircraft Commons = Russavia from the Flickr URL of the account https://www.flickr.com/photos/russavia/. 3) I filed the DR because there are legal issues for reusers of the image if the licence was induced by deception involving suppression of material facts. Unfitlouie (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

What legal issues for reusers of the image? There is no problem with copyright. The photographer released their image under CC-BY-SA-2.0, which is a good sign. And there is no trademark nor non-copyright restrictions either. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you prove that the copyright holder knew that Russavia is a WMF globally banned user before he gave the permission based on Russavia's request ? It is well settled international law that fraud vitiates everything including most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments which is contrary to Commons purpose of being a "Free repository for Media Files that everyone can reuse".Unfitlouie (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, the copyright holder shouldn't care if someone was globally blocked and why (specially for reasons that most of us don't actually know, even you). Several (trusted) users disagree with your reasoning in your DR, but not because we're friends of Russavia or he is our hero, but due your DR is non-sense and a waste of time, based on anything rather than copyright (since you didn't provided any proof of copyvio in the DR at the moment of opening, rather that the Rally against Russavia's contributions, therefore, in bad faith); please focus your DR in what actually matters. And finally, the file was currently uploaded by Fae, not Russavia, and the Community and the WMF concensus already decided that if other trusted users take care of the deleted contributions by re-uploading them, no problems should have (unless there is copyvio, but, again, you must provide proof). Please don't waste the time of the experienced users and do more constructive contributions to Commons, like uploading files; "Leave your computer and go to some beautyful place with your camera". --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User has contributed since March, their contributions are not limited to unconstructive editions, and if the nominator has concerns about a suspected sockpuppetry block on another project dating back to 2014, they can drop a request at Commons:Requests for checkuser (not recommended and unwarranted). Let's all be nice, and get back to work. Riley Huntley (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

HunteWinchester123 (talk · contribs)

This user has been uploading professional wrestling-based images from Instagram accounts without full permission. Even though he already received permission from the owners of the pictures "to be used on Wikipedia", he didn't ask if they can be licensed under the CC-BY-SA (the license he's tagging the images as). I've already warned him about it as well as asked the copyright holder if they can release it under CC-0 or anything else. They haven't responded, and Hunte continues to upload images regardless, after the warning. What should be done about this? --w^L ^<speak> 22:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Blocked for one month. This user has been blocked previously for uploading unfree files after warnings. S/he has not responded to any of the many {{Image permission}} notifications on his/her talk page. S/he may be unblocked if s/he indicates s/he understands and will abide by the licensing policy. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Madzia29734

Madzia29734 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User has started the following DRs:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bosch-Logo.svg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tefal.gif (twice)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tefal logo.svg (twice)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Infiniti logo.png (three times, final reverted)

Correspondence at User talk:Madzia29734#Multiple_DRs was attempted twice but ultimately ignored, including a final warning for disruptive creation of nominations. Requesting an experienced user or administrator who speaks Polish to help with the language barrier. Riley Huntley (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Two weeks holiday granted. Yann (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Анна_Таранова (talk · contribs)

Seems like all user contribution is copyvio from http://lashmanov.ru --DartRaiden (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I deleted speedily collages and posters. Taivo (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sumasoft using Commons for promotion

Hi,

Sumasoft seems to use Commons to host promotional texts and banners. Each banner is based on image coming from an uncredited picture library. Each description contains a promotional text with a link to the commercial service page on sumasoft.com.

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Sumasoft for a fist batch of removed images.
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leading Software Development Company India.jpg for a second request I have to made after Taivo warned him.
See his actual Special:Contributions/Sumasoft for 4 examples of what he continues to do.

I think he must blocked, maybe infinitely.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Done SumaSoft is still promotion-only user. I blocked him/her indefinitely and deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Biased Administrators taking sides

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

The Avengers is asked not to import conflicts and grievances from other projects to Commons. Using talk pages here to pester admins from other projects regarding blocks and bans on foreign projects is not permitted. No evidence was brought forward in regard to supposedly biased decisions. @The Avengers: : You are free to enjoy Commons and contribute here but you should drop the stick now in regard to your en:wp conflicts. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know about cross wiki evasion and I agree with Pokéfan95's comment on my talk page.

But Drmies and Cirt, they have seen that another user Ferociouslettuce has placed a similar note about his ban in English Wikipedia, and that too on GorillaWarfare's talk page.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GorillaWarfare#Unblock_Request

Now why he is getting support?

I guess different rules for editors belonging to different countries? --The Avengers (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@The Avengers: So what exactly do you want to solve here? Racism? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Done The Avengers has been blocked for a week by Cirt. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this comment shows the administrative standards in commons. ROFL. --The Avengers (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@The Avengers: So what? That means MichaelMaggs should not be a bureaucrat and admin because of a mistake? Humans makes mistakes. No human is perfect. So judgmental. You are not perfect to judge us like that. In fact, you're actually socking, which is much worse than a simple mistake. IMHO, the administrative standards in enwiki is much worse than Commons. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

When you people make mistakes inspite knowing all rules, it's justified. If I make mistake for not knowing something I get blocked. Such biased mentality existing here. --The Avengers (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: That block was on April 12. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks. In that case, The Avengers is welcome to edit in connection with Commons-related matters. However, the user has been warned that further harassment or cross-wiki evasion of a block made elsewhere may result in a longer block here. Cross-wiki evasion, to my mind, includes using Commons as a soapbox to continue arguing about a Wikipedia block, or using Commons as a way of getting to otherwise-unavailable Wikipedia editors by posting messages on their Commons user page regarding matters that are of no relevance to the work of Wikimedia Commons. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest this thread be closed, since I don't think it will result something constructive. There is no problem with Cirt and Drmies. Just enwiki propaganda. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest they should explain why they are allowing Ferociouslettuce to do the same thing for which they blocked me. But they will be saved by friends. --The Avengers (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@The Avengers: So is that your problem? Other stuff exists is not a valid reason, don't you know? I suggest you to drop this issue before you get blocked by another admin for using Commons as a soapbox. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If you don't drop this issue by tomorrow, I or MichaelMaggs will boldly close this thread, unless you can really show what is the problem with Cirt, Drmies, and Ferociouslettuce. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Pokéfan95, best to avoid discussion here, I think. Both Ferociouslettuce and The Avengers have been advised; their respective responses are very different. We will see what transpires. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are asking me what is wrong with Ferociouslettuce 's edits in commons, then It's confirmed, you people are ready to flout all rules to protect editors from a particular country. I was blocked for posting on GorillaWarfare's talk page. Why Ferociouslettuce is not blocked for the same reason. Ferociouslettuce is also discussing about his indefinite block in En Wiki. Doesn't matter how many times you try to deny, when you people will see your face in the mirror you can see what you are trying to do here. You people openly support cross-wiki block evasion by Ferociouslettuce and pretend as if everything is allright. And stop pinging me multiple times. Drmies has GorillaWarfare's talk page in his watchlist and he is not complaining now. Why? --The Avengers (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You are blocked not only becuase of cross-wiki evasion of enwiki block, but also because of harassment. Ferociouslettuce was already warned by Michael to discuss enwiki matters in another channel, not here on Commons. And you should do the same. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Pokéfan95, the point has been made. Further comments will only antagonise. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: Then why not close this thread, if further comments will only antagonise? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Earnest B

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

No further discussion needed. Let's remember to issue final warnings [when possible] before reporting users to AN/U and/or AN/B. COM:MT can be utilized for said final warnings, thanks. ~riley (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Earnest B (talk · contribs) uploading copyrighted stuff of all sorts on and on. --Laber□^T 19:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laberkiste: The only dubious upload by them is this one: File:Zielpunkt-Feinkost-Treuepass-2014-15-(Scan-040516).jpg, which was probably not submitted in bad faith, but due to lack of knowledge of COM:DW. Did you try to communicate with the user first, before opening this complaint? "Uploading copyrighted stuff of all sorts on and on" is obviously wrong, and you were already recently warned for inappropriate mass deletion requests. So, the only one who should be blocked at the moment, is actually you. Please stop this kind of nonsense immediately! --A.Savin 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laberkiste: I agree with A.Savin. If it was uploaded in bad faith, then it should be "uploading copyrighted stuff of all sorts on and on". But in this case, it is not. Please remember to assume good faith at all times. Thank you. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 23:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

How could one believe this was not uploaded in bad faith? It is clearly a document that he didn't create, and it is way too complex to be below the threshold of originality. As a matter of fact, if everyone could copy these and use them as if they were original, they would get a free coupon every time. One cannot be so ignorant to not understand this. --Laber□^T 15:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(non-administrator observation)@Laberkiste: This is their first copyright violation of 2016, and you're assuming bad faith? You didn't even give that user a final warning, nor you notified them of this discussion. You're making AN/U threads in bad faith. I am sure you don't understand what assume good faith means, seeing your behavior. I suggest you to stop making AN/U or AN/B threads of users that uploaded copyvios, it is a waste of time for administrators. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Szm020730

Szm020730 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Disrupting Commons by making pointless rename requests, after I gave them a last warning. Please block them. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

After warning Szm has started to contribute productively. I do not want to ´block Szm now. Taivo (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Taivo, I'm no flags expert, but I think he's kidding us. Have a look at his newly created flag files like this one. --Achim (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a flag expert either, but his uploads (all unsourced) start to seem dubious. Maybe Szm should be blocked for creating hoaxes? Taivo (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Done I have blocked the user after, they attempted to pass File:Flag of TAIWAN SAR.png (tagged as officious flag) as an official flag (i.e. File:Flag of Bridgetown.svg.png) and I feel this is sufficient evidence. ~riley (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Riley, thank you. He's somehow related to 117.24.22.90 (points to cn). Edits of Szm020730 to be found (and partially already reverted) on en: es: and ja:wp, see GUC. I think he should be awarded the indef hoax lemon. --Achim (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Account globally locked per request, and cleaning up the mess globally as I type. ~riley (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

EmilyNeris

On the same day, when I blocked user:Henriquec322, user:EmilyNeris was created. Emily mostly contributes on Henriques's user talkpage, so maybe this is block evasion. Taivo (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Taivo, to me this appears to be an obvious sockpuppet as the new user did nothing else but filing undeletion requests and posting wikilove messages on his other account. I've indef'd the new account per WP:DUCK. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk)

Exact same behavior on pt.wiki also helps build the case. ~riley (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Done globally locked. ~riley (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Skyhighwolf

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

Hi can someone wipe all this users uploads, seems their block in March did not have the intended outcome. Would suggest a more lengthy block this time round. Thanks.--JacktheHarry (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Done and indef blocked, they can request unblock later on if they intend to contribute constructively. ~riley (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Cancel subscription

Hello, can you please explain me how to cancel my wikimedia subscription. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doli73 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doli73, we can block your account, if you like. But pages like Commons:Deletion requests/File:RMS Empress of Russia in the 1930s.webm or your history would remain present. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No need to block. You can simply stop using it. Taivo (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll then just stop using it. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doli73 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Robot445

Robot445 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Only 2 uploads, but raising as likely copyvio sock and from the name, presumably part of automated account generation simultaneously here and Flickr based on data at User:Faebot/Flickrstreams of concern. There's several more copyvios waiting upload from the Flickr account, in turn apparently harvesting images from https://picasaweb.google.com/114532808184510641033. --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Clear case of flickr washing. The flickr account https://www.flickr.com/photos/142237725@N04/ should be blacklisted. --Achim (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:32X citing actions on other Wikis as evidence for indefinite block.

This discussion has gotten too far off topic, and now has resulted in offwiki behavior that is deemed inappropriate. There is no consensus to remove the indefinite block on the users account at this time. Please remember indefinite is exactly that, indefinite. It does not mean infinity, and can be appealed in the future in the appropriate place. ~riley (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

On my talk page, a Commons admin wrote that he blocked me indefinitely because of alleged "destructive behavior" and trolling, citing my behavior on other Wikis. He also alleged that I "came to attention in a negative way" on the German Wikipedia, without going into detail. Note that I am not blocked on the English Wikipedia (and never have been ), was only blocked on the German one for three days (and that was based on wrong assumptions) and were never blocked on any other project (except Commons). Is he actually allowed to do that, or are blocks on Commons independent of actions on other Wikis? --91.1.62.10 03:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ping 32X, can we hear your side of the story on this? I'll hold my comments until it's shared but it is clear that crosswiki behavior is not a reason to extend a block locally, certainly not indef. ~riley (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The user behaves like he is still new and willing to help. This is underlined, when you take a look only at a few of his edits. When doing some deeper inspection, one will notice very fast he’s like a guy with a stick who has found a wasp nest. After he is done there, he goes on with a completely new topic and it seems he has found immediately a new stick and a new wasp nest to poke. This goes on and on, sometimes causes a little bit of trouble, sometimes more of it. I don’t know how you call this behaviour, but I call it trolling. He continues here on Commons, what he has started elsewhere. Neither he has asked about his username before he requested a global rename on meta, nor he has asked user:PHOTOMAN for a permission ticket before he has flagged more than 2500 photos of him. It’s better to stop him now than to wait until he made real contributers to vanish from Commons. -- 32X (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Why was email disabled? --Fæ (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I've never used E-Mail on Commons as far as I can remember, and globally, I never abused the E-Mail form (from what I can remember, I think I sent 3 requests to oversight in the last few months, that's it). --91.1.56.77

I've enabled email. To me this did not appear to be covered by Commons:Blocking policy: “Only prevent the blocked user from using their talk page or sending e-mail if they are likely to abuse these privileges.” I have not seen reports about Laberkiste abusing his email access, it is obviously not a vandalism-only account, and the block rationale does not address this. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action.

I would like to emphasise the point that blocking talk page access, or email access, are unusual sysop actions and should remain a rare event on Commons for established accounts. As these blocks can put a halt to discussion and may, out of frustration, drive the blocked account user to start socking or using IP addresses simply to communicate, they should be avoided unless there are clear reasons to do so, such as misusing the communication channel to harass or unfairly defame others. Even when email access or talk page access must be withdrawn, the alternatives for the blocked party to ask about the evidence supporting the block and to be able to request an independent appeal should be provided with the block notice. In this case this did not happen until AFBorchert provided some advice a day later.

This block was obviously clumsy. Considering that 32X became an administrator 8 years ago, I would hope to see better quality block actions which cannot be challenged as propagating issues from other projects to this one as an interested party. This may not be the case, but it is important that it cannot be perceived as the case. --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday, Laberkiste was blocked for two weeks by Steinsplitter due to a series of disrupting deletion requests shortly after the previous block expired. Laberkiste asked then for an unblock but this was declined by me as the problematic behaviour was not addressed in his response. There were no edits by Laberkiste afterwards before 32X indef'd Laberkiste, as it appears, quite out of sudden. There are similar patterns of disrupting behaviour on other projects (recent block at de:wp for this and here was an indef already under discussion, this request at Meta which 32X refered to, and at en:wp he has recently been warned by two admins regarding his new page patrols. It appears that Laberkiste has an interest in patroling, looking for vandalisms, spams, and copyvios. This is commendable and we could profit from such help at Commons. However, Laberkiste should heed the warnings given, try not to be too biting to newcomers, and a little bit more reluctant before mass deletion requests for whole categories are filed with just out of scope as rationale without even taking the time to check whether any of these files are actually used. In summary, I do not think an indef is justified at this point, I concur with Steinsplitter's most recent block. However, I would like to see that Laberkiste addresses these problems and thinks about approaches how to patrol more cautious, less confrontational and with better communication. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Laberkiste is evading his block using a ip to post here. There is a unblock procedure per COM:BP, it is not allowed to blocked users to post here as a ip. It is block evasion, i blocked both ips. And this is not the first time that Laberkiste is evading a block - after this i think that a indef block might be justified. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Using an IP to inquire about their block is hardly block evasion. Our primary concerns with block evasion is users evading their block to continue the actions they were blocked for, this is not the case. The original post is quite polite, and I think it'd be quite persnickety to consider this as justification for the indef block. I am not encouraging COM:AN to be a discussion place for unblock requests, however, I do not deem this discussion as inappropriate. While I am not opposing the IP blocks, the warning seemed sufficient. ~riley (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ~riley here. Why the use of an IP did not exactly follow protocol here, he used this only to raise this to this board. He wasn't anywhere else (as far as I know) and it did not happen in disguise. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@~riley: @AFBorchert: Please see Commons:Blocking_policy#Appealing_a_block, the policy is here to follow. As far i remember, we never allowed user to appeal a block on AN/U while blocked (posing the request using a ip). --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Steinsplitter, please take on board the mellow environment we wish to preserve on our project. While on Wikipedias, any type of socking is sufficient to slap blocks on accounts, on Commons the key principle is whether accounts or IPs are being used in a misleading way. As AFBorchet put it, there was no attempt at "disguise", so extending blocks looks punitive rather than corrective, especially as the original administrator actions have been... clumsy. As for raising stuff in the wrong place, I have seen you move discussions before, so this could have been done if anyone was concerned about procedure. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not arguing against the blocking policy, Steinsplitter, and I do not question that we shall follow that policy. The point is that not every minor violation of a policy needs to be sanctioned with indef. We have some leeway between this and massively abusing socketpuppeteers. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that an indef block is fine. It seems that 32X did some high quality detective work and found out that this user is using other venue's to continue the same"/similar and other disruptive behaviour indicating that a 2 week block doesn't offer us enough protecting since this user doesn't want to implement the critisism he has got. Competence is required. Natuur12 (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You are using English Wikipedia essays to justify your interpretation of core Commons policies. Please try to avoid doing that. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not. Linking to an essay I like to use from time to time to illustrate my point is what I am doing. If someone wrote down some good arguments I am surely going to link to them instead of repeating them. Natuur12 (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Guys, stop arguing please. Laberkiste, if you want to be unblocked, I recommend staying away from Commons for 6 months, and after that, request an unblock, and apologize for your mistake and promise that you will not be disruptive again. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Laberkiste is actually hardly an "established user" on Commons, as they just occasionally come here from German WP where they probably are a reincarnation of an other, retired account. So I agree with Pokéfan. Unlike in German WP, indefblocks on Commons are not necessarily "forever and ever" and may be lifted after some period of mellowing. --A.Savin 12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

4 years and over 3,600 edits. Not a lot but more than some admins. --Fæ (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: Did you see that most of the edits are from abusive mass-tagging of files which has been mass reverted, see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_57#Special:Contributions.2FLaberkiste? In fact, the user has just a few useful edits. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that repeated disruptive mass-tagging and the claimed harassment (I have not seen those diffs, nobody has provided them) are good reasons for a series of escalating blocks. It is not a reason of itself to shut of access to email or the ability to make an appeal on their talk page. Neither does it mean that administrators should start relying on Wikipedia essays to explain the validity of the block. What should have happened here is that the user should have been warned, then blocked for disrupting the project based on the history of their recent edits on Wikimedia Commons, which is perfectly well covered by COM:BP. The claims about what might have happened on other projects is a tangent, and highly confusing for the blocked party, who has unfortunately been focusing on those allegations rather than understanding why their behaviour here was unacceptable and why any unblock request must focus on the unacceptable behaviour on this project. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Carthage was destroyed and Cato had a point. However that's entirely irrelevant to how administrators should stick to applying Wikimedia Commons policies and have a solid understand of them, especially when sanctioning other users. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

In other words, we all read your message, we know your viewpoint and we know which arguments led to this viewpoint. No need to repeat it with every comment you make the same way Cato did. (Only he did it at they end of his speech and you repeat it at various moments.) Natuur12 (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your problem seems irrelevant to the topic, you seem intent on disruption. Steinsplitter asked me a question so I replied. Nothing wrong with that. --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

QED. Natuur12 (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Er, what? Are community members not supposed to reply to direct questions? --Fæ (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Fæ, does Natuur12 (or any other admin) said that they are relying on Wikipedia essays? Also, the Wikipedia essay Natuur linked, which is WP:COMPETENCE, is actually true when editing wikis. Competence is really required before editing a wiki (including Commons). Why are you concerned when an admin link to a Wikipedia essay? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 13:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading Natuur12's explanation of why they agreed with an indef block (10:19, 12 May 2016 above), the single link to any policy, guideline, essay or evidence was the link to the English Wikipedia essay which is not relevant for Commons. The essay is especially confusing for non-English speaking contributors, where "competence" will muddy the waters as competence for skills that certainly are not required for many of our uploaders, such as those validly using the mobile upload app for, say, the WLM projects. The policy that is relevant here is COM:BP, which is explicitly clear about disruptive activities and that is a perfectly good rationale here, no other is required. Unfortunately there is a creeping cultural change on Commons where English Wikipedia essays and policies are quoted by administrators as if they represent the consensus on this project, this is unnecessary and often introduces irrelevant tangents or fundamentally conflicting guidance when there are sufficient Commons policies to apply.

It is a pity I cannot highlight that issue without being attacked on IRC and on this project as if I were defending trolling or vandalism. I am not and I have stated that very clearly above. --Fæ (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrt your claim "Unfortunately there is a creeping cultural change on Commons", this is simply bullshit. For goodness sake, this project was created to serve images for the Wikipedias (and other Wikimedia projects) and the original idea for Commons was on a Wikpedia mailing list. Nearly all of us have Wikipedia accounts, and a few of us can even edit there without being inhibited by blocks or topic bans. Commons and Wikipedia have always been in symbiosis. And Commons policies have always been inadequate. Partly due to the multi-lingual effort to write or change them, but also perhaps because this community doesn't attract good writers who will polish and grow them. Fæ, when you discredit something because of who said it, where it is hosted or because it isn't part of "us" but from "them", then you are prejudiced, and all sorts of hateful things grow from that attitude. Quit trolling with your anti-Wikipedia bigotry. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Calling me a troll and a bigot is not helpful for anyone. This language is disruptive and inflammatory, presumably deliberately to provoke an argument. As an open gay man publicly in a relationship for the last 26 years, I have had to deal with actual bigotry my entire life, so your using that word here to parody my pointing out that a specific Wikipedia essay does not apply to Commons makes me feel old and sad.

The "competence" essay is targeted to the English Wikipedia, it does not apply as written to Wikimedia Commons. For example, "If someone's native language is not English and they can't communicate in English well..." is contradictory to the multilingual ethos of Commons and sections such as "Some enthusiastic new editors combine multiple diverse article changes into one large edit or rapid series of edits..." are only relevant to Wikipedia article editing and bear almost no relation to what is important to this project. Posturing and arguing that it somehow applies to this case makes no sense, especially when COM:BP covers the behaviours of concern perfectly, and with no ambiguity. --Fæ (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again you bring LGBT matters into this... Your life story is irrelevant to this discussion and frankly, nobody cares. Seems like you're trying to play the sympathy card. Thanks Fae, never a boring discussion when you're around.. ~riley (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

This whole "discussion" between Colin and Fae is absolutely offtopic and evil. Time to close the thread. Laberkiste can go back to German Wikipedia and try to apply for unblock after six months or so, in case they are then still willing to work on Commons. --A.Savin 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's just what "bigot" means to me, that's why it is especially offensive. Seeing Colin use this systematically in a drip drip drip bloody water torture for the last 3 years, there can be no doubt it's deliberate language. Yes it is offtopic, as I said. --Fæ (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Laberkiste posted following comment on his talk page and asked me to copy it to this discussion:

First, AIV reports and blocks of established users are more common on the German Wikipedia than one might expect. I don't want to give a specific example because that could be seen as unfair by the user in question, of course. Secondly, the second block request on the German Wikipedia was closed early, with the closing admin stating that I did some reverts that were not OK because they could be seen as edit warring, but the speedy deletion that I was reverting shouldn't have been placed, and that my edit summary on the last revert was correct. He also stated that there is no indication for an other allegation of edit warring. Another admin also wrote that a indef block for a three year active account would be wrong. Thank You. --Laber□^T 18:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

--AFBorchert (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that an indef block is correct. User 32X did very good work which lead the involvement of another three admins. Also I find the wiki link articles by Natuur12 always interesting. -- Geagea (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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

IamRDOfficial sock of Rishika.dhanawade

Rishika.dhanawade (talk · contribs) was blocked in Oct 2015 for sockpupptry by Denniss. On enwiki, the IamRDOfficial account has been checkuser blocked as a confirmed sock of Rishika.dhanawade. Since Rishika.dhanawade is also blocked on Commons, and IamRDOfficial is active here as well, I propose blocking IamRDOfficial (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user as a sockpuppet. --Nick (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a duck to me blocked as indef. Files like File:St. Teresa's High School - 2013-14 - Std. 10th A - Rishika Dhanawade.jpg and File:Rishika Narayan Dhanawade and Akhikesh Dhanawade back view.jpg that were uploaded by the user credit Rishika.dhanawade (talk · contribs) as the author. ~riley (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked the sock farm; Category:Sockpuppets of Rishika.dhanawade. ~riley (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

An108

An108 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
User:Fæ/BLP_overwrites

As the uploader has been previously warned, has done nothing except upload copyright violations and appears to be using file overwrites to obscure further copyright violations of photographs in use on Wikipedia biographies, I'm asking for precautionary admin action on grounds of vandalism. --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Done user blocked and uploads deleted Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Fred Miltons

Fred Miltons (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Another user flagged up at User:Fæ/BLP overwrites. They have a history of overwriting logos and photographs with a lack of sourcing, obviously the photographs in use in Wikipedia biographies are concerning. I request a review of uploads and a precautionary block considered as there is a history of warnings which seem ineffective. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Village pump#Need to make Commons:Overwriting existing files clearer -- Colin (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see those warnings before, im sorry, I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. - Fred Miltons

I have reverted (the ones that weren't already) and then nuked the overwrites as a precaution, if the user persists after this point, they will be blocked. @Fred Miltons: Please consider this your final warning, thank you for responding to our concerns. ~riley (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Done per above. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Chaustria16

Chaustria16 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

User has uploaded a bunch of copyrighted TV title cards and radio station logos here in Commons, mostly related to Philippine TV network en:GMA Network. Also, user is a possible sockpuppet of longterm vandal en:User:Charlesaustria971. -WayKurat (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nuked by JCB. Leave open until ENWiki concludes their sockpuppet investigation @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Charlesaustria971. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

SPI case at enwiki is closed and sockpuppets are enwiki blocked, due to being a duck. I recommend blocking Chaustria16 since I think they are not here for making Commons a free media repository for everyone. They may request unblock on their talk page after several months using this account or their main one, if they choose to contribute constructively. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Had the case expedited, SPI closed. ~riley (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Jonund (talk · contribs)

In the future, please consider communicating on a page's talk page or the talk page of the user that you have concerns with. Nothing further to discuss here. ~riley (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Here, User:Jonund shows how much he knows about categorization and about goading other editors into pointless revert wars. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Poke warned Jonund and I explained the situation. At moment, no more action is needed. Taivo (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I contributed to the discussion in my edit summary, and thought that might settle the issue. The next step would be discussing on the talk page. Starting to warn people who make bona fide-edits is not the most constructive way to reach agreement. --Jonund (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

L736E

Both users involved warned by Blackcat and myself, attempt at dispute resolution opened at File talk:World marriage-equality laws.svg. No further discussion here needed. ~riley (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

L736E (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
File:World marriage-equality laws.svg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This user is edit warring on the marriage equality map pushing false information. He continues to revert the map to show Italy as a country that currently has civil unions despite the fact that the law will only come into effect on June 5, 2016. Even though the date is not too far from now, the map only changes colour for countries when the law has come into effect. Myself as well as User:Prcc27 both changed the map back after his numerous attempts to add Italy. Today he left a message on my talk page expressing his discontent with my reverting. In response, I showed him the source that says civil union in Italy will only take effect on June 5 and told him to do some research before changing maps like that. He later informed an Italian user about me who then also left a message on my talk page threatening to block me if I continue reverting L736E's edits. L736E also once again reverted the map to change the colour of Italy. I am tired of L736E making false edits and edit warring to push his version of the map. --Turnless (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I previously looked at these reverts as it appears on SignificantReverts. It's in use on 22 different mainspace articles and it does need to change with legal changes for same sex marriage. I suggest overwrite protection but by an administrator prepared to keep a watch on the talk page discussion. --Fæ (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The main problem is only this user, so I don't think it would be very fair to strip other users from the opportunity to edit the map. For now is there any way to simply restrict the user from continuing to disrupt the file?--Turnless (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Turnless, protection does indeed seem unfair. User has been warned, further overwriting without consensus (discussion via talk) will result in block. Until 5 June 2016, Italy will remain as "Government/court legalized or announced intention to legalize" unless consensus determines otherwise. ~riley (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! --Turnless (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Idinahoi

Idinahoi (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
File:The Guggie.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Marc Guggenheim by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Single purpose account, appears interested in creating trolling material targeted at the same public figure, which is entirely out of scope, and in one case overwriting a valid image with the same material. --Fæ (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Indef, also questionable name (similar to a Russian profanity, but might be coincidence). --A.Savin 22:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to resurrect, but as it looks like the images are likely to be repeated targets, could we lock these against overwrites:

... and block the single purpose sock account Jebaneti (talk · contribs · logs · block log).

These types of trolling vandalism can be looked out for on User:Fæ/BLP overwrites.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Both files protected, account blocked, history cleaned. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Category:Greyhounds in Art

Resolved - Continue at COM:CFD for additional discussion, thanks! ~riley (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Some years ago, I began to collect images of such. I traveled to quite few countries and went to many museums. I posted many of the images to Commons. I wrote articles on the subject. I organized my collection in Picasa, with data on each image in a spreadsheet file. To date, I have over 1450 images, with associated information on their artist, museum, type of media, theme of work, etc. A few years ago I decided to create a WikiCommons Category, showing a representative sample of my collection. Then earlier this year themightyquill took it on himself to reorganize everything. He has made some useful suggestions on renaming categories, as have others. Now however he has extended his reach to almost total reorganization. In a nutshell, the problem is that he doesn't know very much about the subject and does not seem to want to learn. The most recent example, and perhaps the most egregious, began with his renaming a Category:Greyhounds in art, works on paper to Drawings of greyhounds. Here was my response, posted this morning on his talk page:

It was a mistake to have changed this from GiA, works on paper.
1. Most of its entries are not drawings at all but engravings.
2. The former category of works on paper included both, as well as other important methods. One of the seminal engravings in art is Durer's St. Eustachius, now relegated to only to saints. No reason to remove it from there, but it should be with other engravings in works on paper, a commonly used term for drawings, engravings, etchings, lithographs, monotypes, woodcuts, and other forms of reproducing art on paper. Prints on silk and vellum are ambiguous, but I would not challenge anyone who included them as a work on paper--or not. But most of the entries here classified as drawings are not.

He replied, more or less, nothing doing.

I do not want to start a series of reverts. I spend too much time here anyhow. He does not compromise or learn. What should I do? Henrytow (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I notified Themightyquill (talk · contribs) of this discussion. Since you have both been editing for several years, I assume that you know about Commons:Dispute resolution. "Consider asking other users for advice (not intervention) on how to handle the dispute" seems relevant to me. Many who categorize art will be happy to share their knowledge and experiences. Inviting them to participate in discussions, e.g., Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:Greyhounds in art on works on paper, may be fruitful. Leaving discussions open for a couple of weeks provides time for others to participate. A good solution is often much better than a quick one. Commons:Categories and examples of other similar categorization trees should be referenced in discussions. Please avoid personal attacks, e.g., "He does not compromise or learn." They will not persuade others. Quite the contrary. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As well as the discussion cited above, it's also worth considering the discussions I've engaged in at Category talk:Greyhounds in art (no response since April 5) and at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Greyhounds in art in tapestry (a general lack of response to the questions raised). Please note that the latter CfD was not started by me, and that the nominator was (at least by my reading) proposing deletion of many of the sub-categories that Henrytow had created. I recognized then, as I do now, that Henry had put a great amount of work into categorizing these images, and I didn't (and don't) feel that work should be lost. That said, the categories were badly formed, ignoring the existing category structure in commons and forming a *completely* isolated category tree. Take a look at the history of any of the categories to see. (Yesterday, to my surprise, I realized that Category:Greyhounds in art wasn't even a sub-category of Category:Greyhound, the dog breed in question.) Given that Henry's edits didn't seem to conform to the categorization structure on commons at all, I asked him (at Category talk:Greyhounds in art) to discuss the category structure specifically before proceeding - a request he ignored, creating problematic categories like Category:Greyhounds in art by theme of painting and Category:Greyhounds in art by country of painter and their subcategories.

I feel I have been, until recently, incredibly patient and tried to work with Henry. I admit that I probably should not have closed the most recent discussion (Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:Greyhounds in art on works on paper) so soon, but since, instead of responding to my comments on that discussion on May 21, he simply decided to unilaterally move the category that was still under discussion, I acted boldly and adjusted the categories so that they fit the category tree. Given that the previous discussion from December is still open with no additional outside comments, I wasn't very hopeful that this one would gather attention. If anyone would like to nominate Category:Greyhounds in art and its sub-categories for discussion, I would be more than happy to see it discussed further. Moreover, many of my recent edits to those sub-categories yesterday were as much related to the December 2015 CFD as they were to the more recent one that I started.

I feel frustrated mostly by the lack of contributions from others to the CfD discussions. This category tree is not the only area where Henry has been putting in great effort, but as Wsiegmund has suggested, great and immediate effort can be wasted if consensus isn't reached first. But consensus can be rather difficult to reach when only two people are commenting. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand you, Themightyquill. I can only say, why I participate in DR, but not in CfD. Categories need exact wording, they need the best solution among multiple possibilities. They need native English speaker. I cannot answer even simple question: if Y is a country, then when to use category "X in Y" and when "X of Y"? Taivo (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Taivo. Yes, I recognize language creates a barrier for many users when it comes to discussing category names. Perhaps someday software changes will make the same categories available in different languages and that will ease problems, but then we'd have to deal with translating categories exactly into many different languages, which may prove equally difficult if not impossible in some cases. In the meantime, while I accept that English makes sense to keep as the primary language for commons, but it's sometimes unfortunate (as in the of vs in question) that the world's current linguafranca is so ambiguous and lawless at times. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Starting with my neglect several years ago to make GiA a subcategory of Category:Greyhound, and continuing with my failure to "conform to the categorization structure on commons at all," mea culpa. I could defend the structure I devised, but why bother? . I have just left a message for mightyquill saying that as far as I am concerned he now controls this category. I may add an image from time to time, but I won't change the categorization or remove any images. I have been working on this category for some years now, and that must suffice. I still think that several of the categories are erroneously named, but I shall place comments to that effect on the categories, not here. Thank you both for your comments. This is my last on this topic. Henrytow (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Avatar9n

Keeps reverting valid categories in File:Mosin-nagant ecomare.JPG (for context see Commons:Village_pump#Deletion_request) like Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard, Category:Photographs taken on 2013-04-11 and Category:Taken with Sony DSC-T7, despite being reverted since May 25 by User:DAJF, User:DMacks and me, and being called to attention to his acts in his and mine talkpages. Probably best to edit protect the image to avoid this unwanted deletions. Tm (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

In the light of recent harassment from Avatar9n (talk · contribs · logs · block log), including abusive moves of Tm's user pages, can we see a rapid block to avoid more disruption along with removal of the file move right? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Avatar9n has no file move right (non-filemovers can move pages in any namespace except the file namespace). I recommend indef blocking Avatar9n. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Done I blocked the user for a few days, next time the block will be longer. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Lemonyellow010498

Lemonyellow010498 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

User is upload of bunch of copyright person of en:Liza Soberano here in common. most are related of en:ABS-CBN of copy the Google image and Social Media leading the shows. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Only 4 uploads, all copyright violations, all nominated for speedy deletion. I warned him/her. If (s)he continues with copyvio, then (s)he should be blocked. Taivo (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

User stated „own work“ and it was/is not

User:Geo-Science-International several times stated pictures to be her own work but they were not. I again found a new case. Does somebody want to talk to the user in an administrative manner? Anka (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I got the image somewhere else before. I thought it was public domain. Now I wrote to the museum in Bern and asked for a licence. I hope they will give it and maybe send a better version. When I started working for Wikipedia, I didn't know, where to write the source of an image, therefore I called them own work and wrote the source in a wrong place. This problem has been solved already and I learend how to do it. Geo-Science-International (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be

Done for now. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Bhumij user content

What can be done about the user BHUMIJ LANGUAGE (talk · contribs · logs · block log)? Their only contributions are to their userpages, and are both articles masquerading as user content. Bhumij language has been a redirect since 2010 on Wikipedia, but their content is new. They've also created {{Unicode chart Ol Onal}}. Their content is currently at Draft:Bhumij language so no need to worry about losing anything. --Auric (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Nuked and info left. Hope that finally helps. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Elisfkc

Can someome please tell Elisfkc to stop slapping experienced editors their talk pages with boiler plate messages regarding watermarks when they are uplopading third party in scope material? It is annoying and wasting people's time. I already asked him to stop at my talk page but he continued. Natuur12 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm also don't understand that. Notifying Natuur12 and banned user "Please avoid watermarked pictures". What it is good for? @Elisfkc: do you aware to the legeal issue of removing watermarks? Please stop doing so, it's gives nothing to experienced users and banned users. -- Geagea (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I realized this issue yesterday, and changed my Javascript to get rid of the talk page notice. Sorry about the messages. Elisfkc (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Changing categories without consensus

User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 started a discussion for a category at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/04/Category:Low quality food and drink pictures. Despite the fact that 3 other users objected against the deletion of the category, User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 effectively deleted it by changing it into a redirect, something that wasn't agreed upon at all, whilst stating "kept" on the discussion page. I raised this issue on the user's talkpage a few days ago but they haven't replied. Why specifically this category had to be dissolved whilst there are many more similar subcategories at Category:Images of low quality is a mystery. It would seem that the user just didn't like it. It seems strange that someone who initiated a discussion then closes it themselves with an action that was not discussed at all. I would like the content of this category restored, awaiting a proper conclusion of the discussion. - Takeaway (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I reopened the CfD. Unfortunately, I cannot revert RussBot's category changes. I ask ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 to stop performing non-admin closures while they don't have the experience to close discussions. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Low quality food picture --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So what? Just because there is a DR closed, it means you have to close this CfD without consensus. I reverted your edit. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I missed the outcome of that DR. I see now that admin Howcheng closed the discussion with an action that was neither asked for nor discussed. Could they perhaps explain why? - Takeaway (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The nomination reason was "duplicate template", and it was in use, so the logical outcome was redirect the template. I was not aware of the CFD. I have no problem with reopening the template DR. —howcheng {chat} 07:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a duplicate template but User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, for whatever reason, called it such. The files that have now incorrectly been moved away from Category:Low quality food and drink pictures when User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 changed it into a redirect, should be moved back, and these changes to Template:Low quality food picture reverted. - Takeaway (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I undid my changes. RussBot never got around to taking care of the category, so the images are still in there. —howcheng {chat} 16:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Howcheng! - Takeaway (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Abdullsaed

Abdullsaed (talk · contribs · logs · block log) seems to be uploading a collection of copyrighted images. - SimonP (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted five files and verified one. More checking is necessary. All files must be checked individually. Thuresson (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

All done. Thuresson (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

File:14-05-06-budapest-RalfR-11.jpg

User:Globetrotter19 wrote: "Please help me! There is a user Ralf Roletschek who use bad names (14-05-06-budapest-RalfR-44.jpg, 14-05-06-budapest-RalfR-11.jpg and so) and revert multiple of my renaming question" [24].
It is told on Commons:File renaming cite, that a names like "File:Paris 319.jpg" should be renamed into names like "File:Paris 75018 Rue Norvins no 018 Le Consulat z.jpg"
The File:14-05-06-budapest-RalfR-11.jpg is licensed {{GFDL-1.2}} only.
What should be done? Should such a file be renamed or not? I don't know what to do. I have too little knowledge/experience to solve this problem :(
Help me, please... Wieralee (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Filenames are not descriptions. --Ralf Roleček 16:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Your filenames are meaningless. It means enough to renaming Criterion 2 - - --Globetrotter19 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

No, meaningless is DSC001122.jpg. My Files have Date, town and my name. A description is right in description field, not in the filename. --Ralf Roleček 16:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Globetrotter19 and Wieralee are right in the interpretation of COM:MOVE. However, it is a bad idea to edit war over this as it happened at File:14-05-06-budapest-RalfR-11.jpg. And finally, if you proceed with such rename requests you will not make friends with long-time uploaders of thousands of photographs who are using a naming scheme to organize their photos. The file names include the name of the city and or town. This is at least something. There is no harm done in keeping these file names as they are. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile I think we should not rename these kind of files. Some people use templates and external sites/features to create their own galleries and these would not work then. Maybe we should interpret "meaningless" as file names like "DCM012345" or "IMG012345" only. If the file name or a part of the file name seems to be a part of a naming convention/naming scheme we should not rename it. -- Der Fussi 11:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I wished more users would upload images who's names include a date. Imagine what WIkimedia would be like in a decade or so? Dates in file names are useful! I myself would prefer using 2014 0506 though as that would order it even better. - Takeaway (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@DerFussi: Commons:File renaming#cite_note-2 (community approved) and COM:OWN is applicable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it. Its not only the date, its not only the author, its not only the location. It contains location and date and author. We can discuss whether just Budapest is too generic here. What point of these 8 items do you want to apply here? -- Der Fussi 13:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Der Dateiname ist kein Ersatz für die Beschreibung. Eigentlich könnten die Dateien hier auch einfach durchnummeriert werden. Was soll denn neben Datum, Ort und Urheber noch alles rein? Andert sich die Beschreibung, wird dann jedesmal der Dateiname verändert? Als Urheber hat das nur einen einzigen Effekt: ich finde meine Fotos nicht mehr. "meaningless or ambiguous name" übersetzt mir Google als "bedeutungslos oder zweideutige Name" - und das ist bei meinen dateinamen nun wirklich nicht der Fall. --Ralf Roleček 14:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree Ralf. We should avoid renamings that are requested because somebody just do not like the filename, or rather request a renaming instead of adding a description (in their own language). In the past I often proceeded renaming request without that much thinking as long as it looked quite plausible. But meanwhile I am more reluctant, especially if its criterion #2. But besides all this, i am not sure that this case complies criterion #2. I think it does not (as stated above). -- Der Fussi 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

14-05-06-budapest-RalfR-11? Awfull! Mightbe we should rename all files with the name in Benghali, Japanese, Russian or Armenian (despite the nice letters...). -jkb- (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Webysther

Webysther keeps replacing the {{PD-textlogo}} tag on File:PHP Logo, text only.svg being repeatedly told the reason for it being there. He also requested the file being renamed to File:PHP logo without background.svg using the meaningless criterion, which after I declined it twice for some reason got performed by Marcus Cyron. Please restore Kovah's stable revision and move the file back to the original filename. FDMS 4 02:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I explain multiple times here, he ignored my ask: The image is in CC-BY-SA, why use {{PD-textlogo}}? The CC-BY-SA is more clear about situation of image, {{PD-textlogo}} dont reflect the truth. -- Webysther (talk)

Sorry, I did not realized that you already had declined a renaming. For me it sounded to make sense at the requestion point. Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

As the evaluation criterion is subjunctive it shows that there are different views, and in this case, democratically speaking, most noted no problem. Impresses me back a decision as if there is a hierarchical level here. Sad. Thank you anyway. -- Webysther (talk)

I mixed CC-BY-SA-4.0 and PD-textlogo just to solve this problem. Reusers may choose whether to use CC-BY-SA-4.0 or PD-textlogo. Ok now? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! -- Webysther (talk)

@Pokéfan95: No rights reserved and Some rights reserved are mutually exclusive, if a work isn't protected by copyright there cannot be any copyright-related conditions that must be followed. This would also set a very bad precedent – if we allow PHP to have a CC BY-SA 4.0 tag alongside their clearly unprotected three letters, we might as well let Boeing have an All rights reserved notice alongside their wordmark. FDMS 4 02:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The graphic itself is PD-textlogo, but the SVG code may be copyrightable. Therefore, if the uploader created (or at least extracted) the text-only part of the logo (and the code to get the text in the text-only logo diffiers from the code to get the text inside the original logo) and then tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}}, this is the choice of the uploader (in addition to the Threshold of originality statement) and is mandatory; nobody can relicense it under more restrictive conditions (like any CC license), regardless if it is derivated from a work licensed under free license (but more restrictive than PD-textlogo). --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Szm707

This user removes templates of nominating for deletion of files. Please block this user, thanks. Ks ^{[在这里找到答案]} 09:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC).

(sorry for my bad English): It is supposed to be not remove templates until the end discussion. Ks ^{[在这里找到答案]} 09:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC).

Blocked indef by De728631. --Achim (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Venezuela.svg

Administrators, please fully protect this widely used file, nominated four times by The Photographer, and recently tagged for Speedy, indicating that the SVG is derived from [25], but if you see closer, the SVG seems slightly different to the JPEG (that means that is not actomatically converted from raster to vector, also, the vectorization tool present in Inkscape can make huge and ugly attemp to vectorize complex graphics, so I'm in strong doubt that this SVG was automatically converted from the raster one). --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to fully protect when there is an issue with only one user. The Photographer, you've taken this file to COM:DR four times and it is clearly shown that it is widely in use. This file does not qualify for speedy deletion. Stop wasting our time, The Photographer. It is clear that since 2015 you've been out to get this file deleted, for every reason you can imagine. Consider this a warning.. ~riley (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It has used the argument that the file is widely used, which is irrelevant if there is a copyright violation should be deleted. Btw, The image has been nominated and erroneously closed by the same admin. And of course, "derivative work" means that the work is not exactly the same.See also --The Photographer (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

After your actions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Venezuela (1871).svg, consider this a final warning. Reopening a DR with no new argument less than eight minutes after it has been closed is also inappropriate. And then to top it off, reverting an admin will always get you far. Are you aiming for another DR that just won't die? You need to stop your campaign of getting Coat of arms files deleted. @Ellin Beltz: Please review my deletion of File:Escudo de 1871 vzla.gif, I find this user's judgement questionable now. ~riley (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved from /Blocks and protections. ~riley (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that in relation to this thread, I have been asked by The Photographer "what wrongs with you?", in relation to making a closure in accordance with community consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Venezuela (1871).svg. The user in question doesn't seem to en:WP:GETTHEPOINT, administrators should not be treated this way when doing their jobs and I will not stand for it. ~riley (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

If User:The_Photographer had such strong feelings about "File:Coat of arms of Venezuela (1871).svg", then why didn't he participate in the original deletion nomination during the two weeks that it was open? AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Resend Confirmation Link

Resolved

Can you please send me the confirmation link again on the same e-mail address. I accidently clicked on the "invalidate" link. I do not wanna lose the pictures I contributed to "Wiki Loves Earth India 2016". Please reply as soon as you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsingh173 (talk • contribs)

Crossposted question from the help desk. Answered there. Please don't crosspost. Marking as resolved to avoid forking of the discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Football kit with logos

This user (User:ZET18) keeps reverting the version without logos of this page File:Kit body FCF2016a.png. I've warned him already, but he couldn't care less. I'm not going to edit war with him.Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Please see this and this. There is already concensus about (tiny) logos in sports kits (even at the COM:AN): Them are de minimis, therefore, I don't see reason to remove the logos from the football kits (and also, the logos are also a way for identifying the different versions of every kit, since several brands made them along the time). --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Rolando Yñigo

I strongly suspect User:ScolopendraJazz (Category:Heraldry_by_ScolopendraJazz) to be the newest sockpuppet of Rolando Yñigo. Could you perhaps have a look? Tom-L (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

moved from my talk page --Denniss (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

For those who have not yet been involved in the strange case of User:Rolandodeynigo, this is his imaginary coat of arms File:Stemma dei Yñigo-Genio.png. The cited “Registro Internacional de Armas Gentilicias” is a non-official registry through which Rolando has attempted to legitimize his fantasy heraldry. The cited page contains various “Yñigo” coats of arms assembled with elements plagiariserd from Wikimedia Commons. Other than the re-upload of the coat of arms, this user also shares the same interest in a local scouting group (File:Exploradores Argentinos de Don Bosco.png compared to File:Premio Pablo Bartón a Jose Sánchez.jpg. The category Category:Heraldry by ScolopendraJazz is also fashioned similarly to Category:Heraldry by Rolando Yñigo-Genio.Tom-L (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am also not the first person to notice this, it seems. Tom-L (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Missing page

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whispering_sheetmusic.pdf is missing a page. Regards, jd -- 17:42, 11 June 2016‎ 70.190.174.123

You probably need to contact original uploader User:Sophus_Bie on the user talk page User_talk:Sophus_Bie... AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Mywikimediaaccount

Could someone please check if Mywikimediaaccount his/her acces to the global replace tool has to be stripped? He got warned here and blocked here. It seems that not all this user's replaces are wanted and he/she doesn't respond to complaints. Natuur12 (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Informed the two people who complained as well. Natuur12 (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

In the past there where also replacements like this. Natuur12 (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think their access to GlobalReplace should be revoked. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they don't want to respond. I think their access to GlobalReplace be revoked, to force them to respond here. Pinging Rillke also, the one that revived GlobalReplace when Fastily left. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

They really don't want to respond. I am still seeing this user in CVN channels. Maybe a 1 hour block is necessary now, to force them to respond here. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 07:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Revoked -- Special:Diff/198169957 & Special:AbuseFilter/151. In case that doesn't work, 1 hour block will be placed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, who granted Mywikimediaaccount access to the GlobalReplace tool? See this diff. Pinging Natuur12 and Zhuyifei1999. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 23:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Dereckson. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 23:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Poké has requested on Freenode #wikimedia-commons to " temporarily block Mywikimediaaccount (Special:Contributions/Mywikimediaaccount), it seems they circumvented our GlobalReplace blacklist (Special:AbuseFilter/151).". I've granted the request so we can investigate and unblock when issues are fixed. --Dereckson (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I should have fixed the filter now. (Please test filter 151 on Special:AbuseFilter/examine/232955090.) @Dereckson: Shall I unblock the user now? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk)

@Zhuyifei1999: Sure. --Dereckson (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone! Natuur12 (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: Please do not create filters for little problems, we have ony 1000 conitions and today we reached the limit again. phab:T132048#2375600, Thanks :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on, that filter consumes 1 condition for 99.9999<a lot more 9's>% of the time. Anyways, since the user in question has quit using that tool for a while now, I guess we can leave it disabled till someone else needs the filter again. Oh btw, I guess the order of filters 149 and 150 (WP0 filters) could be improved to decrease the average condition usage. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should suggest Rillke to make an user blacklist for GlobalReplace instead of relying on AbuseFilters that will waste server resources. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)